Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

We recently filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the owners of an ATV who failed to supervise the use of their ATV. The owner's minor daughter and our client, a seventeen year old girl, were riding the ATV at night. Our client, the passenger, was thrown from the ATV which resulted in her sustaining internal injuries which lead to her death.

With the growing popularity of ATV’s serious injury and death cases are on the increase, especially among children. Believe it or not, the ONLY legal requirements governing ATV operation in Georgia are that they have brakes and a muffler, and that the operators do not ride on private property without permission. Because of the ever increasing number of fatalities and serious injuries to ATV operators, especially children, the Georgia legislature decided it was necessary to study this problem to determine whether additional safety requirements should be added to the current law. To this end, the House ATV Safety Study Committee was created. The committee organized three public forums in three regions of the state for the purpose of hearing testimony from local law enforcement, medical professionals, ATV enthusiasts, industry representatives and concerned citizens about the issues surrounding safe ATV operation. In December 2005, the committee issued their report making the following findings:

1) Georgia is one of only five states with no ATV safety legislation.
2) There have been 177 fatalities involving ATV between 1982 and 2003.
3) Of the 177 deaths, one third were children under 16.
4) In 2004, there were 12 fatalities involving ATV, 50% of which were children under 17.
5) The risk of being killed in an ATV crash is 20 times higher than that of any other vehicle.
6) Almost all ATV fatalities or serious injuries occur while violating one or more of the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s “Rules of ATV Operation”. These rules are as follows:
A. Children under sixteen should not ride adult-sized ATV (engines bigger than 90 cc’s).
B. Take a hands-on safety course.
C. Always wear a helmet while on an ATV.
D. Never drive an ATV on paved roads.
E. Never drive while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
F. Never drive an ATV with a passenger, and never ride as a passenger.
7) Though it is illegal to operate ATV on roads or private property without permission, law enforcement is reluctant to apprehend violators. This is due to the high likelihood of the violator fleeting the scene and having an accident.
8) Investigation and prosecution of ATV theft is difficult because there is no centralized database or registration to match owner with ATV.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

Anyone who has practiced law for any period of time in the area of Serious Injury Litigation unfortunately comes across cases where a child has been killed as a result of the negligent act of a third party and the cause of action resides in divorced or separated parents. These cases not only are tragic, they can be very sad and/or messy.

The law has long been in Georgia that where parents are divorced and their unmarried child dies as a result of a negligent act of another that either parent may bring a cause of action for the wrongful death of their child on behalf of the other. If there is later a settlement or recovery from a jury, the law further provides that the proceeds from the case shall be divided between the divorced parents on an equitable basis. If the parents cannot agree on how the money should be divided, then in that event, a judge shall conduct a hearing, allow each parent to have the opportunity to be heard and produce evidence regarding that parent’s relationship with the child and then determine the percentage of the judgment or settlement to be awarded to each.

O.C.G.A. § 19-7-1 provides that in a case where parents are divorced and there has been a recovery for the wrongful death of their child that the judge in such a case, where the parties cannot otherwise agree, shall consider each parent’s relationship with the deceased child, including permanent custody, control and support, as well as any other factors found to be pertinent. The judge can decide whether each parent should receive 50% of any such settlement or recovery or whether one parent should receive a greater percentage than the other. The judge’s decision according to Georgia law “shall not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.”

Regrettably, when there is the wrongful death of a child, and the parents have been divorced, old wounds may surface which may make it difficult for such parents to work with one another on an equitable basis particularly under such tragic circumstances. If, for example, a child is killed while in the custody of the primary parent, typically the mother, it is not unusual for the father to seek separate counsel trying to protect his rights if the father and the mother have a poor post-divorce relationship. We have seen this regrettable situation many times and often times it is difficult to get the parents in such tragic situations to work with one another to resolve their differences. Typically, such cases are resolved by agreement, but like many other practitioners in this area, it has been necessary for our firm to file petitions asking the court to intervene and make the decision.

