Trial Attorney Blog

Another bank with a large presence in Georgia has bowed to pressure from consumers and consumer advocacy groups and abandoned the unfair practice of mandatory arbitration. Bank of America Corp. announced it will stop requiring that disputes with its credit card holders and banking and lending customers be settled by binding arbitration.

As we have written before, many consumers are unaware that card agreements typically include a clause that waives a card holder’s right to sue. Lenders instead use arbitration to go after delinquent accounts and employ arbitrators to fight disputes with their customers. These so called “neutral arbitrators” have been shown to be biased in favor of the large corporations and banks which frequently use their services.

In fact, last month the biggest arbitration group, the National Arbitration Forum in St. Louis Park, Minn., agreed to stop arbitrating credit card disputes after being sued by Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson, who alleged violations of state consumer fraud, deceptive trade practices and false advertising laws by hiding financial ties to collection agencies and credit card companies.

A health insurer which sells policies in Georgia and other states has been subjected to a major fine and other sanctions by the state of New York, after New York officials accused it of leaving patients with huge hospital bills.

The American Medical and Life Insurance Co., advertising through an intermediary called Cinergy, markets health insurance as a lower cost option for the uninsured and underinsured. It was pitched as costing just $5 a day, or the cost of a hamburger or pack of cigarettes.

In one TV ad, the narrator said the insurance is available “regardless of any pre-existing conditions,” while the print on the screen stated “most pre-existing conditions accepted” and the fine print stated there is a six-month waiting period.

We read this week the tragic news of eight (8) deaths in a police chase in California. According to news accounts, the police were trying to stop a Dodge Neon over alleged traffic infractions when the pursuit began. Is it worth risking the death penalty to innocent members of the motoring public to catch a traffic violator? There is nothing in the news accounts indicating that this violator was known to the police to be violent. Nonetheless, even though police chases present much greater dangers to the public themselves than do mere traffic violators, nonetheless, the pursuit ensued and the end result was the death of eight (8) individuals. It is not known whether one of the eight (8) was the suspect, but obviously at least seven (7) of the eight (8) were totally innocent in the premises and tragically many of the decedents were children ages 1 through 7.
This case is a classic example of what is wrong with police chases throughout this country. The police continue to believe that they have to chase violators otherwise they will be promoting a disregard for the law. Research and statistics show that if you terminate chases like the one in issue, there is no corresponding increase in the number of violations which later occur. There is a decrease, however, in serious injuries or deaths caused by unreasonable and unsafe police chases.
Our condolences go to the families involved in this great tragedy. Sooner or later the law enforcement community is going to have to accept the reality that being that police chases are too dangerous to justify unless the suspect being chased is known to be dangerous. Yes, the police should chase violent felons, rapists, murders, and carjackers. No, they should not chase mere traffic violators or non-violent offenders unless it is clearly safe to do so. If the roads are empty, it is late at night, and there are no other motorists on the road then chase such a suspect, however, if the chase is being conducted in an urban setting where other motorists are on the road, it is not worth imposing the death penalty on the innocent in order to catch a traffic violator

Georgia injury lawyers representing victims of medical malpractice are still disheartened about the so-called “tort reform” that the Georgia Legislature has enacted in the last two or three years. Most Georgia citizens have no idea that they have given virtual immunity to Georgia emergency room physicians. If you are a patient in a Georgia hospital emergency room and you are seriously injured or meet your death as a result of an emergency room doctor’s negligence or medical malpractice, you cannot sue the doctor or the hospital for damages “unless it is proven clear and convincing evidence that that the physician or health care provider’s actions showed gross negligence”. In Georgia if you are lucky enough to make it out of the emergency room and you are injured or die as a result of medical malpractice committed elsewhere, you are limited to a recovery of $250,000.00 in non-economic damages thanks to the good work of conservative Georgia legislators looking out for big business at the expense of Georgia citizens.
Recently, a Virginia jury awarded $4 million to a woman whose heart condition was misdiagnosed by an emergency room physician in Virginia. According to the lawsuit, the woman was forced to undergo a heart transplant as a result of the misdiagnosis. The condition could have been treated with medication had it been caught early enough, according to the victim’s lawyer. The award was later reduced to $1.8 million which is the cap on medical-related damages in Virginia. If she had been in Georgia, it is likely the woman would have no case whatsoever under Georgia law because the doctor’s negligence/malpractice was committed while she was a patient in the emergency room.
The Georgia medical malpractice lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have many years of experience in medical malpractice cases and we are committed to providing personal service and to obtaining fair compensation for all of our clients. Call us at 1-800-228-9159 for a free consultation

Many Georgians were affected by the recent salmonella outbreak related to peanut butter. Some were sickened by the defective product and others lost jobs in the peanut processing plant that became ground zero for the recall. Now, the Food and Drug Administration has announced it is moving towards stronger, more aggressive and much faster responses to enforcing the laws and regulations that govern the safety of drugs, medical devices and much of the U.S. food supply,

New FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg has been in office only 8 weeks but has made positive moves to protect citizens. During the past several years, the FDA has faced a number of high profile food recalls, including pistachios, peanuts, spinach, tomatoes, hot peppers, cookie dough, pet food and various meats, as well as problems with medical devices and drugs. The agency has also been rightly criticized for not acting quickly or strongly enough when it encounters violations of the law.

The new Commissioner admitted that in some cases, serious violations have gone unaddressed for far too long. These include violations involving product quality and safety, adulteration and misbranding. false, misleading, or otherwise unlawful labeling; and misleading advertising.

