Articles Tagged with Personal Injury

As our firm handles police chases for innocent victims tragically caught up in these dangerous pursuits through no fault of their own, and as we have witnessed many different tragedies in this context, we obviously pay close attention to other similar cases throughout the country. Just this past week we read three different articles about three different pursuits in three different states in which innocent bystanders were killed during these dangerous pursuits. In none of the pursuits that we read about were any of the fleeing suspects being pursued for a felony. One suspect fled from a routine traffic stop, another female suspect was fleeing for reasons unknown to the police in which her baby was killed and a third was fleeing for traffic violations. In all of these cases, the death penalty was imposed upon an innocent third party who had committed no violation of the law and was hit by the fleeing suspect. Had the suspect been safely apprehended, it is likely they would have been given a fine and let go by the court system based on the minor offenses committed. This is an all too familiar pattern.
We have blogged repeatedly about the dangers of high speed pursuits. It makes little or no sense to impose the death penalty on an innocent third party in order to immediately apprehend a non-violent suspect. Thirty-five to forty percent (35-40%) of all police chases end up in crashes. Many of these chases, because of the high speeds involved, involve serious injuries and/or deaths. It is estimated that there may be as many as 1,000 deaths per year in high speed pursuits nationwide. Given these well known statistics, the better approach, which is being followed more and more by enlightened police jurisdictions, is to have a restrictive policy which allows the police to chase only for forcible or violent felonies. Those departments that still allow their officers to chase for non-violent offenses such as minor traffic violations, obviously, are all too willing to risk serious injury or death in order to immediately apprehend a non-violent suspect. We reiterate this makes little or no sense and we have witnessed first hand the tragedy involved in these cases.
We here at Finch McCranie will continue to litigate these cases. We think it is an important public service. If the police adopt restrictive pursuits, research has shown that the number of pursuits will not increase nor will crime increase as this has been documented over and over again. Who can argue against such policies? They save lives, the do not increase crime nor do they increase the number of pursuits in general. It is simply a good policy that should be followed. Until the majority of departments follow these restrictive policies, we intend to litigate against those who refuse to do so and who unnecessarily expose members of the public… the innocent members of the public… to the needless risks of serious injury or death. Let the minor offenders go. It is not worth killing someone to catch them.

Our military service members stand ready to put their lives on the line to protect the freedoms upon which our country is based. Yet, they are not provided the basic remedies available to other citizens who are victims of medical malpractice.

Under a 60-year-old Supreme Court ruling known as the Feres doctrine, service members are banned from suing the federal government for even the most egregious medical errors.

Pending before Congress is a bill that would remove that inequity. Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., is the lead sponsor of the bill, the Carmelo Rodriguez Military Medical Accountability Act, which would amend federal law to “allow members of the Armed Forces to sue the United States for damages for certain injuries caused by improper medical care, and for other purposes.”

An outbreak of 19 E-coli related illnesses in Michigan, Ohio and New York may be linked to shredded romaine lettuce sold to grocery stores for use in salad bars and delis, according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Yesterday, the FDA announced a recall of the potentially dangerous produce.

Escherichia coli (abbreviated as E. coli) are a large and diverse group of bacteria. Although most strains of E. coli are harmless, others can be extremely harmful. Strains of E. coli can cause diarrhea, urinary tract infections, respiratory illness, pneumonia, and other illnesses.

The lettuce has been recalled by Freshway Foods, a closely held company based in Sidney, Ohio, according to the FDA press release. Twelve of the 19 people with confirmed cases of E. coli have been hospitalized, including three with potentially life-threatening complications.

Yesterday, the Associated Press reported that on Thursday of this week the government recalled thousands of baby cribs manufactured by Simplicity and Graco, after warning that babies could suffocate or strangle in them. Apparently the problem with both types of cribs relates to faulty or defective hardware. According to the article, the Consumer Product Safety Commission said the Simplicity crib recall was linked to at least one death and it involved thousands of cribs. The recall involving Simplicity products is for all full-sized cribs with tubular medal mattress or support frames. Allegedly, those frames can bend or detach, causing the mattress to collapse and creating a space where a child can become trapped and suffocate. The Graco branded wood cribs involve a side that moves up and down, which can break or detach, creating a dangerous gap where a child can become trapped and suffocate.
The Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have represented the families of numerous consumers whose loved ones have died as a result of defective products. If you or a loved one have been seriously injured as a result of purchasing and using a dangerous product, call us today for a free consultation. We have been handling product liability cases for over 45 years.

Last night after a long day at work I went home and decided to browse local television shows. In so doing, I came across a program entitled “American Greed.” The topic of the program I was watching was extremely disappointing to me but regrettably a symptom of modern day society. The program dealt with greedy lawyers who were stealing from their clients. I watched the program in amazement because the greed of these lawyers was utterly fantastic and extremely disappointing to me as a plaintiff’s tort lawyer.

The crooked lawyers had worked on a class-action settlement involving the very popular anti-obesity drug Fen-Phen which was introduced into the marketplace in the mid 90’s. Unfortunately, this drug, which was taken by millions) caused heart problems. Many people died and had serious heart disease and disorders resulting from the use of the product. Class-actions followed and these three lawyers in Kentucky were able to secure a $200 million settlement for approximately 450 clients they represented in the state of Kentucky. Their contingent fee agreement provided that they would receive one-third (1/3) of the settlement ($60 million) or $20 million each. Rather than accept this huge and enormous fee, which would have lasted them a lifetime, instead they preceded to steal another $50 to 60 million dollars from their clients through false representations and numerous acts of fraud.

