Personal Injury & Wrongful Death

In our serious injury practice, we are often encountered by cases where there is a dispute concerning liability for a particular collision. The tractor-trailer driver contends that he was forced off the road by an unknown John Doe motorist. The at fault driver who ran over the pedestrian claims that he or she could not see the pedestrian due to lighting conditions. The driver who is speeding denies that, in fact, he was speeding, and on and on. In cases involving serious or catastrophic injuries and/or death, it is often necessary in such cases to retain the services of a qualified accident reconstruction expert to establish exactly what happened. A qualified forensic engineer typically can reconstruct an accident based on measurements made at the scene by investigating police officers and/or based on the physical damage to the vehicles. A crush analysis can be performed on vehicles whereby a trained accident reconstruction expert can determine the speed of the vehicle which had to have occurred in order to create the objective crush damage to the vehicle. For example, if a vehicle’s front end is knocked in by a foot or so by another vehicle, the engineer can get the respective weights of the vehicles and can determine through calculations exactly how much force had to be applied to deform the vehicle to such an extent. This then can be translated into speed which can prove liability on behalf of the driver who caused the collision.
For those unfortunate victims of serious injury claims, particularly in those cases where there is a dispute concerning liability for a particular crash or collision, it is necessary that such a victim confer with counsel who is experienced dealing with accident reconstruction experts. Quite literally, a good accident reconstruction expert can either make or break a case where liability is contested. Our firm likes to use engineers from the Georgia Institute of Technology because they carry quite a bit of credibility with local juries. However, we have also worked with accident reconstruction experts throughout the country depending upon the type of vehicle collision involved. For example, there are some experts that specialize in under-ride situations where a car under-rides a tractor-trailer, there are other experts who specialize in engineering issues concerning the design of dangerous roads and bridges and there are other experts who have considerable expertise with respect to rollovers, seatbelts, brakes and the like. The point to be made, of course, is that in any serious or catastrophic claim, the victim needs to confer with counsel who is experienced in dealing with forensic engineers so that responsibility for a particular collision can be reconstructed by that engineer and liability established. Without proof of liability, of course, counsel’s ability to obtain compensation for the innocent victim of a serious collision is limited, thus because such proof is so important, an accident reconstruction expert should always be considered in any potentially serious injury case involving contested liability issues.

Needless to say, our attorneys are often asked by our clients when they should settle their personal injury lawsuit and in what amount. These question, many times, presuppose that both liability and damages are clear enough to warrant a settlement in a particular case. Oftentimes, liability is hotly contested as are damages and a case is therefore made more difficult from the settlement standpoint. However, in a case where the liability of the person causing the injury is rather clear and the damages are well documented, a fair settlement should be achieved. It is with respect to this type of case that we attempt in this blog to answer the question posed.
When should the client settle his lawsuit when he or she has a good case of liability and damages? The answer is when an offer is made that represents the fair value of the claim. How is the fair value of a claim determined? By analyzing Jury Verdict research data for similar cases involving similar facts of liability and damages in similar venues to make sure that the settlement offer being made is most likely the same amount that could be obtained by the client in front of a jury. Our attorneys tell our clients that if they are offered in settlement an amount of compensatory damages that would roughly be what they could expect to receive from a fair and impartial jury then they should settle their case. If they do not get such an offer they should refuse the settlement and proceed to trial. Obviously, if they get an offer over and above the claim evaluation of what a fair jury would do, they clearly should take the settlement offer.
Many times our clients tell us to settle cases when we recommend against it. Sometimes an offer is made that, in our judgment, is lower than what we would obtain from a jury and nonetheless the client does not wish to gamble and wishes to settle the case even though the amount of money being offered might not reflect the best settlement possible. In other cases, when a fair offer is made, we have had clients who have told us not to accept the offer because they do not think it is enough based on their own subjective evaluation. Obviously, when subjectivity enters into the picture and dominates the analysis, cases become difficult to settle.
One who has been seriously injured has a great deal of difficulty attaching a dollar figure to their pain and suffering. Indeed, no amount of money can compensate for amputated limbs lost vision, paralysis, broken backs, broken necks, incredibly complicated surgery, lost jobs, foreclosed homes, etc. We see all of these things in serious and catastrophic injury cases and therefore it is very difficult to talk about “fair” compensation for such claims. The innocent victim of negligence, who was sitting at a red light and hit by the drunk driver, who undergoes surgery, loses their job and is permanently injured has a great deal of difficulty determining what might be a fair settlement for their case. Subjectivity, obviously, enters into the picture which is why it is they need objectivity from their attorney. An objective attorney looks at the facts, compares it to what other juries are doing under similar circumstances and advises the client what a fair settlement would be, again, that being the amount of money that a jury most likely would award if they heard all the evidence, both on liability and damages.