Naturally, the parent most involved in the child’s life and the parent who has provided most of the financial support for the child will have the sympathy of the court in deciding how the proceeds from a wrongful death should be divided. However, any parent who has not abandoned the child previously is entitled to participate in the recovery from a wrongful death action. Presumably, where parents are equally involved in a child’s life, they will equally share in a wrongful death recovery. We have seen cases where there is a 50/50 split where some parents receive nothing based on abandonment and where other non-custodial parents receive a smaller percentage based on little or no contact with their deceased child over the years. What is particularly unseemly in these tragic circumstances, however, is when an absentee parent who has little or nothing to do with the child retains outside counsel and then seeks to “extort” a financial settlement from the tragedy simply because of their biological relationship to the child with whom they have had virtually no contact. The wrongful death is tragic enough but when there is a mercenary attempt to participate in a wrongful death recovery by the absentee parent, obviously, the tragedy is compounded.

Any parent who is divorced and who is faced with the incredibly difficult situation of dealing with the wrongful death of their child is already burdened enough by the tragedy itself. Having to deal with an absentee ex-spouse who has had little or no contact with the child usually adds to the trauma. In such cases, the attorney truly has to be sensitive, not only to the tragedy, but also to the emotional aspects surrounding this issue. In these sad cases, the term “counselor at law” takes on a rather unique meaning.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Civil Procedure , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

We have previously written about procedural problems that clients may face when dealing with claims against governmental entities. Specifically, if an individual has a claim against a city or county government, there are certain pre-suit, ante litem requirements that must be observed before suit can be filed. We have written about this in earlier articles and would refer the reader to the same. We have also written these procedural problems under Georgia’s State Tort Claims Act. Here, we write briefly to discuss some unique issues under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).

As we have indicated previously, the Federal Torts Claims Act also has an ante litem requirement. A form 95 Claim Form (or its equivalent) must be filed with the appropriate federal agency or department within two years of the date of the accident or occurrence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). It is also important that there be separate claims for each claimant that may have incurred damages as a result of the alleged wrongful conduct or negligent act of a government employee or agency. See 28 C.F.R. § 14.3(b). Also, only the United States of America may be named as a defendant in a lawsuit later filed, not the agency or the employee, and the suit must be brought against the United States within six month of the claim denial. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b).

Another unique provision of the Federal Tort Claims Act is that the courts in such matters apply the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to procedural law but state substantive law to the alleged negligent act. For example, in a hypothetical medical malpractice case, if a doctor at the Veterans Administration Hospital, for example, allegedly commits malpractice in one jurisdiction, even though the plaintiff may reside in another jurisdiction and therefore have the right to file the claim where they reside under 28 U.S.C. § 1402(b), nonetheless, the malpractice claim will still be governed under the law of the place where the tort occurred. For example, here in Georgia, there is a requirement that an Affidavit be attached to any claim for medical malpractice in which a reviewing physician certifies that one or more negligent acts occurred which constitutes the alleged deviation from acceptable standards of medical care and skill. If such an Affidavit is not attached to a medical malpractice complaint, the complaint can be dismissed under Georgia law. Similarly, even though Federal Civil Procedure governs the rules of procedure for claims brought under the Federal Torts Claims Act, nonetheless, the careful practitioner must always look to state substantive law and make sure that state substantive law is followed in claims filed under the FTCA.

Our purpose in writing on this subject is simply to caution those who might seek to represent themselves with claims against either federal, state governments or local governments that they should be very careful in doing so due to the procedural requirements inherent in such claims. We would strongly urge any person with a claim against the government to confer with counsel before attempting to proceed on their own. Failure to do so could result in an unfavorable result.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Civil Procedure , Federal Tort Claims

Bookmark:

According to the 2006 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, one in 20 drivers will be involved in an accident this year. The government study also showed that there are roughly 141,000 truck crashes each year with 77,000 of these or over one-half being the direct fault of the driver. Aubrey Allen Smith is the author of “Truth About Trucking.” Mr. Smith apparently hails from Citrus Springs, Florida and has compiled a list of the top ten causes of these truck accidents. According to Mr. Smith, the top ten causes of truck accidents are as follows:

1. Prescription drug use - 26%
2. Traveling too fast - 25%
3. Unfamiliar with roadway - 22%
4. Over the counter drug use - 18%
5. Inadequate surveillance - 14%
6. Fatigue - 13%
7. Illegal maneuver - 9%
8. Exterior distraction - 8%
9. Inadequate evasive action - 7%
10. Aggressive driving behavior - 7%

