Personal Injury & Wrongful Death

One of the many difficulties faced by attorneys who work on serious injury cases arises in the context of a catastrophic injury case involving a child. Many times, due to limitations on the extent of their medical knowledge, the doctors treating the child cannot always give an accurate prognosis for the child. Thus, it can be difficult when a child has been seriously injured to accurately predict how the injuries will manifest themselves as the child grows older. In some very sad cases, of course, one of the issues is whether the child will even reach maturity given the severity of the injuries. In other cases, however, where the child is expected to live a normal life span it is vital that a Life Care planner become involved to assist counsel in determining what the costs of the child’s future medical needs will be.”>catastrophic injury case involving a child. Many times, due to limitations on the extent of their medical knowledge, the doctors treating the child cannot always give an accurate prognosis for the child. Thus, it can be difficult when a child has been seriously injured to accurately predict how the injuries will manifest themselves as the child grows older. In some very sad cases, of course, one of the issues is whether the child will even reach maturity given the severity of the injuries. In other cases, however, where the child is expected to live a normal life span it is vital that a Life Care planner become involved to assist counsel in determining what the costs of the child’s future medical needs will be.

Our firm has worked with several very reputable and qualified Life Care planners with considerable expertise in this area. The Life Care planner is truly an expert consultant when it comes to providing financial estimates of the long-term medical costs involved in treating seriously injured children. If a child has been severely burned or paralyzed, if a child has lost one or more limbs or is blinded, if the child has suffered brain injury, whatever the case may be, obviously, counsel for the child and their parents must take into consideration future medical costs and needs when evaluating what amount of money should be sought from the party who caused such damages through their negligence. A Life Care planner with sufficient expertise to extrapolate into the future such medical costs (when assisted as well by a competent economist) can provide valuable information to the attorney in determining what amount of money will be needed to protect the child’s future and thus can help formulate a settlement demand in a serious injury case.

In any case involving a catastrophically injured child, not only do we work with an economist and Life Care planner, we try to make sure in consultation with the doctors involved that we have a very good understanding of their belief about the child’s prognosis. Once we know what the prognosis is believed to be and we consult with the doctor by and through a qualified Life Care planner who consults with them, we then can ask an economist to project over time what amount of monies will be needed in the future to protect the child’s interests. Once we know the amount of money needed to pay for future medical needs we can factor that amount into an overall settlement demand for our client. If we cannot get that amount in settlement, then, of course, we are also in the position to produce the same evidence to a jury for its consideration in resolving the case if need be.

In many of the medical negligence and pharmaceutical liability cases our lawyers handle, we find numerous perks being provided to prescribing physicians by drug companies.

The New England Journal of Medicine, the most prestigious medical journal in the country, has published an article concerning the relationship between doctors and drug companies. The article reports that several United States Senators have introduced a bill in the United States Congress that would require manufacturers of drugs and medical devices with annual revenues of more than $100 million to disclose the amount of money they give to physicians, in any form such as free dinners, vacations or consulting fees. Five states require such disclosures at the present time.

The article reports that the nature, extent and consequences of physicians’ relationships with the pharmaceutical and medical device industry is one of the most fiercely debated issues among health care providers. The relationships are seemingly everywhere according to the article. A recent study reported that almost all physicians, (94%) have some type of relationship with the industry. Most commonly, doctors reported receiving food and beverages in the work place, or being given drug samples by manufacturers’ representative. More than a third of the physicians reported receiving reimbursement for costs associated with professional meetings or continuing medical education; and, more than one quarter, (28%), receive payments for consulting, speaking or referring patients for medical study trials.

On June 15 of this year, we wrote an article on this blog about how pharmacy errors were causing serious injuries and wrongful deaths at an alarming rate on a nationwide basis. The problem about which we wrote unfortunately was the topic of a headline article in the news today concerning the death of a 3-year old child in Gainesville, Florida. This child died from a medication overdose. Instead of receiving the prescribed dose of a medication ordered by the doctor, the pharmacy gave him more than 10 times the amount ordered. The boy died because of this mistake.
According to the news article, a moratorium has been instituted at this facility until a quality assessment and new patient safety measures are implemented. Thus, we have one more statistic in this national problem, this time affecting a very small and innocent child and his family.
When receiving medication from a pharmacy, patients should always carefully review the label to make sure that the dosage appears to be correct. If they have any questions at all about this, they should confer either with their doctor or pharmacist. Because mistakes are made which can cause serious medical problems and/or death, not only must pharmacies be more careful but patients must also act to protect themselves. While a settlement was reached with the parents for the wrongful death of this child, obviously, no compensation can address the loss of a 3-year old child. While we hope that this problem can be effectively addressed by the pharmacy industry, until remedial steps are taken on a nationwide basis, more headlines of a similar nature are likely to be seen.

