Articles Tagged with Personal Injury

Last week we read about what has become an all too familiar pattern, more police chases equal more deaths. In one case in Los Angeles a six year old was killed when the police were chasing suspects who were believed to have been involved in a drug transaction earlier. The death penalty was imposed on this six year old girl in order to catch a suspected drug user. Was the price worth it? Also in Los Angeles, a motorcycle officer was killed during a pursuit when he lost control of the motorcycle. In a police chase in Jacksonville, two police officers and a suspect were hospitalized with serious injuries. These were three separate incidents which occurred on June 10. On the same day there was an article which appeared in the newspaper in Kentucky about another innocent victim of a police chase. In that case, the police were apparently chasing a suspect in a stolen vehicle. During the chase, the suspect lost control and ran into the victim’s car, which incident left three children without a father and a wife without her husband. In the Kentucky case, a father of three was killed because the police felt it was more important to the public safety to catch someone driving a stolen car than it was to protect the lives of innocent motorists who might be endangered by the pursuit.
We have seen these kinds of articles over and over and over again. It is very distressing to read about the carnage caused by these chases. We have never advocated that police chases should be terminated. When the suspect being pursued is violent, has raped someone, murdered someone, or is known to represent a clear danger to the public, there is no alternative, the suspect must be chased and should be apprehended, if possible, with due regard for the safety of the motoring public. However, when non-violent offenders are being chased, the cost to the innocent members of the motoring public is simply too great. We should not impose the death penalty on innocent people in order to capture non-violent offenders. Let the suspects go rather than kill the innocent.

Continue reading

Police chases very often end in tragic results. Our Atlanta attorneys have handled many such cases in Georgia which have resulted in the loss of innocent lives while law enforcement officers chased suspects for minor offenses.

Despite the carnage which these chases cause and the pain and grief inflicted upon innocent victims, lawmakers continue to make it more difficult for innocent victims to receive compensation for losses. These restrictions also have the effect of making it easier for law enforcement officers to engage in dangerous chases knowing that they will not be held responsible for reckless actions.

In fact, these chases have become TV entertainment with the advent of cameras in law enforcement cruisers. These TV shows almost always show dangerous chases in which the criminals are caught. What they do not show are the many chases which result in death and injury to innocent victims.

Under the FTCA, a plaintiff must first submit an administrative claim to the responsible federal agency prior to the initiation of a lawsuit. The courts have held that the filing of such a claim is a jurisdictional requirement meaning that before the United States government can be sued, a written claim must first be made to the responsible federal agency which the claimant contends is liable for their damages. Many federal agencies have their own regulations governing the filing of such claims but in most cases they are identical to regulations issued by the United States Department of Justice. The usual standard Form 95 Claim Form is that which should be used. It can be located via a Google search and sets forth what information should be provided to the government when a claim is filed.

The time for filing an administrative claim is two (2) years from the date of the accident. Once the administrative claim is filed, the plaintiff must wait for the agency to reject the claim or allow six (6) months to pass before filing suit. The passage of six (6) months without agency rejection may be treated as a denial under the law. In the event that a lawsuit is initiated before the filing of an administrative claim or before the rejection period has expired, the lawsuit can be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Once an agency’s six (6) month rejection period has expired, suit must be brought within a subsequent six (6) month interval or if the agency actively rejects the claim an action must be commenced within six (6) months of the date of the agency’s rejection letter. If a suit is brought more that six (6) months after an agency’s denial of the claim, it could be potentially barred by the statute of limitations.

Many Georgia drivers can expect to receive recall notices for vehicles manufactured by General Motors Corp., due to a dangerous defect which can cause the vehicle to catch on fire. In one of the largest recalls of the year, General Motors announced Tuesday that it was recalling almost 1.5 million vehicles because it cannot fix a defect in the system that squirts heated cleaning fluid on the windshield.