Obviously, these lawyers deserved to go to jail and two of the three were sentenced to over 25 years in prison. (Incredibly, one of the lawyers got off on a defense centered around alcoholism). What was disappointing to me as I watched to program was the damage this kind of program does to the Bar in general. Clients deserve better and so do lawyers. Clients deserve to have the utmost trust in their lawyers and lawyers, of course, owe a fiduciary duty to their clients to observe that trust and honor it at all times.

Our Atlanta lawyers constantly receive calls from consumers who have had their health insurance companies refuse to pay for necessary treatment or have had their insurance cancelled after they become sick. A recent report has reveled that WellPoint, the nation’s largest health insurer, has aggressively targeted women with breast cancer with the intent of canceling their health insurance policies.

Reuters news service cited federal investigators and regulators as a source of this information. According to the report, WellPoint has used a computer program to automatically trigger fraud investigations after the diagnosis of breast cancer, despite no evidence of wrongdoing.

The practice, called rescission, has been used for years to control costs and boost profits. In effect, the companies will accept premiums until the insured is projected to have costly medical bills, then search for a way to deny coverage. Congress has cited WellPoint , which has 33.7 million policyholders, as being one of the worst offenders.

Most members of the public do not realize that it is very difficult to sue a government official. As long as government officials are acting within the scope of their discretionary authority, they are typically immunized by law from legal liability for mistakes they make, even including claims involving negligence, gross negligence and/or recklessness. The main exception to this rule typically involves the operation of automobiles for which there has been a statutory waiver of sovereign immunity in Georgia. There are, however, other limited exceptions which can apply in certain particular cases. As an example, if a government official is acting outside the scope of his authority or even if he is performing a discretionary act, if he acts with intent to injure and/or acts maliciously, he or she can lose immunized status and be subject to legal liability for such willful acts. Again, these exceptions to the doctrine of official immunity are limited. Accordingly, if a claim is to successfully be brought against a government official, it is necessary that counsel be retained at the earliest opportunity.
Not only is there a procedure maze of hurdles that one must overcome to file a claim against a government official, as indicated in earlier blogs and other posts on this site, there are multiple ante-litem provisions that must be taken into consideration when considering a claim against a government official. Valid claims against those who abuse their authority can be successfully prosecuted if the facts establish an exception to claims of official immunity.

Medical malpractice became a hot button issue in the recent healthcare debate. Many politicians, healthcare workers, and large insurers argued that medical malpractice cases are a large contributor to the rising cost of healthcare in the United States. Even though this line of argument has been consistently proven to be false, it was constantly brought up buy opponents of healthcare reform.

There is a better way to reduce the number of medical malpractice cases without sacrificing innocent victims who have been maimed due to preventable medical errors.

A California study has revealed a decrease in preventable patient injuries in California hospitals from 2001 to 2005 that coincided with a drop in malpractice suits against doctors.

The safety of the United States food supply is a vital interest of all citizens. The recent deadly outbreaks of salmonella poisoning in peanuts, spinach, and other foods has brought the lack of safeguards in the food supply chain to the forefront.

A new report by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s inspector general, released last week, documents an outdated and ineffective federal food safety program with too few inspectors, too skimpy legal authority and too little funding.

Faced with the reality of overseas food-processing plants that have been responsible for several recent food safety scares such as contaminated seafood and powdered milk, the FDA report reveals that the agency doesn’t even have enough inspectors to visit U.S. processing plants.

Finch McCranie has been representing innocent victims caught up in police chases for over a decade. While the police should chase violent felons who are endangering the public, many of these cases involve chases where the police are pursuing non-violent or mere traffic offenders at high speeds with the end result being a third party killed or injured, caught up by happenstance in the dangerous pursuit. We have long advocated that the police should pursue violent offenders where the risk of the chase to the public is justified by the risk to the public caused by the offender. If the suspect being pursued has merely violated a traffic law or has committed some other non-violent offense or felony, even if they are apprehended, they are liable to be sentenced to a very light fine and perhaps no incarceration. And yet, in order to chase such a suspect, the police are all too often willing to endanger the rights of the innocent motoring public. Unfortunately, innocent third parties are killed during these dangerous pursuits.

Recently, the City of Milwaukee changed its high speed pursuit policy. From now on, Milwaukee police officers must have probable cause that a violent felony has occurred before they will be authorized to pursue a fleeing suspect. This is because four (4) people have already been killed in 2010 in separate incidents by drivers fleeing from the Milwaukee police. The Police Chief of Milwaukee issued a statement in which he stated that he had to consider the risk to the public caused by the changes in evaluating his City’s policies. As he stated: “I have an obligation to my officers, despite the risk they are willing to take, to limit their risk of injury or death, to make sure that the danger represented by the suspect justifies the risk of violent death. All too often it clearly does not justify that risk.” While this is a welcome change in policy and a sensible and rational approach to police chases in general, many other jurisdictions have failed to adopt a similar policy. Accordingly, officers in many jurisdictions in Georgia and elsewhere continue to chase non-violent offenders at dangerously high speeds sometimes with the result that an innocent third party gets caught up in the chase by happenstance and loses their life or sustains serious and permanent injuries.

We have long advocated that the police should chase those where the risk posed to the public by the suspect is equal to or greater than the risk associated with these dangerous pursuits. However, if the suspect has merely committed a traffic offense or other non-violent offense, the risk of these dangerous pursuits to the public is simply too great. Simply stated, to impose the death penalty on an innocent third party in order to apprehend someone who is non-violent makes no sense.