Trial Attorney Blog

We have previously written about controversial drug advertising that takes place in the United States. Once again, this practice has come to the forefront through Dr. Robert Jarvik, who is best known as the developer of an artificial heart. About two years ago, Dr. Jarvik began appearing in television ads for the drug Lipitor, manufactured by Pfizer.

In the ads, Dr. Jarvik is depicted in various athletic pursuits, such as rowing and running, and tells viewers that Lipitor significantly lowers cholesterol when diet and exercise are not sufficient.

Now, a Congressional Committee has become concerned and is taking preliminary steps to investigate drug advertising, particularly the Lipitor ads. Some critics point out that even though Dr. Jarvik is an M.D., he is not a cardiologist and is not licensed to practice medicine. In fact, people who know Dr. Jarvik have reported that he does not even row. Apparently, a stunt double was hired to portray him in rowing scenes shown in the advertisements.

The U.S. consumer advocacy group, Public Citizen, has called upon authorities to require that Botox and a similar injections come with strong warnings following reports of 16 deaths and other serious problems after the botulinum toxin spread inside the body. Public Citizen asked U.S. authorities to require the strongest possible warning, highlighted in a “black box,” on Allergan Inc’s Botox and Solstice Neuroscience Inc’s Myobloc.

Botox is used widely to decrease facial wrinkles but also has approved medical uses such as treating cervical dystonia, or rigid neck muscles. Myobloc is cleared only for the neck condition. Both are made with forms of the botulinum toxin, which can paralyze muscles.

Public Citizen reviewed 180 reports submitted to the Food and Drug Administration by manufacturers involving patients injected with Botox or Myobloc. The reports detailed cases of muscle weakness, difficulty swallowing or aspiration pneumonia, a serious condition caused by breathing a foreign material into the lungs.

Our Georgia injury lawyers are accustomed to seeing cases involving horrible injury and cases of death caused by all types of accidents but burn cases are at the top of the list. We were discussing the news accounts today in Savannah reporting that firefighters found three, and perhaps as many as six, bodies in the wreckage of a still-burning sugar refinery leveled by an explosion overnight. In addition to the death cases, dozens of employees have been injured, many critically burned. Officials suspect sugar dust, which can be volatile, as the cause of the explosion. Reportedly the explosion happened in a storage silo where refined sugar is stored until it is packaged.
Obviously all of the injured employees will immediately be entitled to workers compensation benefits, including payment of all medical bills but given the very limited disability benefits available under the workers compensation laws of Georgia, this is very little consolation to the injured. Having litigated products liability cases involving injury and death, we wonder whether there are some third parties who may be liable for this explosion. Surely, this huge sugar refinery was aware of the potential danger posed by sugar dust. Was there a system in place which failed? Was ventilation machinery defective or not properly maintained by third party entities hired by the refinery? All of these questions and more need to be explored in order to adequately protect the interests of injured workers and the families of those who died in this tragedy.

This blog will continue in our series of providing our readers with answers to frequently asked questions in the context of a serious injury case. This blog will address FAQ number 9:
8. If I am injured by a third party, but I am also working on the job at the time, am I entitled to both workers’ compensation coverage and a liability settlement?
Answer: The answer is yes although there may be a claim for subrogation made by the workers’ compensation insurance carrier. If an employee is injured while working for an employer and their injury comes about as a result of the acts of a third party, the injured individual may obtain both workers’ compensation benefits and liability insurance coverage to the extent the at fault defendant has such coverage. If a settlement is eventually obtained from the liability insurance carrier for the at fault defendant, the issue arises as to whether a portion of the settlement has to be repaid to the workers’ compensation insurance carrier for the employer. The general law in Georgia is that there is no right of subrogation unless the injured individual is first “made whole” for all of his/her damages which includes complete compensation for pain and suffering, past, present and future, complete compensation for medical expenses past, present and future, and complete compensation for lost wages, past, present and future. Unless an injured employee is “made whole” for all such damages, even if they have received workers’ compensation benefits and a liability settlement arising out of a hypothetical automobile accident, the injured individual will not be required to repay his or her employer’s insurance carrier for workers’ compensation benefits received. In the context of a case where an injured individual is not made whole, there is no right of subrogation. Accordingly, in many cases, the employee injured on the job with a valid claim against a third party may receive both workers’ compensation benefits and liability protection from the third party.

It is well established that failure to comply with an ante-litem notification provision within the time required by law is a bar to any right of action. See Mattox v. Bailey, 221 Ga. App. 546, 472 S.E. 2d 130 (1996). However, an ante-litem time requirement has been held to be, in itself, a form of statute of limitations, with all general principles applicable to statutes of limitation also applying to ante-litem time restrictions, including tolling provisions. See Howard v. State, 226 Ga. App. 543, 487 S.E. 2d 112 (1997); City of Atlanta v. Barrett, 102 Ga. App. 469, 471, 116 S.E. 2d 654 (1960). This being the case, if a victim/client is late in filing an ante-litem notice with a municipality, county or with the State under the State Tort Claims Act, it would appear that the statute under consideration would also provide relief to such a victim/client based on the language cited tolling the statute of limitations.
Our firm was recently retained by a gentleman whose wife was killed during a police chase. The wife was an innocent third-party caught up in the chase. This particular client had hired a previous attorney who did not file an ante-litem notice with the County involved within twelve (12) months. However, the fleeing suspect was prosecuted by law enforcement authorities and the prosecution ended only a month ago. Obviously, our position will be that the statute of limitations for the entire cause of action was tolled and thus the ante-litem notice we will be filing on his behalf is still timely. Again, this is another area of the law which will have to be explored.
When the Victims Restitution Act of 2005 was enacted, the Legislature stated in its preamble that the purpose of the Act was among other salutary goals “to substantially revise the laws of this state relating to the conduct of criminal trial and the impact of the criminal justice system on victims of crime; to amend Article V of Chapter 3 of Title IX of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to tolling of limitations in civil cases, so as to provide for a statute of repose in certain tort actions brought by victims of crimes against the persons accused of such crimes, to amend Title XVII of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to criminal procedure . . .” Given that a specific purpose of the new Act was to toll the limitations in civil cases so as to provide for a statute of repose in tort actions brought by victims of crimes, counsel in the future should always be cognizant of the existence of this relatively unused, untested and very interesting law. Because the language of the statute is so broad, particularly in view of its remedial purposes, we believe it can and will benefit tort claimants in the future where defendants have been charged with crimes arising out their tortious acts.

Lawyers who practice in the field of dangerous medical devices and drugs are never surprised to discover relationships between physicians and pharmaceutical and medical device companies. Recently, questionable ties between supposedly objective researchers and the maker of an artificial spinal disk have come to light. An artificial spinal disk is a device that is used in place of conventional surgery during which patients’ vertebrae are fused.

In a study of nearly 240 patients with lower back pain, physicians reported that the artificial spine disk, manufactured by Prodisc, had worked much better than conventional fusion surgeries. A well-known spine specialist and one of the study’s researchers said in a 2006 news release that “as a surgeon, it is gratifying to see patients recover function more quickly than after fusion and return to their normal activities more easily.”

Discovery in a lawsuit against the manufacturer has disclosed that the surgeon had a large financial interest in the outcome of the study. So did other doctors at about half of the 17 research centers involved in the study. Federal law requires that manufacturers inform the Food and Drug Administration of researchers’ financial interest in a product or drug before the study is used to seek approval of a device. It is unclear whether the disk’s manufacturer made this information available to the FDA.