Continue reading

Our attorneys routinely handle serious injuries arising out of car collision and crashes. We are always amazed to learn just how little the public knows about automobile insurance coverages and generally how they work. The purpose of this blog is simply to set forth some of the basic principles so that the public can be educated about how automobile insurance coverage works in the typical case.
When someone runs a stop sign and causes a car crash and collision, the innocent victim who did nothing wrong to cause the collision but, nonetheless, is injured has a claim against the at fault driver. Under Georgia law, as is true in most cases, the legal claim cannot be filed against the insurance carrier for the driver but only the driver alone. The driver’s automobile liability insurance policy, however, will provide the at fault driver with a defense against the claim.
In order to legally operate a vehicle in Georgia, all drivers must have a valid liability insurance policy with minimum coverage in the amount of $25,000.00 per person $50,000.00 per accident. What this means is that if there is a car crash or collision and someone is injured, the at fault driver’s insurance company will be responsible to pay no more than $25,000.00 to any person injured in the accident, and no more than $50,000.00 for all persons injured in an accident no matter how many persons are involved. Obviously, such minimum limits are woefully inadequate to address the serious injury or catastrophic claim. This is why we always recommend to our clients that they purchase uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage.
In the hypothetical case mentioned, if the at fault driver runs a stop sign and catastrophically injures the innocent victim, should the at fault driver only have the minimum limits required by law, that being $25,000.00 per person $50,000.00 per accident, it is evident that the $25,000.00 in coverage would probably be consumed by medical bills arising from the incident not to mention lost wages, pain and suffering and other economic and non-economic damages. To protect one’s self from the negligence of a third party who has minimum or no insurance coverage, the public should always purchase uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage for the benefit of themselves. If in the hypothetical situation the innocent victim had $100,000.00 in uninsured motorist coverage, even if the at fault driver only had $25,000.00 in coverage, the innocent victim could seek the difference from their carrier, that being $75,000.00 in underinsured coverage for a total recovery of $100,000.00 ($25,000.00 liability coverage and $75,000.00 underinsured coverage) verses a recovery of only $25,000.00 which would have been the maximum recovery had there been no uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage available.
In addition to liability insurance coverage which is mandated by law to operate a vehicle, as mentioned, the importance of uninsured motorist coverage cannot be stressed enough. For those who do not have good healthcare plans, there is also the availability of Medical Payments coverage which applies to medical bills arising out of an automobile collision regardless of fault. Once again, we advise those clients that we represent to always look at their medical payments coverage very carefully and to explore whether they need such coverage should they not otherwise have good healthcare coverage.

Continue reading

Today, Delta Enterprise Corp a children’s products maker will announce a recall of 1.59 million cribs linked to two infant deaths. This recall follows other recent recalls of cribs and bassinets involving other manufacturers.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC, is expected to hold a news conference later this morning to announce the recall, which is being conducted on a voluntary basis by the company. Mandatory recalls are rare, though the CPSC sometimes has to pressure manufacturers to agree to repair or pull their products from the market.

According to the company, the recall results from two different types of hardware used on cribs sold from 1995 through 2005. The hardware, which includes safety pegs for one set of cribs and spring pegs for another, can create a hazard if not properly installed. The improper installation can cause the drop side of the cribs to fall and disengage, creating a gap that can entrap and suffocate babies.

There is a common misconception that all work related injuries are solely covered by Workers’ Compensation statutory benefits. While it is true that any employee who is injured on the job while working for their employer is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits, this does not necessarily mean that the injured worker is limited to the recovery of such benefits. If a third party, such as an independent contractor unrelated to the employer, participates in a negligent or wrongful act that results in a injury to the innocent victim, there may be a claim that can be filed against that third party separate and distinct from the workers’ compensation benefits available to the injured employee for the on-the-job injury.

Oftentimes in our practice, we see situations where clients have been represented by other attorneys who have only recovered workers’ compensation benefits for them, notwithstanding the fact that there was a potential third party claim. As an example, if an employee is injured in a manufacturing plant due to a defective machine, there may be a third party product liability claim against the company that manufactured or maintained the defective machine. If the injured employee is hurt on the job because of the negligence of a third party vendor or supplier, there may be a liability claim that can be asserted by counsel for the injured employee against that third party.

It is always important in any on-the-job injury case that counsel diligently explore the possibility of pursuing third party claims. Workers’ compensation benefits are quite minimal, particularly where catastrophic injuries are involved. While the injured employee is entitled to receive repayment of their medical expenses, lost wage benefits are less than $500.00 a week. Accordingly, if someone is catastrophically injured, the only available recovery for pain and suffering and lost earning potential will be a third-party liability suit assuming a third party was a participant in the underlying act that lead to the on-the-job injury.

