Articles Tagged with Personal Injury

Georgia injury lawyers will closely watch an upcoming U.S. Supreme case having to do with dangerous drugs and the doctrine of pre-emption. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments today in a case that has major implications for consumers who have been harmed by prescription medications. Drugmaker Wyeth Pharmaceuticals and the Bush administration are challenging a $6.7 million verdict to a Vermont musician whose arm was amputated after medical staff improperly administered the Wyeth-produced drug Phenergan. Wyeth and the administration argue people who are harmed by drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration should not be able to pursue damages under state laws. At issue is whether the federal government can limit lawsuits by consumers who have been harmed by prescription medications. In the case before the Supreme Court a Vermont jury awarded the plaintiff $6.7 million, agreeing that Wyeth should have been clearer in its warning label about the risks of improperly administering the drug. Wyeth and the administration, however, are asking the court to rule that drug makers may not make changes to labels without the approval of the Food and Drug Administration and that people cannot sue under state law for harm caused by an FDA-approved drug. In other words, if the FDA has approved the labeling, the drug manufacturer is immune from suit. In recent years, the Bush administration and business groups have aggressively pushed limits on lawsuits through the doctrine of pre-emption – asserting the primacy of federal regulation over rules that many times differ from state to state and which often provide greater consumer protection than what is afforded them under federal law, in federal courts.

For Georgia lawyers handling nursing home abuse and negligence cases, we are seeing new litigation hurdles to overcome. Nursing home owners are creating new corporate structures to disguise the actual ownership of the nursing homes. It is a “corporate shell game” where the actual owners set up holding corporations to avoid responsibility. If you look at the way the facility is established, there will be a contractual relationship between a management company and a nursing home, where the same human being is on both sides of the contract and the management company is being paid a disproportionately high amount of money compared to its services. Another common scenario is for an owner to set up a real estate investment trust that leases real estate to the nursing home at rates that sometimes exceed the entire value of the property. A separate LLC holds the nursing home license, but the owner sucks all of the money out the facility via management fees or rent so that there is no money in the corporation that owns the license.
Another scenario that we are seeing is that owners of nursing homes are electing not to insure the nursing home to make it appear that they are “judgment proof” and to discourage claims. This significantly increases the amount of work involved in a case to ferret out the corporate assets of the nursing home but it can be done.
Fortunately, there are a number of legislative developments in the nursing home area. The Nursing Home Arbitration Act which would ban pre-dispute mandatory arbitration agreements in nursing home contracts, recently passed Committees in both Houses of Congress. Another recently introduced bill, The Nursing Home Transparency and Quality of Care Improvement Act, HR7128, would improve reporting and transparency of nursing home ownership.

You don’t have to be an Atlanta injury attorney to know that nursing home abuse and negligence is alive and well in Georgia and across the country. For most elder people, their greatest fear is being put in the dreaded nursing home and for good reason. In our practice, we have noted that more often than not these homes are understaffed by unqualified employees.
The Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services recently completed a study and issued a report that has found that over 91% of nursing homes were deficient in quality of care and other services in each of the past 3 years. The report also found that a higher percentage of for-profit nursing homes were deficient than non-profit nursing homes. With the aging baby-boomer population leading to increased demand for the services of nursing homes, nursing home litigation has been growing in recent years. According to U.S. Census Bureau statistics, 38.7 million Americans are 65 or older. By 2030 that age group will represent 20% of the population. Typical allegations against nursing homes have been abuse and neglect, inadequate staffing and medical errors.
The study found that the most common categories where nursing homes fell short were quality of care, resident assessment and quality of life. almost 74% of nursing homes in the survey were cited for quality of care deficiencies in 2007. Accident hazards were one of the most common issues. About 58% of nursing homes were cited for resident assessment problems involving professional standards and the qualifications of service personnel. Over 43% of facilities were cited for quality-of-life deficiencies, such as loss of dignity. In addition, almost 43% of homes were cited for dietary service violations. The report found that 17% of nursing homes in 2007 were cited for causing actual harm or immediate jeopardy, and that there is a trend toward violations that are more severe and broader in scope than in the previous 2 years. In Georgia, the average number of deficiencies per nursing home for the year 2007 was 6.5. Also, in Georgia, the percentage of nursing homes surveyed with deficiencies in the year 2007 was 88.1%.

Our serious injury lawyers have investigated cases involving off-road recreational vehicles. Now, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC, is probing the design of these so-called recreational off- highway vehicles after reports of fatal accidents involving new products which are currently unregulated.

.

The investigation involves several brands and more than 30 daeths. The Wall Street Journal has reported that the Yamaha Motor Rhino was a focus of the inquiry, with at least 30 deaths.

