In Georgia, worker’s compensation is essentially an insurance program regulated by the state and required of most employers. Worker’s compensation pays medical bills and lost wages for employees who have had work related accidents resulting in illness or injury.
Employees with work-related conditions or injuries are entitled, but not limited, to:
• Reimbursement of travel expenses, including mileage to and from medical appointments
This past month our firm handled two different cases which both illustrate how to get the best possible settlement for a client in a personal injury case. It is oftentimes said that many cases settle on the courthouse steps. This is true. The reason for this is because if the case is not settled, it will have to be presented to a jury at considerable expense and with great time and effort by all parties. The uncertainty of what a jury might do, either returning a greater award than the defense would like to pay or a lesser award that the plaintiff hopes to get is the basis for compromise. However, unless counsel for a plaintiff who has been injured through the negligence of another is ready for trial it is almost guaranteed that before will not receive the best possible settlement for his or her client.
The two cases we have handled here recently are like many others we have handled in the past. Settlement offers were not made until it was demonstrated to the insurance carrier that counsel was ready for trial and was ready in a professional manner to present the case in such a manner as to likely receive from a jury more than the defense was previously willing to pay. In both cases, no offer was made until the case reached the courthouse steps. If counsel had not prepared the case of trial diligently and professionally through taking videotaped depositions, preparing demonstrative exhibits for the jury, submitting Requests to Charge relative to the legal and factual issues involved, marking all exhibits, subpoenaing all witnesses, etc., the insurance company would likely have gambled and defended the case will full knowledge that plaintiff’s counsel was not prepared. However, once the defense attorney and the insurance company got to the courthouse steps and realized that their adversary (in this case our firm) was prepared to proceed professionally, they offered to settle the matters for the actual value of the cases. In short, they made an offer of what we all along had been willing to accept thus obviating the need for a jury trial.
The main point of this blog entry is to emphasize something that we have known for years but which the public may not fully appreciate. Cases do not settle for their maximum value unless they are properly prepared by experienced trial counsel. In neither of the cases we have referenced, would there ever have been an offer of settlement made at any time unless the case had been properly prepared. Once the insurance carrier realized that plaintiff’s counsel was prepared to proceed in front of the jury and could, in fact, proceed in a professional manner and would make an effective presentation, then and only then did they pay the fair settlement value of the case. Had our firm not been prepared to proceed as professional advocates on behalf of our clients we would not have achieved the best possible settlement for our clients. The two cases that we write about were both very tough cases on liability, which were hotly contested. The insurance carriers may have continued to make no offer if they believed that plaintiff’s counsel was not prepared to put up a strong case. Once plaintiff’s counsel showed up on the courthouse steps with subpoenas, witnesses, exhibits, videotaped presentations and all the other necessary ingredients for a successful trial, the insurance company folded and the clients received fair settlements.
The simple answer to the question posed is – No. Some police chases are necessary in order to protect the interests of the public. If someone through a violent act commits the crime of car jacking, is a cop killer or otherwise is attempting to escape law enforcement for the commission of a violent felony where the suspect clearly poses an imminent and present danger to the public, then under such circumstances, the dangers presented by police chases are warranted from a societal standpoint. It is a different case altogether, however, when the police are chasing a minor traffic offender at high speeds and at the same time are creating great danger to the public where the need to immediately apprehend the suspect is outweighed by the danger presented to the public by the chase itself. Most experts in this area do not advocate banning police pursuits altogether. In cases involving violent felonies, even if the chase itself poses dangers to innocent members of the motoring public, nonetheless, the suspect being pursued is dangerous and needs to be apprehended if possible in order to protect the public. Again, however, the situation is different when the suspect really does not need to be apprehended immediately, poses little danger to the public and yet the chase itself kills or seriously injuries innocent members of the motoring public under such circumstances.