The recall covers many vehicles manufactured during the 2006 to 2009 model year. Since GM is unable to offer a fix for the defect, it will disable the heating mechanism and pay each owner $100 per vehicle.

It is estimated that the recall will force GM to pay out as much as $150 million.

Atlanta, and other metropolitan areas in the state of Georgia have seen a rapid expansion in the numbers of same-day surgery centers. Yesterday, the Journal of the American Medical Association published an article suggesting that lack of infection practices are common in the nations more than 5000 outpatient surgery centers.

The study was prompted by a hepatitis C outbreak in Las Vegas. This outbreak was caused by unsafe injection practices at two outpatient surgery centers.

Failure to wash hands, wear gloves and clean blood glucose meters were among the reported problems found by the study. The study also found that many outpatient centers reuse devices meant to be used only by one person or dipped into single dose medicine vials for multiple patients.

When it comes to torts committed by the government and/or its employees, the beginning and ending place for any analysis is the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). See 28 U.S.C. § 1346. The Federal Tort Claims Act provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity and allows for money damages against the government for damages, loss of property, personal injury or death. In order to recover under the FTCA, one must show that the damages claimed resulted from a wrongful or negligent act of a government employee acting within the scope of his employment under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the injured person in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). As we will address in subsequent entries on this subject, there are potential land minds for those who would seek to recover under the Federal Tort Claims Act but who are not familiar with its provisions. The purpose of these blogs therefore will be to provide some general guidance as to how one should go about perfecting a tort claim against the United States of America. In future blogs, we will address the key steps that must be taken in order to do so.

Under Georgia law, a sheriff and only a sheriff is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of his or her deputies. A county sheriff employs the deputy and the deputy reports to the sheriff. Thus, if a deputy sheriff is negligent, the sheriff is liable not the County. Notwithstanding this legal liability, however, there is a confusing element of Georgia law when it comes to perfecting claims against sheriffs and their deputies.
While the law is somewhat ambiguous in this regard and in many ways unsettled, anyone that has a claim against a sheriff or deputy sheriff should consider serving an ante-litem notice upon the county where the sheriff’s office exists. Under O.C.G.A. § 36-11-1, there is a provision which specifies that counties should be served with ante-litem notices for claims against counties. Again, a county cannot be vicariously liable for the acts of a deputy sheriff. Nonetheless, until the law is properly resolved, the more prudent approach for the time being would be to file an ante-litem notice with the county and the sheriff’s office if someone has a claim against a deputy sheriff based on allegations of negligence and damage caused thereby.
The county ante-litem notice provides that written notice of claim must be served on a county within twelve (12) months of the date of an occurrence. Thus, even though the statute of limitation for a personal injury claim in Georgia is two (2) years, in reality, if one has a claim against a county, one should assert it out of an abundance of caution within twelve (12) months even if the claim is against a sheriff or a deputy sheriff. Again, the law is somewhat unsettled in this regard although many defense attorneys would contend that it is absolutely settled and that such notice is required. A more prudent and cautious approach for practitioners is to serve an ante-litem notice on both the sheriff and the county where the sheriff is employed so as to preserve all legal rights. This needs to be done until the law is completely clarified and until there is no ambiguity one way or another on the question.

In a case involving serious injuries which threaten to impair or impede altogether one’s ability to be gainfully employed, a Functional Capacity Evaluation can be critical in helping to establish the extent of the disability. Functional Capacity Evaluations are performed according to objective criteria which have been proven to be reliable in determining the extent of job related restrictions and limitations. If a client submits to a Functional Capacity Evaluation and is proven by such objective criteria to have limited abilities, such evidence can be critical in helping to convince a jury of the legitimacy of the claim. This can be extremely important in cases where someone complains of neck or back pain, for example. It is often difficult for a jury to understand the degree to which someone is suffering from neck or back pain. Such claims can be embellished or magnified, but a Functional Capacity Evaluation performed by a competent practitioner can weed out claims of embellishment and malingering because the test as designed can detect such claims as opposed to legitimate claims.
In a case where someone has a legitimate back or neck injury and they are truly restricted in their activities, a Functional Capacity Evaluation can help to establish the extent of the restrictions and limitations and can help prove the degree to which the pain caused by the neck or back injury is limiting the victim’s ability to engage in gainful activity. If a client cannot work, for example, and is reduced to sedentary activities, this can be demonstrated on a Functional Capacity Evaluation.
We recommend to our seriously injured clients in many contexts that they voluntarily submit to a Functional Capacity Evaluation. Because such tests are based on objective criteria, when a client is truly seriously injured a Functional Capacity Evaluation will confirm or corroborate claims of serious bodily injury.