As Georgia injury lawyers who have handled many automobile and truck accident cases, we sometimes see defective products that lead to injury and death in collisions. One such defect involves airbags. Although airbag failures are not common, there are many reasons for there failure. Many fail because of design defects or defects in components.

Just last month, Nissan Motor Co Ltd announced plans to recall 204,361 vehicles from its 2007 and 2008 model years in the United States due to the possibility that a passenger side airbag could fail to deploy properly in an accident.

The voluntary recall covers 2007 and 2008 Nissan Altima, Altima Coupe, 350Z, Murano and Rogue; and Infinity G35 Sedan, G37 Coupe and EX35 built from March 12, 2007 to May 27, 2008, according to a notice the company provided to the U. S. Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has filed a lawsuit against a crib distributor for allegedly ignoring a nationwide recall of bassinets that can cause babies to suffocate. Madigan criticized federal regulators Wednesday for failing to take aggressive action against SFCA Inc., the owner of the Simplicity brand.

Madigan’s lawsuit seeks a recall that SFCA would publicize in newspapers statewide. It also seeks a refund for retailers. “Our investigation revealed that SFCA continued to distribute recalled products that posed serious risks to children,” Madigan said in a statement. “I will not allow this company to wash its hands of responsibility to Illinois families.”

The federal Consumer Product Safety Commission first announced on Aug. 28 that Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Toys “R” Us Inc., Kmart Corp., Big Lots, Target, J.C. Penney recalled Simplicity Inc. bassinets after the strangulation death of at least one baby. Other retailers have followed.

According to news reports, Atlanta Police Officer Sgt. Darrell Johnson was killed on Friday morning, October 24 when his vehicle was struck head-on by a fleeing suspect during a high speed police chase. Not only was the police officer killed, the fleeing suspect was killed as well.
The newspaper reports are sketchy, however, it appears that the high speed chase began when authorities received a 911 call from a member of the public who had spotted the suspect’s car while weaving. The officers apparently attempted to make a traffic stop of the suspect. When the suspect refused to stop for the suspected traffic violation, he took off, thus initiating a “high speed” chase. During the chase, the suspect lost control, crossed the center line and hit Sgt. Johnson’s vehicle head-on.
According to the news accounts of this tragic incident, it appears that the fleeing suspect was a veteran of the Iraq war. He may have had personal issues based on his experience there. The police allege that he was driving while drunk, but there is no indication whether this is based on a blood alcohol test or just based on his driving at the time. Either way, it seems evident that a drunk driver who is not being pursued by the police is not nearly as dangerous as is the drunk driver who is attempting to elude officers while traveling at high speeds while impaired. At least one expert, Professor Geoffrey Alpert of the University of South Carolina, has been known to say that the one thing that is much worse than a drunk driver is a drunk driver being chased at high speeds by the police.
While it is difficult to evaluate this particular case based on the sketchy news reports, what is troubling about the account is that it appears that this high speed police chase was initiated for a traffic violation only. Clearly, the danger to the public presented by a high speed police chase can be greater than is the danger presented by a mere traffic violator. The police should not be chasing someone for a mere traffic offense when other innocent members of the motoring public are placed at risk of either serious injury or death. To impose the death penalty upon an innocent member of the motoring public in order to apprehend a traffic violator makes little or no sense. The police simply need to recognize that sometimes the suspect has to be allowed to escape so that the chase itself will not endanger the innocent motoring public.
Having seen many other innocent persons killed or injured during high speed police chases, we continue to advocate that the police should chase at high speeds only when the public itself is endangered by the suspect. Yes the police should chase murderers, rapists, carjackers and other armed violent felons, but to chase someone at high speeds for a traffic violation is to unnecessarily place the entire public at risk. When the death penalty is imposed upon the innocent for a minor traffic offense, we would submit that the public is neither served nor protected which, of course, is the paramount duty of all law enforcement officials.

Continue reading

The Food and Drug Administration has taken issue with drug manufacturer Bayer over advertising claims for two aspirin medicines manufactured by the company. Bayer promotes the medicines as leading to healthy hearts and stronger bones.

The FDA sent two warning letters to Bayer for never submitting proof that its pills are effective in battling heart disease and osteoporosis as claimed by Bayer. The two drugs are Bayer Women’s Low Dose Aspirin + Calcium and Bayer Aspirin With Health Advantage.

Treatments for those diseases must be reviewed by government scientists and cannot be sold over the counter, the food and drug agency said. Doctors recommend aspirin to treat aches and pains and as a blood thinner for patients with heart disease.

In our serious injury practice, we are often encountered by cases where there is a dispute concerning liability for a particular collision. The tractor-trailer driver contends that he was forced off the road by an unknown John Doe motorist. The at fault driver who ran over the pedestrian claims that he or she could not see the pedestrian due to lighting conditions. The driver who is speeding denies that, in fact, he was speeding, and on and on. In cases involving serious or catastrophic injuries and/or death, it is often necessary in such cases to retain the services of a qualified accident reconstruction expert to establish exactly what happened. A qualified forensic engineer typically can reconstruct an accident based on measurements made at the scene by investigating police officers and/or based on the physical damage to the vehicles. A crush analysis can be performed on vehicles whereby a trained accident reconstruction expert can determine the speed of the vehicle which had to have occurred in order to create the objective crush damage to the vehicle. For example, if a vehicle’s front end is knocked in by a foot or so by another vehicle, the engineer can get the respective weights of the vehicles and can determine through calculations exactly how much force had to be applied to deform the vehicle to such an extent. This then can be translated into speed which can prove liability on behalf of the driver who caused the collision.
For those unfortunate victims of serious injury claims, particularly in those cases where there is a dispute concerning liability for a particular crash or collision, it is necessary that such a victim confer with counsel who is experienced dealing with accident reconstruction experts. Quite literally, a good accident reconstruction expert can either make or break a case where liability is contested. Our firm likes to use engineers from the Georgia Institute of Technology because they carry quite a bit of credibility with local juries. However, we have also worked with accident reconstruction experts throughout the country depending upon the type of vehicle collision involved. For example, there are some experts that specialize in under-ride situations where a car under-rides a tractor-trailer, there are other experts who specialize in engineering issues concerning the design of dangerous roads and bridges and there are other experts who have considerable expertise with respect to rollovers, seatbelts, brakes and the like. The point to be made, of course, is that in any serious or catastrophic claim, the victim needs to confer with counsel who is experienced in dealing with forensic engineers so that responsibility for a particular collision can be reconstructed by that engineer and liability established. Without proof of liability, of course, counsel’s ability to obtain compensation for the innocent victim of a serious collision is limited, thus because such proof is so important, an accident reconstruction expert should always be considered in any potentially serious injury case involving contested liability issues.

Needless to say, our attorneys are often asked by our clients when they should settle their personal injury lawsuit and in what amount. These question, many times, presuppose that both liability and damages are clear enough to warrant a settlement in a particular case. Oftentimes, liability is hotly contested as are damages and a case is therefore made more difficult from the settlement standpoint. However, in a case where the liability of the person causing the injury is rather clear and the damages are well documented, a fair settlement should be achieved. It is with respect to this type of case that we attempt in this blog to answer the question posed.
When should the client settle his lawsuit when he or she has a good case of liability and damages? The answer is when an offer is made that represents the fair value of the claim. How is the fair value of a claim determined? By analyzing Jury Verdict research data for similar cases involving similar facts of liability and damages in similar venues to make sure that the settlement offer being made is most likely the same amount that could be obtained by the client in front of a jury. Our attorneys tell our clients that if they are offered in settlement an amount of compensatory damages that would roughly be what they could expect to receive from a fair and impartial jury then they should settle their case. If they do not get such an offer they should refuse the settlement and proceed to trial. Obviously, if they get an offer over and above the claim evaluation of what a fair jury would do, they clearly should take the settlement offer.
Many times our clients tell us to settle cases when we recommend against it. Sometimes an offer is made that, in our judgment, is lower than what we would obtain from a jury and nonetheless the client does not wish to gamble and wishes to settle the case even though the amount of money being offered might not reflect the best settlement possible. In other cases, when a fair offer is made, we have had clients who have told us not to accept the offer because they do not think it is enough based on their own subjective evaluation. Obviously, when subjectivity enters into the picture and dominates the analysis, cases become difficult to settle.
One who has been seriously injured has a great deal of difficulty attaching a dollar figure to their pain and suffering. Indeed, no amount of money can compensate for amputated limbs lost vision, paralysis, broken backs, broken necks, incredibly complicated surgery, lost jobs, foreclosed homes, etc. We see all of these things in serious and catastrophic injury cases and therefore it is very difficult to talk about “fair” compensation for such claims. The innocent victim of negligence, who was sitting at a red light and hit by the drunk driver, who undergoes surgery, loses their job and is permanently injured has a great deal of difficulty determining what might be a fair settlement for their case. Subjectivity, obviously, enters into the picture which is why it is they need objectivity from their attorney. An objective attorney looks at the facts, compares it to what other juries are doing under similar circumstances and advises the client what a fair settlement would be, again, that being the amount of money that a jury most likely would award if they heard all the evidence, both on liability and damages.

Continue reading