In short, roughly 50% of the accidents for which statistics are available indicate that truck drivers are taking drugs or traveling too fast. One can hardly be surprised with the brutal work schedule these drivers keep and the pressures placed upon them by their employers to place profit above safety. While everyone has to make a living, the pressures on American truck drivers are clearly at an all time high and regrettably, the stress and strain is borne out by the statistical data which so reflects. In this age of de-regulation, regrettably, we believe that the statistics will only get worse. Because of the Government’s de-regulation of the truck industry, litigation with large awards may be the best deterrent available to save lives.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Truck and Tractor Trailer Accidents

Bookmark:

The Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is a tool often overlooked by practitioners when it comes to available statistical data regarding vehicular accidents. For example, our firm has been handling several high speed police pursuit cases and in connection therewith obtained from the Federal Motor Carrier Administration information submitted to it on a nationwide basis to its Fatality Analysis Reporting System. Unfortunately, the statistics are likely under reported because there is no mandatory form which is utilized by all the states to report fatalities and motor vehicle accidents such as police pursuits. Nonetheless, what we saw is that from 1982 through 2004, 7,434 people were reported to FARS as being killed in high speed pursuit cases. The national average was approximately 350 deaths per year with approximately 20 deaths per year in Georgia.

The FARS reporting data also makes available to the public the number of fatalities from motor vehicle collisions involving commercial tractor trailers. Again, this data under-reports the extent of the problem but is still the best data we have. While the statistics do not show who was at fault in these accidents, nonetheless, the statistics are sobering. Indeed, from 1994 through the end of 2005, there were approximately 2,741 fatalities in Georgia. Regrettably, these statistics could be reduced were there a greater emphasis on safety. Nonetheless, what these statistics teach us is that people will continue to die on our public roads and highways in accidents involving commercial trucks and in situations involving high speed pursuits. We believe that these statistics prove that there is a greater need for regulation, not less, in both areas. While the current regulatory environment is not conducive to public safety, it appears that the best available tool to address these safety issues remains litigation. As the saying goes, “if you hit them in the pocketbook, maybe they’s start paying attention.” Because regulators have a “non-regulatory” free market approach today, trial lawyers today have the best chance of anyone to hold these companies accountable for their negligent acts.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Police Chases , Truck and Tractor Trailer Accidents

Bookmark:

Just this past year, our firm handled several boating accident cases which illustrate the dangerous nature of this recreational activity. In one case, a female skier was pulled into a small cove by the operator of the ski boat with such speed and force that she was pulled onto the shore and thrown into some trees with resulting and very serious personal injuries. In another case, a child being pulled on a tube was pulled in front of another boat and the child was killed. These cases continue to demonstrate the need for boat owners in Georgia to operate their boats in safe and responsible manner.

According to statistics made available by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, each year there are in excess of 150 boating accidents in Georgia. In 2004, for example, there were 13 boating accident-related fatalities in Georgia alone. 339 DUI arrests were made by Georgia and DNR Conservation Rangers. Thus, as summer boating approaches, with an estimated 300,000 Georgia boat owners preparing to launch, the operative words we would like to stress are: safety and responsibility.

All Georgia boaters should familiarize themselves with Georgia boating laws, watch their speed, and where appropriate, designate a driver. There are just as many drunk drivers on the lakes as there are on the roads. Safety must always be a prime consideration when engaging in this recreational activity. All we can hope is that we will see fewer cases this year than last because experience indicates that when we do see these types of cases they are usually very serious.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

For years, cities enjoyed sovereign immunity under the law and could not be sued if negligent. This has been relaxed under recent statutory provisions with respect to city motor vehicles. For most motor vehicles operated by and on behalf of city employees, municipalities are now required to carry liability insurance in the amount of $250,000 because of bodily injury or death to any one person and $450,000 for any one occurrence. While this amount is woefully inadequate for true serious injury cases or cases involving wrongful death, nonetheless, it is certainly an improvement over complete sovereign immunity. Effective January 1, 2008, O.C.G.A. § 36-92-2 mandates that municipal governments in Georgia carry a minimum of $500,000 because of bodily injury or death of any one person with an aggregate amount of $700,000 because of any one occurrence. Again, these amounts are completely inadequate for the truly serious and catastrophic claim but nonetheless a welcome improvement over what the law was previously.

