Articles Tagged with Personal Injury

Every year the Georgia injury attorneys at Finch McCranie, LLP get calls about people being seriously injured on All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs), especially children. Just last year we had a wrongful death case involving a minor and an ATV. In that case, we represented the family of a young girl who was thrown off of the back of an ATV while riding as a passenger, at night and with no helmet! As spring approaches, a quick warning about the dangers of ATVs is in order. When used appropriately and with proper safety precautions, ATVs can be an enjoyable form of recreation. However, when used inappropriately, these vehicles pose a great risk for catastrophic injury, including TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury). Consumer critics argue more limitations must be placed on ATV use. Backing then are some staggering numbers. For instance, children under the age of 16 account for two-thirds (2/3) of ATV-related deaths and injuries. Some states have passed regulations prohibiting young children from riding and requiring riders to wear helmets. One state (North Carolina) now requires safety training for all ATV riders. Unfortunately Georgia has no age restrictions and no helmet law. Regardless of what the lawmakers say, parents must insure their children are safely using ATVs, in order to avoid serious injuries or death. In our recent case, neither the driver of the ATV or the passenger were being properly supervised by adults. As a result of negligent supervision, she died. If you or a loved one have been injured on an ATV either as a result of a product defect of the ATV or because of the negligence of someone operating one, call the experienced lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP at (800) 228-9159.

We have blogged before about the need for consumers to protect their interests when trying to retain an attorney. Truck accident cases present many obstacles for attorneys who do not regularly practice in the area. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations oftentimes control this type of case and yet many attorneys are not familiar with the requirements imposed by federal law. Additionally, the technology available on trucks that can be downloaded by experts with proper computer software may present different evidentiary and investigative challenges for the attorney who has never confronted similar issues. Moreover, due to the nature of the case, the injuries likely to be involved in any trucking case are usually serious, many times involving brain injury, amputation, paralysis or death. Thus, because the cases are more serious by nature, they demand a higher skill set for the attorney.
Any consumer looking to hire a Georgia trucking accident lawyer should look at their qualifications and should ask the attorney how many cases they have worked on involving interstate trucks collisions. The consumer should ask many questions about whether the lawyer is a member of any professional associations involving other truck accident attorneys, whether they have tried cases before juries in federal or state courts involving serious truck accidents, whether they have been asked to speak as lecturers on the subject, whether they have published articles on the subject and approximately how many such cases they have handled over the years which have resulted in settlements and/or jury verdicts. In short, these are the types of questions that a potential client should ask of their attorney in most any case but the questions become more important when dealing with a serious injury which is likely to be involved in a serious motor vehicle accident involving a tractor-trailer or a large truck.
The attorneys at Finch McCranie have considerable experience dealing with interstate trucking accidents and the serious injuries and wrongful deaths that regrettably flow from these collisions. Our attorneys have lectured on this subject, have published on this subject and have presented cases to juries in both state and federal court on behalf of clients injured by the negligence of trucking companies. These are the qualifications one should seek when hiring an attorney and because our attorneys are qualified to handle such cases, any client that comes to this firm can be comfortable in the knowledge that their attorneys have the skill set needed to deal with the nuances of federal and state law as it pertains to trucking litigation.

Georgia law relating to uninsured automobile insurance has changed effective January 1, 2009. We have previously written about the importance of uninsured/underinsured (UM) coverage. Essentially this is coverage which protects you and your family if you are injured in a wreck caused by a person with no or low limits of insurance. Unfortunately there are many of these drivers on the roads in Georgia.

Under the new law the major changes relate to the ability to purchase increased coverage. This is best understood by way of example. For purposes of this explanation we will assume you are involved in an accident with an at-fault driver with the minimum limits of $25,000.00. Under the new available coverage assume you have UM coverage of $100,00.00. Then the available coverage to you will be $125,000.00. This is the sum of the at-faults drivers $25,000.00 and your $100,000.00.

Under the old law, the amount of the at-fault driver’s coverage is deducted from your coverage. In the example above, the available coverage to you would from your UM policy would be $75,000.00. This plus the at-fault driver’s $25,000.00 would make $100,000.00 available.