Every year our lawyers handle many cases involving unsafe products which are subject to recalls issued by the The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Tragically, many of these cases involve the deaths of young children and infants.

The CPSC is the federal agency which is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from more than 15,000 types of consumer products under the agency’s jurisdiction. Deaths, injuries and property damage due to consumer product incidents cost the nation more than $700 billion annually.

According to disturbing reports, the CPSC isn’t doing the job with which it has been charged in part due to the actions of the Chairwoman, Nancy Nord. By law, the CPSC is prohibited from issuing reports concerning unsafe items until after it conducts a multi-year investigation. Of course, during the time of the multi-year investigation many children and/or consumers can be injured or killed by the product under investigation.

Our lawyers have previously written about procedural “Traps for the Unwary” which occur in the context of serious injury or wrongful death claims. We write again about this problem because we continue to see this issue in our practice.

To be victimized by a negligent act such as being seriously injured by a drunk truck driver is bad enough but to be further victimized by a statute of limitations would only compound the tragedy. Unfortunately, Georgia serious injury lawyers like ourselves often see cases where innocent members of the public simply do not understand the legal rules concerning statute of limitations. In fact, we saw such an example just this week.

We were contacted two days ago by a very nice lady who had been seriously injured while shopping at a retail establishment outside of Atlanta. In fact, she had to have two back surgeries because of her injuries. She had been promised repeatedly by the store’s insurance adjuster that they were working on her claims and would offer her a settlement. Unbeknownst to her, the statute of limitations in Georgia for a personal injury claim is two years. Because the claim kept dragging out she contacted our firm one day before the statute of limitations expired to discuss her options. She had no knowledge that her claims could forever be barred by operation of law if she did not file a lawsuit before the two year anniversary of her incident. Needless to say, the insurance adjuster had taken advantage of this lady and was hoping that the statute of limitations would run and would bar her claims. We filed a lawsuit just in time to stop the running of the statute of limitations so that this very nice lady who is well deserving of compensation is not further victimized by the store that injured her. The insurance company was hoping that they could use our client’s ignorance of the law to their advantage. It almost worked.

On this Georgia Injury Lawyer blog, our attorneys have previously written about motorcycle accidents involving serious injury or wrongful death. Based on the rise in the number of serious injury and death claims our firm is handling at present, our firm’s experience mirrors what the statistical evidence indicates: These tragic cases are on the rise.

The National Center for Statistics and Analysis, a division of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), keeps statistics for motorcycle accidents each year. NHTSA also uses a Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) to track data on fatalities on a nationwide basis. What this information shows is that for the last several years there have been approximately 75,000 motorcyclists annually injured in collisions throughout the United States. Included in this number, of course, are fatalities. Regrettably, the number of fatalities is now upwards of 4,000 motorcyclists killed each year. What is disturbing about these numbers, however, is the national trend upwards. As an example, ten years ago, in 1997 there were only 53,000 motorcyclists injured in collisions and only 2,116 killed. In 2007, by years end, the number of fatalities may be close to double this number. While this may reflect the popularity of motorcycles in general and the increasing number of riders, it also continues to show that riding on a motorcycle can be dangerous, particularly for drivers 50 years of age and older. Indeed, the older the driver the more likely it is that the rider will die if involved in a motorcycle accident. This seems to be common sense because the health of an older rider might not be as robust as it would be for a younger person, therefore, the older rider is not as likely to survive serious injuries as a younger person would be.

Our attorneys currently are handling three death cases involving motorcyclists. In these cases what we see is that the accident was not caused by the motorcycle rider at all but instead by a third-party who simply pulled out in front of the rider and failed to yield such that the motorcycle rider could do nothing to avoid the accident. Thus, what we see is that even in cases where the motorcycle rider is exercising due care for his safety, nonetheless, a serious injury or fatality can occur.

Our lawyers are constantly amazed at the number of Chinese made toys which enter the United States only to be recalled later as health hazards to children.

Last Thursday, Mattel Inc., the nation’s largest toy maker, recalled an additional 38,000 “Go Diego Go!” toys Thursday as part of a larger recall of 665,000 lead-contaminated children’s products.

The latest recall involves orange and yellow Go Diego Go! Animal Rescue Boats, manufactured in China and imported by Fisher-Price. Surface paint on the boats contains excessive levels of lead. According to Mattel there were 38,000 affected toys in the U.S., 12,000 in Great Britain and 5,500 in Canada, for a worldwide total of 55,500.