There are several popular medications used by those who suffer from asthma which have an increased market share presence. These include Serevent, Advair and Foradel. All these medications use inhalation powders containing long acting beta agonists, commonly known as “LABA.” Beginning as early as November of 2005, the Food and Drug Administration issued a public health advisory concerning these three drugs informing doctors and patients that the use of these products could increase one’s risk of developing severe asthma and/or possibly having a fatal reaction. This safety bulletin was updated in February of this year based on the FDA’s review of studies showing an increased risk of exacerbation of asthma related symptoms. The studies showed that “LABAs” used in the treatment of asthma could be safe but the use of which was nonetheless contraindicated without the use of an asthma controller medication such as an inhaled corticosteroid. In short, the clinical studies showed that if “LABAs” were used by themselves and not in conjunction with inhalers, long term patients using “LABAs” could be at increased risks of developing severe asthma and/or possibly having even more complications which could lead to death. Regrettably, a study issued in May of this year indicates that nearly one-third (1/3) of asthma patients continue to use “LABAs” alone and not in combination with other control medications. In short, despite years of warnings from the Food and Drug Administration going back to 2005, patients are continuing to use these products by themselves and not in conjunction with inhalers which increase the risk of severe asthma episodes and/or the possibility of death.
Some FDA Advisory Panel members have advocated that “LABA” products be withdrawn from the market because of their increased risks for children in particular. Whether a product liability case exists in this context, obviously is a factually specific inquiry but for the time being, those who suffer from asthma should their use of these medications closely and follow all of the safety advice provided by the Food and Drug Administration.

A very common issue is a serious injury case is whether there exists any vicarious liability of a third party. If a truck driver runs into a motorist stopped at a stop sign and seriously injures them the question is whether the truck driver alone can be sued and/or their employer. Under longstanding legal principles, an employer is vicariously liable for the acts of the employee. As long as the employee was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the incident and injures the innocent third party, the employer will be vicariously liable for the damages caused by such negligent acts even if the employer did not approve of the acts and/or had company policies prohibiting such negligent behavior. The reason is because an employer is by definition responsible for the acts of employees acting within the scope of their employment.
In a serious injury case, the insurance carrier for the employer is likely to contend that the employee was not acting within the scope of their employment. If vicarious liability can be contested, the company can try to contend that there is no legal liability for the victim’s claims. Usually this is a defense used by the insurance carrier defending a company which is trying to avoid paying the claim. Even if the claim is legitimate and even if the victim is extremely injured and/or killed, in many cases, if the company’s insurance carrier can avoid liability by denying vicarious liability they will do so. Again, this issue turns on whether the employee, at the time of the act which caused the injury was acting within the scope of his/her employment.
Anytime there is an issue concerning vicarious liability, and if the case involves a serious injury, obviously, counsel should be retained as soon as possible. The victim’s rights need to be protected through an adequate investigation of these claims in order to establish vicarious liability. If it can be established that a particular employee was acting within the scope of their employment, then the victim’s rights can be protected by suing not only the negligent employee but also their employer. As this has obvious implications on the company’s insurance coverage, the extent of the coverage and the amount of the coverage available to satisfy the claim, any person with a serious injury involving possible third party liability should confer with experienced counsel as soon as is practicable to address this issue.