Our Atlanta, Georgia lawyers see health insurance companies deny valid claims on a daily basis, depriving policyholders of necessary medical care to which they are entitled. Now, a California health insurer has been caught red handed. The insurer, Health Net, has agreed to pay as much as $14 million to settle a pair of lawsuits brought on behalf of 800 former policyholders whose coverage was dropped after they submitted substantial medical bills.
On February 11, the court granted preliminary to a settlement in which individuals whose health insurance policies were canceled since 2004 are eligible for payments of up to $218,000. The average payment is expected to be $7,836.
The settlement would resolve a class-action lawsuit filed by private attorneys and by Los Angeles City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo.
In addition to the payments to customers, it requires Health Net to pay a fine of $2 million to the city attorney and to contribute $500,000 to charities.
The settlement comes after a two-year crackdown by California regulators on the widespread and controversial practice known as rescission. Rescinding an insurance policy is a serious matter. It means that an insurer is accusing the policyholder of withholding or concealing vital information.
A policy rescission means that the consumers coverage is completely gone. Insurance companies can unilaterally cancel a health insurance policy, after issuance if the insurer later finds omission on the application. In many cases, the rescission is for a valid reason, such as failure to mention a history of severe cardiovascular problems. But many insurers collect premiums and when a large claim is filed, rescind the coverage over minor mistakes in the application.
In deals with California regulators, insurance providers Health Net, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield all have agreed to make substantial changes in the way they sell individual coverage in an effort to reduce the number of rescissions. Health Net has agreed to pay more than $40 million to resolve the regulatory actions and litigation over rescission.
According to documents Health Net rescinded 1,600 policies and saved $35.5 million over several years. Health Net paid bonuses to an employee based in part on how many rescissions she carried out.
We applaud the California officials who protected consumers from these reprehensible practices, and can only hope that Georgia officials will show the same courage.

Continue reading

The more one reads about the problems with the products distributed by the Peanut Corporation of America, the more one realizes that there were serious management problems with that Company’s plant in Blakely, Georgia. According to published reports, when federal and state inspectors went to the plant, they found evidence of mold, leaking roofs and other unsanitary conditions. According to an FDA report, not only was there mildew on the ceiling roof of the storage room, there was also evidence of infestation by cockroaches and rodents. Subsequently, it was determined that the Company through its internal testing had, in fact, detected the presence of Salmonella in several of its product lines. These contaminated products were, nonetheless, shipped out into interstate commerce. On January 30 of this year, the Department of Justice launched a criminal investigation to get more answers about the Salmonella outbreak. Even thought the Peanut Corporation of America has now recalled all of the possible contaminated products associated with its Blakely facility, there have already been more than 8 deaths and 600 illnesses reported in 43 states arising from this scandal.

On January 27, 2009, the FDA completed its inspection of the Blakely, Georgia plant. The FDA reported that the records from the Georgia facility showed that there were 12 incidents in 2007 and 2008 where the Company had identified some type of Salmonella during its own testing procedures and yet still allowed its peanut products to be shipped out for sale. Given the FDA’s own inspection which documented numerous unsanitary conditions, and because of these internal test results, it is clear that there was a major problem with management at this facility. Obviously, this is why the government has launched a criminal investigation. Obviously, there has been an apparent lack of concern for public safety given the manner and method in which this operation was conducted.

According to the media, when the FDA initially inspected the Blakely, Georgia plant, plant officials were asked if there had been any reports of Salmonella at the facility. Repeatedly the government was told there had been none. This is extremely troubling which might be a partial basis of the criminal investigation. (It is a federal crime to make false statements to federal investigators and from media reports it appears that such a crime may have occurred.) Of course, all the facts are not in yet and no indictment has yet been returned against anyone. Nonetheless, the public reports concerning the Peanut Corporation of America’s Blakely, Georgia facility are troubling to say the least.

The above questions are often asked by clients who have been seriously injured in an automobile case or a trucking collision. Regrettably, there are some attorneys out there who will give unrealistic “pie in the sky” answers to such questions, usually for the purpose of trying to convince a client to retain their services. A good lawyer, however, will usually not provide a response to these questions until he or she has fully investigated the case and has access to all of the critical data needed to analyze the value of the case.

Obviously, there are many factors that determine the value of a case. Does the case involve strong evidence of liability against the defendant to be held responsible for the damages? Are there any aggravated circumstances involved? Does the client have a clean background and are the claimed damages fully documented? Is there good evidence of lost wages? Will there be a permanent disability and, if so, has this been documented by the treating physician? Is there a favorable venue or must the case be filed in a rural county where juries return small verdicts historically? In short, there are many questions that arise in trying to questions posed of a similar nature by clients who have been seriously injured and damaged in a bad accident.