Under Georgia law, the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle, including a law enforcement vehicle, when responding to an emergency call, has certain privileges that are not available to other drivers. As an example, the authorized emergency vehicle operator may proceed past a red or stop signal and exceed the maximum speed limits posted so long as he or she does not endanger life or property. The authorized emergency vehicle may also disregard regulations governing direction of movement or turning in specified directions. The exceptions for authorized emergency vehicles only apply, however, when the emergency vehicle is making use of an audible signal and use of flashing and revolving lights visible for a distance of 500 feet. Thus, fire trucks, ambulances and police officers are excepted from normal statutory provisions governing the movement of their vehicles provided they have their siren and lights operating at the time. However, even if lights and sirens are being used, the foregoing provisions “shall not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons.” See O.C.G.A. § 40-6-6(d)(1).
There is no inherent right of an emergency vehicle operator to disregard the law. If it is unsafe to do so and an ambulance driver or fire truck proceeds through an intersection without slowing down, this can be negligence which is actionable under Georgia law. While the facts of each case are obviously different, even authorized emergency vehicles must exercise “due regard” for the safety of the public. If they operate their emergency vehicles in a manner which is clearly dangerous, the governmental entity can be held liable under Georgia law. Nonetheless, sovereign immunity is always a problem in these cases. If the officer was truly responding to an emergency and was exercising due regard for the safety of the public, sovereign immunity will work to defend the government against civil claims arising from an unfortunate collision that occurs during the authorized use of an emergency vehicle.
We have seen many cases where innocent third parties were caught up in collisions with emergency vehicles. We have seen these with ambulance drivers, police vehicles and fire trucks. Eyewitness testimony concerning whether lights and sirens were being used and/or whether the operator of the vehicle was exercising due regard for the safety of the public is key to investigating these cases. Because every case is factually specific and because the doctrine of sovereign immunity is always an issue in these cases, any victim of such a collision should confer with counsel as soon as possible.

Yesterday, the National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, requested that the Federal Aviation Administration increase inspections of certain Pratt & Whitney engines on dozens of passenger jets to detect possible flaws linked to the most catastrophic type of failure. The NTSB asked that the FAA require that PW2037 engines undergo recurring inspections for the time being once they reach a certain point in their operation.

The request affects more than 700 engines on some 300 Boeing Co 757 aircraft worldwide, including at least several dozen operated by U.S. airlines. These include Delta Air Lines Inc, United Airlines, a unit of UAL Corp, Northwest Airlines Co, and American Airlines, a unit of AMR Corp.

The NTSB action was prompted by a failure of an engine in a Delta flight during takeoff on August 6 in Las Vegas. The takeoff was aborted safely and there was no fire or injuries among the 166 passengers and crew.

A new federal report found that nine of every 10 nursing homes were cited for violating federal health and safety standards last year. For-profit homes were more likely to have problems than other types of nursing homes, according to the report. Problems included infected bedsores, medication mix-ups and poor nutrition. About one-fifth of the complaints verified by federal and state authorities involved the abuse or neglect of patients.
Elderly people are entitled to basic safety, respect and dignity. If you or someone you love is a victim of elder abuse or nursing home abuse, you have the right to hold the abuser responsible in court. Finch McCranie, LLP has represented injured Georgians in elder abuse lawsuits and other personal injury suits since 1965. With our firm on the case, you can rest assured that you’ll get the extensive experience and personalized attention you deserve. For a free consultation, call our Atlanta office today at 404 658-9070.

Digoxin was developed by the company Actavis Totowa to treat arrhythmias (abnormal heat rhythm) and allegedly to prevent heart failure. In April of this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a recall of this drug. As it turned out, the use of this product leads to a dangerous side effect known as digitalis toxicity, a process that occurs when digitalis is not excreted normally through urine and the body is overexposed to the drug. This process may be fatal to the victim, which is why this drug was recalled from the market.

We had previously written a blog about Byetta developed by Eli Lilly and Company and Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. This drug is used in the treatment of Type 2 diabetes, however, reports of patients developing pancreatitis, a potentially deadly side effect, occurred late in the 2007 period and have been increasing since that time. Indeed, in the fall of this year, a lawsuit was filed in California by a plaintiff who had been hospitalized for pancreatitis.

It seem as though there are new drugs coming to market almost everyday. Television ads about drugs are omnipresent. These two drugs, two among hundreds of other drug products, help to demonstrate the dangers associated with drugs that are not carefully screened by a manufacturer before being placed into the marketplace. Consumers now, more than ever, must be made aware of the dangers associated with drug treatment. The American public clearly is using more and more drug treatment. For this reason alone, it is increasingly imperative that manufacturers provide adequate warnings to patients and their physicians of dangers known to be associated with these products. Side effects can be deadly when powerful medications are involved and the public has a right to know of these dangers.

New federal regulations that restrict Medicare payments to hospitals for the extra care required to treat patients harmed by certain preventable infections and medical errors went into effect on Wednesday, October 1.

The rules adopted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) aims to provide hospitals with a financial incentive to improve patient care.

Under the new regulations, CMS will withhold payments to hospitals for care needed after patients suffer from certain preventable errors or omissions in care. These include hospital acquired urinary tract infections; certain bloodstream infections and select surgical site infections – specifically from coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), certain weight loss surgery (laparoscopic gastric restrictive surgery and gastroeneterostomoy), and orthopedic procedures (spine, neck, shoulder, elbow); serious bed sores; objects left in patients’ bodies following surgery; blood incompatibility; air embolism; deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism (formation/movement of a blood clot) following total knee and hip replacement; falls and trauma (such as burns and electric shock); and extreme blood sugar derangement.