Most enlightened police departments throughout the United States have restrictive pursuit policies which limit the ability of their officers to chase non-violent offenders. If someone has a missing taillight it would hardly be justifiable to chase them at high speeds approaching 100 miles per hour while approaching a congested area or a school zone. People are likely to be killed because it is foreseeable that serious injury or death will occur during a high speed police chase. The law enforcement community has long known that approximately 400 to 500 people per year are killed in police chases and many thousands injured across this country. Because it is foreseeable that serious injury or death can result from a high speed police pursuit, such foreseeable risks should be minimized if at all possible particularly when the fleeing suspect does not present an inherent danger to the public.
There are many police policies that do not restrict the activities of their officers but nonetheless allow them to exercise their “discretion” as to whether they should continue a pursuit once initiated. Most such policies have language to the effect that if the danger to the public caused by the chase itself is greater than the danger presented by the suspect that the pursuit should be terminated. This is excellent policy language but the problem is it is difficult to implement and consequently the public is still being exposed under such policies to unnecessary risks of serious injury or death when non-violent traffic offenders are involved. It would seem that the better policy would be to have a restrictive policy that clearly spells out for officers what they can and cannot do in situation involving non-violent felonies. Nonetheless, until there is a uniform policy adopted by the law enforcement community restricting the rights of officers to expose the public to serious injury or death in situations involving non-violent felonies, at the very least, policies that provide discretion to its officers should be enforced and officers should not be permitted to expose the public to unnecessary risks of injury or death unless the need to immediately apprehend the suspect substantially outweighs the danger to the public presented by the chase itself.
Over the years our product liability lawyers have been involved in cases in Georgia in which infants are tragically killed by crib and toy dangers. Now in an effort that we applaud, major manufacturers of infant cribs have agreed on a proposal that would ban drop-side cribs in the United States.
Drop-side cribs allow parents to raise and lower one side for easy access. But bad designs, missing pieces and worn-out hardware have caused the adjustable railings to separate from the cribs. Infants have slid through the resulting gaps suffering injuries and in some cases death by strangulation.
Recently, the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission stepped up investigations of deadly cribs and is moving toward tougher federal rules.
Our Atlanta lawyers see many cases involving serious head injuries which at first appear to be minor or nonexistent. The recent report about actress Natasha Richardson who fell at a Canadian ski slope is a prime example. According to reports, Ms. Richardson, suffered a minor fall while skiing.
According to reports, she was talking and joking after she fell Monday. But soon after she returned to her hotel room she complained of head pain and was taken to a nearby hospital, then to a larger medical center in Montreal. She was later flown by private jet to a New York hospital, where she is reportedly in critical condition.
A blow to the head that at first seems minor and does not result in immediate pain or other symptoms can in fact turn out to be a life-threatening brain injury. Immediate treatment is essential after a brain injury because damage caused by swelling is often irreversible.
The initial fall or injury doesn’t have to be hard at all. The delay in symptoms can range from five minutes to three hours after the accident.
Experts report that a patient can appear deceivingly normal at first, but they may actually have a brain bleed and as the pressure builds up, they experience classic symptoms of a traumatic brain injury. This condition is commonly referred to as “talk and die” syndrome, because the patient can decline so rapidly.
These injuries are known as epidural hemorrhages. Blood gets trapped between the skull and the dura which is a hard layer of skin between the bone and brain. As the blood flows from the ruptured artery, the fluid builds and can puncture the dura.
The pressure is pushed on the brain, causing it to swell. Since the brain is restricted by the skull, there is often no room for it to move inside the skull cavity.
Nausea, severe headache, glossy eyes, sudden sleepiness, are all common symptoms of a brain injury. Getting to a hospital within the first few hours is critical to prevent permanent brain damage. Immediate treatment is essential after a brain injury because the initial damage caused by swelling often is irreversible.
Experts warn that the most important thing to do to lower your risk of a brain injury is to wear a helmet.
The Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have represented many victims of nursing home abuse over the years. With our aging population, we expect the numbers of these cases to increase. Nursing home abuse and nursing home neglect of the elderly and vulnerable in nursing homes and other facilities occurs in many forms. A Georgia nursing home lawyer is here to assist your loved ones with holding the wrongdoers accountable. Some types of abuse are obvious such as elder sexual or elder physical assault or financial exploitation. Other forms of abuse and neglect are less noticeable and are often the result of having fewer nursing staff and aides than are needed and required. Staffing and training issues lead to many forms of avoidable neglect such as: falls, pressure ulcers (bed-sores), medications errors, dehydration and malnourishment, urinary tract infections, unsupervised residents wandering or suffering burn injuries and a multitude of other problems.
If you suspect abuse or neglect to any vulnerable adult, please contact the lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP.
Emergency defibrillators in public gathering places have become common throughout Georgia. Now, about 14,000 external defibrillators are being recalled after 39 reported incidents, including two that involved patient deaths.
The recall was announced Tuesday by manufacturer Welch Allyn. It involves 14,054 AED 10 and MRL JumpStart external defibrillators made between Oct. 3, 2002, and Jan. 25, 2007. The company said there is a chance the AEDs, available through prescription, may produce low-energy shock, shutdown unexpectedly or be susceptible to electromagnetic noise interference.
These problems could prevent defibrillation of a patient in cardiac arrest and could lead to death. There have been reported 20 instances of low-energy shock, eight instances of electromagnetic noise interference, and 11 instances of the device unexpectedly shutting down.
Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia has been involved in a controversy concerning undisclosed payments to the head of the psychiatry department by drug companies. The danger that these financial relationships between physicians and drug and medical device manufactures can pose to patients is being brought to light in West Virginia.
Two companies that make medical devices and surgical materials may face sanctions related to medical malpractice lawsuits filed by patients against John Anderson King, an osteopathic surgeon on the staff of Putnam General Hospital in West Virginia between November 2002 and June 2003.
Wright Medical Technology Inc. and EBI Inc., disclosed potential financial penalties in required filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The U.S. Department of Justice has confirmed that it is investigating Wright Medical and several other medical device companies.
Many Bowflex exercise machines are found in homes and gyms throughout Georgia. Now, Nautilus Inc, the manufacturer is recalling 78,000 of its Bowflex Ultimate 2 Home Gyms.
There are reports that the seat rails can unlatch causing potentially serious injury. At least 18 people have been injured so far, with some customers suffering cuts to their heads and shoulders; some requiring stitches.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission said the gym’s horizontal seat rail, if not manually latched for storage, can fall on a user or bystander, causing the injuries.
Georgia residents and countless others across the nation received good news today. In a surprise decision handed down today the United States Supreme Court held that drug manufacturers who fail to warn of known dangers are not immune from liability due to the federal preemption doctrine.
In the case of Wyeth v. Levine , the Supreme Court was confronted with a situation in which drug manufacturer Wyeth had been sued by Levine. Wyeth manufacturers the anti-nausea drug Phenergan. Levine had been injected with Phenergan by a clinician using the IV-push method whereby the drug is injected directly into a vein. However, the drug entered an artery and doctors were forced to amputate her arm below the elbow.
Levine sued in the state courts of Vermont alleging among other things, that Wyeth knew of the increased risks of using the drug by the IV-push method, but failed to provide adequate warnings to healthcare practitioners. A Vermont jury determined that Wyeth was liable under state failure to warn claims and awarded damages against Wyeth.
Wyeth appealed arguing that prior approval of the label for Phenergan by the FDA preempted all state law actions, in effect granting them immunity from suit.
The Supreme Court squarely rejected this argument, finding that Wyeth’s argument would shift the burden of providing adequate warnings to the FDA when the duty to warn rests directly upon the manufacturer.
This is a major victory for consumers across the United States.
Trial Attorney Blog