Clients understandably want to know whether they are going to recover their damages and be adequately compensated. Regrettably, sometimes the answer is that they will not be adequately compensated. If there is little or no insurance available for an at-fault driver, there may be little or no chance of recovering an adequate compensation for the innocent injured client. If an at-fault driver was on the job for their employer and there is a commercial policy available with significant liability limits then full compensation may be a possibility.

An outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease has been confirmed at Atlanta, Georgia’s Grady Memorial Hospital. Water tests confirmed today that two units at Grady Memorial Hospital were the source of the bacteria that caused Legionnaires. Four patients have been sickened by the disease.

A Grady spokesman claimed this was the first time in Grady’s history that the Downtown Atlanta hospital has been the source for disease in patients. The two Grady patient units consisting of and 80 beds have been closed since last week. The Grady spokesman said crews are treating these units and additional floors and will continue testing throughout the hospital.

Three of the four patients have responded to antibiotics and have been discharged. The fourth is still receiving treatment. An additional 50 patients have been tested for the disease, but those tests were negative.

Many Georgia parents, and thousands of parents across the country who have children suffering from autism, received bad legal news today. They had claimed that childhood vaccines had caused their children to develop autism.

In a long awaited decision, a special court rejected their claims and ruled that they are not entitled to federal compensation. The decision in three test cases is a severe blow to a national movement that has argued that childhood vaccines have been responsible for the surge in autism diagnoses in the United States in recent decades.

The majority of the scientific community, backed by federal health agencies, has argued there is no link between vaccines and autism. They also argue that deterring parents from vaccinating their children places children at risk for a host of serious childhood diseases.

On the way to work today I saw an automobile accident that had just occurred. A lady had been rear-ended by an automobile on the interstate highway. The cars were very badly damaged and it was clear that one of the drivers was injured. The ambulances had not yet arrived.

As I drove by the accident scene, I thought to myself, “I wonder how this unfortunate lady will find a competent Georgia automobile accident attorney to represent her interests effectively, competently, honestly, ethically and professionally?” Like any other choice a consumer must make involving an important personal matter, consumers must beware of who they hire to represent their interests in these cases. Not all lawyers are created equally nor do they have the same professional abilities. While there are many that advertise their services to the pubic, the public should investigate the background of any attorney to make sure that they are the proper attorney to handle their case.

Lawyers are no different from doctors. While there are many surgeons out there, not all surgeons are equally adept at certain surgical procedures. Some have a better reputation than others, some have greater experience than others, some have a better educational pedigree and background which qualify them for more sophisticated forms of surgery. In a automobile accident case where the person is not seriously injured, the differences in skill and competency may not matter. However, in a case involving serious injuries, lost wages and the possibility of a permanent disability, the greater the skill level of the attorney, the more likely it is that the client will receive competent representation.

We heard a radio piece on National Public Radio the week before last about the rise in uninsured motorists nationwide. It is now estimated that as many as 16% of the motoring public are driving without insurance. In today’s tough economic times, people are failing to pay not only their house bills, which has lead to the mortgage crisis, but also their car insurance bills. This means that many motorists are endangering the lives of their fellow motorists as they drive. Obviously, they are hoping that they will not be involved in an accident. If they are, it is not the driver who causes the accident which is at risk, it is the innocent victim of their reckless conduct.
The only way to protect one’s self against a uninsured motorist is to purchase uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance coverage. While all drivers are required by law to maintain liability insurance coverage to protect the rights of other motorists, 16% of our fellow drivers, apparently, are not fulfilling this duty. Many others purchase the absolute minimum limits required by law – typically $25,000.00 which provides no meaningful protection for serious injuries. Therefore, we are all 16% at risk when we get behind the wheel of being involved in an accident where the driver causing the accident does not have insurance. For those who can afford it and whose budget will allow it, it is therefore increasingly important that uninsured motorist protection be purchased. Without such coverage, if someone is involved in a terrible collision involving serious injuries or even death, there will be no recovery in all likelihood because anyone who is driving without insurance will not have personal assets sufficient to satisfy a judgment in any event

Continue reading