For the second time this week a man has been seriously injured in a Georgia motorcycle accident. A Tennessee man who is a member of the Steelehorseman motorcycle club in Nashville was on his way to the National Biker Roundup at the Atlanta Motor Speedway when the accident occurred on I-7 S at State Route 92 in Atlanta. He was airlifted to Grady Hospital where he is being treated for his injuries. The accident is under investigation. Yesterday’s motorcycle accident resulted in the wrongful death of the motorcyclist when he was struck from behind by an SUV.
Regrettably, the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have handled many motorcycle incidents over the years involving wrongful death and serious injuries. We can only hope that there will be no further tragedies during this otherwise fantastic event for motorcycle enthusiasts.

We read today about a deadly police chase which occurred over the weekend which is both tragic but also unbelievable. In this particular case, the police were chasing a 20-year old male in Pennsylvania allegedly for driving a vehicle which was reported as stolen. During the high speed pursuit which ensued, the police chased this individual through, according to news accounts, “39 stop signs and/or stop lights.” In other words, during this pursuit, the police witnessed this individual as a result of the high speed pursuit run 39 stop signs and red lights!! What were they thinking??? Were they thinking at all?? Did they actually believe that the subject was suddenly going to pull over during these many dangerous traffic violations?? Did not they not realize that the more times the suspect ran a red light or stop sign the greater the likelihood of death to the innocent??? Was it not foreseeable at all times that an innocent person could be killed or seriously injured because of the chase itself? Was the recovery of a stolen vehicle worth the price that was paid by the innocent victim? 39 times the trigger was pulled during this dangerous game of Russian Roulette. The last time was the killer.

This is one of the worst violations of proper police procedure we have read about. The police know that when a high speed pursuit occurs there is always the risk of serious injury or death to the innocent. These risks greatly increase when a suspect indicates his or her willingness to escape apprehension at all costs. The more dangerous they drive in their escape attempt, the more likely and foreseeable it becomes that an innocent third party on the road can be seriously injured or killed. Here, the police were presented with irrefutable evidence that someone might be seriously injured or killed during the dangerous chase and yet they kept the pursuit up, according to the news accounts, through two different cities. For what – a stolen vehicle! Not a rapist, murder or carjacker – a car thief. Does this crime justify the death penalty on the innocent?

It was entirely foreseeable under the events that occurred in this case that someone would be seriously injured or killed. The police should have terminated their pursuit after the suspect ran the first red light or stop sign. It is incredible that others were not injured earlier since the suspect was willing to engage in such dangerous behavior and since the police knew it. In our judgment, the police are largely accountable for this tragedy. The innocent victim, a 42-year old female, died of her injuries the day after the collision. She was simply at the wrong place at the wrong time. The police are the only people who could have prevented this tragedy by terminating the pursuit. The suspect caused all of this – to be sure – by violating the law, by stealing the car and by driving dangerously. But the police contributed to the tragedy. If they had terminated their pursuit, the suspect would have had no need to continue fleeing at high speeds, running numerous red lights and stop signs in the process. Suspects do not wish to be apprehended in stolen vehicles because they can be prosecuted for stealing the car or being in possession of a stolen car. If the chase is terminated, they will in all likelihood drive down a side road and ditch the car so they cannot be found to be in possession of it. Had the police terminated this pursuit early on it is highly likely that this tragedy would never have occurred.

Forced arbitration in consumer contracts has become a way of life in the United States. Almost all consumer contracts and purchase agreements contain clauses requiring a person that has been the victim of fraud, negligence, or intentional harmful conduct by a large company to give up their rights to a jury trial and submit to arbitration.

For many years consumer and lawyer groups have complained that these arbitration panels are stacked against consumers and serve as nothing more than “bought” protectors of large companies.

Recently, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson sued the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) and reached a settlement that is a tremendous win for consumers.

Our Atlanta car accident attorneys frequently review cases in which the negligent driver has been distracted while conversing on a cell phone. Recently, the consumer advocacy groups Public Citizen and the Center for Auto Safety obtained records showing that since 2003, the government has known that drivers talking on their cell phones experience the same potentially deadly distraction whether they are using a handheld device or hands-free technology.

In a press release the groups stated that by keeping this information secret from the public for the past six years, the government has endangered even more lives. Cities and states across the country have passed laws and ordinances requiring drivers to use hands-free phones, mistakenly believing those devices to be safe and encouraging drivers to use them.

According to Public Citizen and the Center for Auto Safety, bBy withholding this data, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) led consumers to believe that it was safe to talk on their cell phones while driving if they kept both hands on the wheel. But these documents show that it is the conversation itself, not the device used to hear it, that causes “inattention blindness,” a cognitive state that slows a driver’s reaction time and limits his ability to detect changes in road conditions.

Many servicemembers and dependents reside in Georgia. While servicemembers can receive care at military hospitals they have no rights if they are the victim of malpractice, no matter how egregious. The Feres Doctrine, named after a 1950 Supreme Court decision, grants complete immunity to military health care professionals who commit malpractice upon service members. Service members who have sacrificed for their country and become victims of malpractice are left to suffer the consequences with no recourse.

This injustice has again come to light in the case of a 20-year-old Air Force serviceman who was reported to be in critical condition at the University of California Davis Medical Center on Monday, after losing both legs in what has been described as complications from routine gallbladder surgery.

The gall bladder surgery was performed at Travis Air Force Base. The Air Force would only comment that a “serious medical incident” occurred at its David Grant Medical Center on July 9 and is being investigated by the base, a national hospital accrediting commission and the U.S. Surgeon General.