Another area of law where there is still an opportunity for victims of negligence to recover against municipalities are those situations where a pedestrian is injured because of a defect in a city sidewalk or street. O.C.G.A. § 36-33-1(b) provides that municipalities shall not be liable for failure to perform their legislative or judicial power. For neglect to perform or improper unskillful performance of their ministerial duties, they shall be liable. The Georgia courts have held that a municipalities function of maintaining its streets and sidewalks in a safe condition is ministerial in nature. Thus, there is no sovereign immunity for such claims, nor any cap on damages. Nonetheless, a municipality is still relieved from liability resulting from the defect in a public road or sidewalk “when it has no actual knowledge thereof or when such defect has not existed for a sufficient length of time for notice thereof to be inferred.” See, O.C.G.A. § 32-4-93(a). For those who are injured on a city sidewalk or street due to a defect in the public thoroughfare, implied or constructive notice of a defect may be shown in a variety of ways, for example, testimony as to how long the defect had existed prior to the accident or objective evidence that the defect had existed over time. The Georgia courts have held that the term defect set forth in the statute cited relative to the duties and obligations of municipalities includes “defects brought about by any force of nature and by persons which render the [streets] and sidewalks unsafe and include objects adjacent to and suspended over the streets and sidewalks, the presence of which renders the use of these thoroughfares more hazardous.”

In Georgia, as noted, a city has no sovereign immunity for claims arising out of defects in its sidewalks and streets provided the notice of the defect is shown either via actual notice to the city or constructive notice. With respect to automobile claims, while such claims can be bought, they are limited to the recovery amounts set forth above. All other claims are still barred with the possible exception of claims based on a public nuisance theory. If a plaintiff can show that he or she was injured as a result of the city’s maintenance of the public nuisance, once again, there is no sovereign immunity for such cases. Thus, in Georgia, while there is still some possibility of an innocent victim receiving some redress for injuries sustained as a result of the negligence of a municipality, it is still an uphill battle. Regrettably, most citizens are unaware of these restrictions on their rights and only when they sustain personal injury in the truest sense of the word (personal injury) do they become aware of these restrictions. Until the legislature acts to relax the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the best that any law firm like ours can do is to work within the existing constraints of the law to protect the rights of those injured by city employees.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Civil Procedure

Bookmark:

The State Tort Claims Act waives the state of Georgia’s immunity from suit in the courts of this state. See O.C.G.A. § 50-21-23. This is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity and the most that any single claimant can recover against the State is $1 million. See O.C.G.A. § 50-21-29. By the terms of the State Tort Claims Act, the limited waiver of immunity only applies to the State and its agencies and departments. O.C.G.A. § 50-21-22(5). The State Tort Claims Act expressly includes claims against cities, counties and local government authorities.

Just as there are ante litem “minefields” that exist under Georgia law relative to claims against municipalities and counties, there is also an ante litem notice requirement under the State Tort Claims Act. These requirements are detailed in the statute and read as follows:

(1) Notice of a claim shall be given in writing within 12 months of the date the loss was discovered or should have been discovered; . . . ;

(2) Notice of a claim shall be given in writing and should be mailed by certified mail or statutory overnight delivery, return receipt requested, or delivered personally to and a receipt obtained from the Risk Management Division of the Department of Administrative Services. In addition, copies shall be delivered personally to or mailed by first class mail to the state government entity, the act or omission of which are asserted as the basis of the claim. Each state government entity may designate an office or officer within that state government entity to whom a notice of claim is to be delivered or mailed;

(3) No action against the state under this article shall be commenced and the court shall have no jurisdiction thereon unless and until a written notice of the claim has been timely presented to the state as provided in this subsection;

(4) Any complaint filed pursuant to this article must have a copy of the notice of claim presented to the Department of Administrative Services together with a certified mail or statutory overnight delivery receipt or receipt of other delivery attached as exhibits. If failure to attach such exhibits to the complaint is not completed within 30 days after the state raises such issue by motion, then the complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice; and

(5) A notice of claim under this code section shall state to the extent of the claimant’s knowledge and belief and as may be practicable under the circumstances, the following:

(A) The name of the state government entity the acts or omissions of which are asserted as the basis of the claim;

(B) The time of the transaction or occurrence out of which the loss arose;

(C) The place of the transaction or occurrence;

(D) The nature of the loss suffered;

(E) The amount of the loss claimed; and

(F) The acts or omissions which caused the loss.