As Georgia personal injury lawyers know, the typical statute of limitations for a bodily injury case in Georgia is two years from the date of the occurence at issue. However, in cases involving victims of criminal acts who have potential civil causes of actions against those who brought about injury to them, there are some nuances of Georgia law that all attorneys in this field should know.
The purpose of this entry is to acquaint the Plaintiff’s bar with a very important but little known statute. The statute at issue, O.C.G.A. § 9-3-99, was passed as part of the “Crime Victims Restitution Act of 2005.” It became effective July 1, 2005 and reads as follows:
The running of the period of limitations with respect to any cause of action in tort that may be brought by the victim of an alleged crime which arises out of the facts and circumstances relating to the commission of such alleged crime committed in this state shall be tolled from the date of the commission of the alleged crime or the act giving rise to such action in tort until the prosecution of such crime or act has become final or otherwise terminated, provided that such time does not exceed six (6) years.
Given that virtually every automobile accident involves misdemeanor criminal charges against a negligent driver (who presumably violated the Georgia Uniform Rules of the Road and was charged via a citation), it is submitted that in virtually every automobile accident tort case, this statute could potentially extend the statute of limitations from 2 years to 6 years. The same is true for any tort case (particularly intentional torts) resulting in criminal charges against a defendant. While the new statute has yet to be interpreted by any Georgia court, there are many interesting legal issues that may emerge in the future with respect to it.
Our firm first became aware of this statute in the context of two wrongful death actions we were prosecuting on behalf of separate families in Canada. These two deaths had occurred in a very bad tractor-trailer accident. While preparing those cases for trial, we contacted another person who had been injured in the same accident. This particular person lived in the state of Florida. When we first contacted the individual about providing a deposition for our cases, two years had already passed since the accident occurred. The witness, nonetheless, asked if our firm could assist him in bringing claims against the trucking company responsible for the collision. Because of the passage of time and also because we had a conflict of interest representing a witness we needed to depose for our other clients, we declined. However, when we later settled the two wrongful death cases and advised the witness his deposition was no longer needed, he again asked if we could be of service to him. Even though the otherwise applicable two-year statute of limitations had arguably run, because the tractor-trailer driver had been charged with vehicular homicide in connection with the deaths in our other two cases and because our conflict no longer existed, we agreed to file claims on the new client’s behalf and to assert in his case that the statute of limitations had been tolled since he was a “victim” of a crime which had been committed in this state.

Continue reading

This blog will continue in our series of providing our readers with answers to frequently asked questions in the context of a serious injury case. This blog will address FAQ number 8:

9. If I have no health insurance and the at fault driver has little or no liability insurance coverage, what happens if my medical bills exceed available coverages?

Answer: This is a sad case that we see far too often in our practice. The hypothetical at fault driver has run the stop sign or red light and has caused serious injuries. The at fault driver has minimum limits of $25,000.00 which are insufficient to pay the medical expenses incurred. The injured individual has no health insurance. Thus, medical expenses exceed all forms of available coverage. What happens? Typically, lots of problems. If the medical expenses exceed available coverage then counsel will attempt to negotiate some type of settlement with the hospital and healthcare providers because there is simply not enough money to go around and what is available needs to be divided on an equitable basis. Sometimes this works and sometimes it does not. If there is a Hospital Lien, for example, the Hospital Lien takes priority by operation of law and all of the settlement funds might have to be paid to the hospital leaving the injured individual with nothing. Again, these are sad and complicated cases requiring careful review by experienced counsel. This, of course, is why it is so important that the public protect itself through Medical Payments coverage, health insurance coverage, disability coverage and/or any other forms of coverage such as uninsured motorist coverage if such coverage can be purchased and is affordable. If such coverage is not affordable and the injured individual has nothing then literally they are at the mercy of the resources of the at fault defendant which in many cases are themselves grossly insufficient to pay for medical expenses, much less pain and suffering and lost wages.

This blog will continue in our series of providing our readers with answers to frequently asked questions in the context of a serious injury case. This blog will address FAQ number 6:
6. Can my spouse recover damages if I am seriously injured and he/she misses time from work caring for me?
Answer: A spouse does not have a legal claim for their own lost wages while they miss work caring for their injured spouse. However, under Georgia law, a spouse does have a claim for loss of consortium. Loss of consortium means the loss incurred by the innocent spouse when they are deprived of their injured spouse’s “society, affection and companionship.” This is not limited to the loss of conjugal services but includes the loss of all services provided to the spouse and the intangible value of the injured spouse’s contribution to their “affection, society, comfort and companionship.” Thus, while one cannot literally file a claim for the uninjured spouse based on that spouse’s lost wages, compensation can be obtained in a serious injury case for lost of consortium which can provide a measure of compensation for other losses.

This blog will continue in our series of providing our readers with answers to frequently asked questions in the context of a serious injury case. This blog will address FAQ number 5:

5. Who will pay my lost wages while I am recovering from my injuries?

Answer: In Georgia, there is no “Pay as You Go” rule so unfortunately the answer to this question is that you may receive no lost wages at all unless your employer continues to pay you and/or you have disability benefits. When you have reached maximum medical improvement and your case is ready for settlement, your total lost wages past, present and future, is an element of your damage claim. Assuming the at fault defendant has good insurance coverage that can pay all such damages, you will then receive restitution and/or compensation for your total lost wage claim assuming, of course, that the liability of the at fault defendant has been established for the damages and has sufficient coverage to provide restitution for this part of your loss.