Our attorneys have investigated wrongful death cases involving automatic external defibrillators (AEDS). An AED is a computerized medical device that checks a person’s heart rhythm, can recognize a rhythm that requires a shock, advises when the shock is needed, then prompts a rescuer to take the proper steps. An AED is a portable device, usually eight to ten inches square and weighs only one to two pounds.

Many businesses, churches, shopping malls, and other areas where large numbers of people congregate have begun to place AEDS at various locations on the premises. Usually, the AEDS are a bright color, such as yellow and red and the location is often marked with a sign that looks like a red lightning bolt.

People with very little training can operate an AED. It usually requires three steps that are pictured on the device. Additionally, a voice prompts or instructs the user as soon as the device is turned on. Once electrode pads are placed on the patient, the AED will analyze the heart rhythm and make the decision if a shock is required. If a shock is required, the voice prompt will tell the user when to administer the shock.

As a Georgia injury lawyer, I am always reading about dangerous drugs. One such drug is Zelnorm ® , a drug used in the treatment of Irritable Bowel Syndrom (“IBS”) and chronic constipation in individuals under 65 years of age.

On March 30, 2007, the FDA requested that Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (“Novartis”), the manufacturer of Zelnorm, voluntarily remove the drug from the market. The recall is based on findings of an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes associated with the drug from clinical trials recently reported by Novartis.

Novartis reported to the FDA the results of a new analysis of 29 short term randomized, controlled clinical trials of Zelnorm. The analysis included more than 11, 000 patients treated with Zelnorm and over 700 patients treated with Placebo. The data showed the serious risk of cardiovascular adverse events associated with Zelnorm to be higher than the Placebo treatment. Thirteen patients treated with Zelnorm had confirmed cardiovascular ischemic events and only 1 Placebo treated patient experienced a cardiovascular event.

Finch McCranie, LLP currently represents three individuals who have been tragically added to the ever growing and long list of innocent victims either killed or seriously injured in a police chase case. In two of the cases we filed on behalf of these victims, the police department involved is seeking to have the claims dismissed based on an argument that the Georgia Legislature has allegedly abolished the legal doctrine joint and several liability. While the law does not support the government’s argument, nonetheless, this argument is likely to be seen in every police chase case filed in Georgia until such time as the Georgia Supreme Court has officially rejected it.
Georgia law has long followed the doctrine of joint and several liability. If two or more people acting in concert with one another (even though not associated with one another) nonetheless contribute to damages to an innocent third party through their actions either, or both, may be sued and either, or both, are 100% individually liable for the damage caused by their acts. In short, if the acts of one person combine with the acts of another to produce an injury to an innocent third party, Georgia law has long been that either or both parties may be sued and either or both parties held 100% liable for the full extent of the damages inflicted. This is in essence what the doctrine of joint and several liability doctrine has stated in Georgia for 200 years. Thus, in a police chase case, if the fleeing suspect causes the damage to the innocent third party, he may be sued. Also, if a police officer recklessly disregards proper police procedure (and thereby contributes to plaintiff’s damages) he may also be sued and held jointly liable. This is how the joint and several liability doctrine applies in a police chase case. Recently, however, jurisdictions sued in high speed police chase are contending that the Georgia Legislature allegedly changed this law in 2005 when the infamous “SB3″ tort reform package was enacted into law.
One of the provisions of the tort reform package was an amendment to O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 which does say that in those cases where the plaintiff is himself to some degree responsible for his own injuries that in such a limited context a jury may individually apportion damages against named defendants, and even non-parties, rather than holding all the responsible parties each 100% liable each for all of the plaintiff’s damages. What is noteworthy about this modification to the law, however, is that it only applies in those cases where the plaintiff himself was to some degree responsible for this own damages.
In virtually every police chase case we have seen, our clients are totally innocent third parties caught up in the chase. In most cases, the injured third party is simply at the wrong place at the wrong time and is crashed into either by the fleeing suspect or the police vehicle. In such circumstances, it is absurd for a police department to contend that the innocent third party somehow was responsible for creating his own damages. And yet, even though the innocent third party cannot be legitimately claimed to have in any way contributed to their own damages, police departments in Georgia and their attorneys are now asserting that such innocent victims should not recover damages under the longstanding joint and several liability doctrine but should instead be limited in their damages as if they somehow contributed to their own damages. In short, they seek to have juries apportion damages against the most responsible party (the fleeing suspect) thereby abrogating completely the joint and several liability doctrine for the police officer.

Continue reading