Even a cursory review of this statute indicates that it is extremely important that it be meticulously followed. Failure to scrupulously observe the statute’s requirements could result in the claim being rendered invalid by the courts. As is true in situations involving claims against municipalities and/or counties, it is important that citizens injured by state actors confer with counsel as soon as possible in order to preserve their legal rights to seek redress for their injuries and damages.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Civil Procedure

Bookmark:

While most serious injury lawyers are aware of the ante litem provisions that exist under Georgia law, most lay persons are not. Thus, injured persons with valid claims against either city or county governments can through inaction sabotage such claims unwittingly just because of their ignorance of the arcane provisions found in the ante litem statutes of Georgia law. An ante litem notice simply means notice before litigation is commenced. With respect to cities, O.C.G.A. § 36-33-5 requires written notice to a Georgia municipality within six months of the event giving rise to the claim. This code section reads as follows:

“Within six months of the happening of the event upon which a claim against a municipal corporation is predicated, the person, firm or corporation having the claim shall present the claim in writing to the governing authority of the municipal corporation for adjustment stating the time, place and extent of the injury as nearly as practicable and the negligence which caused the injury. No action shall be entertained by the courts against the municipal corporation until the cause of action therein has first been presented to the governing authority for adjustment.”

Without being fancy about it, what this ante litem statute does is actually to shorten the statute of limitations for negligence claims against municipal authorities. If an individual has a claim against a city but does not act within six months, he or she can lose all of their legal rights. Thus, it is crucial for those who have claims against municipalities to confer with counsel as soon as possible and to make sure that a written ante litem notice is provided to the municipality involved.
As set forth in the statute cited, the ante litem notice must be given to the city itself. Notice to a city’s insurance company is not sufficient. While an ante litem notice does not have to be as specific or detailed as a formal written complaint or lawsuit, nonetheless, it has to be sufficient enough for the city to investigate it and determine whether it might be in the city’s best interest to address such a claim. While such claims are routinely denied, and while the alleged purpose and efficacy of the ante litem notice in that regard is highly questionable, nonetheless, this statute must be observed otherwise the claim lapses as a matter of law and no lawsuit can be brought against the municipality no matter how negligent the city’s conduct may be.

Continue reading "HIDDEN MINEFIELDS AND TRAPS FOR THE UNWARY " »

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Civil Procedure

Bookmark:

"Respect for life" can take many forms, and "Road Safe America" packs a powerful message about protecting lives from needless deaths on American roads.

I met Steve Owings, a member my church, on Tuesday to learn about how his life has changed since his son died when he was struck from behind by a speeding tractor-trailer in a horrible--and preventable--trucking "accident" in 2002. Brothers Cullum and Pierce Owens had almost finished their drive back to college after Thanksgiving break, when a large truck on "cruise control" set at more than 70 mph slammed into them in stopped traffic. Cullum died at his brother's side.

This father's mission now is to prevent similar tragedies for other families. He is working for common sense changes to cause the trucking industry in the United States to operate with safety measures that are used with success elsewhere in the civilized world. And he is making progress--but can use some help. With Steve's permission, I am helping spread the word quickly about his efforts through this blog--and will continue to help accomplish Road Safe America's goals to protect lives over time.

Like any father, I could not imagine what Steve and Susan Owings have felt since hearing from their surviving son of Cullum's death on the highway. Their commitment now to seeing changes made to protect other lives could not be clearer.

They describe Road Safe America's goals as including:

Educating truck drivers and others about the risks of trucks and passenger vehicles sharing our nation's highways;

"Honoring" the companies, officials and others who help us achieve our mission.

The Owings are being listened to, both by reputable trucking companies that largely support their efforts, and by the government. Steve Owings has been appointed to FMCSA's Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee. Their Petition to require speed governors limiting tractor-trailers to 68 mph is in the administrative process, with substantial support of reputable trucking companies.

With Steve's permission, we are linking to this moving video about how he and Susan are making sure other deaths can be prevented by these safety changes, which we will explain in a later post.

We will explain more about Road Safe America and its progress on future posts. We admire Steve and Susan Owings for what they are doing to protect lives in the future.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Truck and Tractor Trailer Accidents , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

In a case decided April 30, 2007, entitled Scott v. Harris, the United States Supreme Court held that a suspect fleeing from the police during a high speed police chase case has no Fourth Amendment right to be protected from the use of excessive force by the police against them. As we interpret this case, essentially, what this means is that a suspect assumes the risk of injury by the police during a police chase case.

In the Harris case, a 19 year old was fleeing from the police and the police employed a “pit maneuver” in order to knock the suspect’s car off the road. The pit maneuver is one in which the police hit the corner of the fleeing car with their car in order to force it off the road. In this case, when the suspect’s car left the road, it crashed rendering him a quadriplegic.

Harris filed suit against the police officer alleging that the officer had violated his Fourth Amendment rights against the use of excessive force. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the police office did not violate the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights by utilizing the contested pit maneuver.

In ruling against the claimant, the Supreme Court noted that he intentionally placed himself and the public in danger by unlawfully engaging in a reckless high speed flight. The Court obviously concluded that it was not reasonable for Harris to take the action that he took and that the deputy (Timothy Scott) was authorized to terminate the chase with force because of the suspect’s danger to the public. The Court specifically ruled that a police officer’s attempt to terminate a dangerous high speed chase that threatened the lives of the public did not violate the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights even if the maneuver utilized by the police placed the fleeing suspect at risk of serious injury or death.

Continue reading "THE SUPREME COURT RULES AGAINST FLEEING SUSPECT IN POLICE CHASE CASE" »

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Police Chases

Bookmark:

As has been widely reported in the media, in order to increase profits and decrease expenses, many United States corporations have converted their traditional pension retirement plans to 401(K) plans. Under the traditional pension plans offered to most employees by corporations in the past, employees would obtain retirement benefits after a certain number of years of service. Benefits were typically calculated based upon the number of years of the employment with the company and based on the employee’s annual pay. Some of the new plans that are being offered corporate America, however, involve cash balance plans which combines some of the attributes of a private 401(K) plan and a pension plan. Regrettably, many companies are converting the old defined benefit retirement plans to cash balance defined benefit plans at employee expense. Litigation has already commenced in Federal District Court in a variety of jurisdictions in which it is alleged that companies have improperly calculated employee benefits under the new cash balance plans and during the conversion process have essentially defrauded employees by reducing the benefits they would otherwise have received.

If you are any member of your family is recently retired and the company for whom they were employed has converted a defined benefit retirement plan to a cash balance defined benefit plan, such an employee or family member may wish to consult with an attorney to make sure that the calculation of their retirement benefits is made according to the requirements of the law. Regrettably, even though the law requires an accurate accounting for the conversion process, given the large amounts of money involved, some corporations have attempted to cheat their employees by calculating benefits in a manner favorable to the corporate entity and not to the employee. This practice needs to be addressed in litigation and as indicated, litigation has already commenced in several districts in which the regrettable practice of improper calculation of the employee benefits has occurred.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Whistleblower Cases

Bookmark:

Asbestos products, which have been used primarily for insulation purposes, have long been known to be dangerous. Nonetheless, exposure to asbestos still presents a danger to anyone performing maintenance, repair or demolition work in any structure containing asbestos. Unfortunately, it has been well documented that the Asbestos industry was well aware of the fact that exposure to asbestos could cause cancer. Mesothelioma is a form of cancer specifically caused by exposure to asbestos. It is difficult to diagnose and hard to treat. It occurs typically in the lining of the lungs or heart. Unfortunately, this form of cancer has a very poor prognosis if diagnosed late.
Mesothelioma can cause a variety of symptoms and like other forms of cancer, can be difficult to diagnose because its early symptoms are so non-specific. Many people with this type of cancer have had long term symptoms of a general nature (shortness of breath, fever, sweating, coughs, etc.) but are only diagnosed a few months before the cancer is detected often by which time it has rapidly advanced and the prognosis for survival is poor.

Unfortunately, workers who were exposed to asbestos early in their lives are just now beginning to discover that they have this malignant form of cancer. Obviously, any client with this condition should see their doctor immediately because this cancer can be deadly. From a legal standpoint; however, because Mesothelioma is a cancer that is specifically caused by exposure to asbestos, legal remedies still exist for those individuals unfortunate enough to have previously been exposed to this dangerous and cancer causing product. While this cancer may take years to develop, once it does develop, it can now be specifically identified through modern medical techniques. New treatments are available but to be effective a timely diagnosis is critical.

If you or any member of your family know that they have been diagnosed with this terrible form of cancer, not only should a doctor be consulted immediately, legal advice should be sought as well because it is a virtual certainty that this cancer was caused by exposure to asbestos products. Because the manufacturers of asbestos have long known that asbestos was carcinogenic, legal remedies are still available to claimants.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Products Liability

Bookmark: