Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

In 2006, a disabled and brain damaged man, near death, was taken into an operating room at a California hospital in order to harvest his organs for donation. Law enforcement officials contend that what occurred in the operating room was a criminal act. The surgeon, Dr. Hootan Roozrokh has been criminally charged with prescribing excessive and improper doses of drugs, apparently in an attempt to hasten Mr. Navarro’s death to retrieve his organs sooner. The doctor is facing three felony counts relating to his actions

Central to the case is whether Dr. Roozrokh was pursuing organs at any cost or had become entangled in a web of misunderstanding about a lesser-used harvesting technique known as donation after cardiac death. Dr. Roozrokh has pleaded not guilty.

Transplanting organs from patients whose hearts have stopped, or cardiac-death donations, began to go out of vogue in the late 1960s and early ’70s after medical advances like life support and subsequent changes in the legal definition of death made donations from those declared brain dead more efficient. But health officials have encouraged cardiac-death donations in recent years.

There were 670 cardiac-death donations through the first nine months of 2007, the most in any year this decade, according to the United Network for Organ Sharing, which oversees organ allocation. Over the same period, there were 12,553 brain-dead donations, according to the network.
In brain-death donations, the donor is legally dead, but machines keep the organs viable by machines. In cardiac-death donations, after the patient’s ventilator is removed, the heart slows. Once it stops, brain function ceases. Most donor protocols call for a five-minute delay before the patient is declared dead. Transplant teams are not allowed in the room of the potential donor before that.

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

Posted In: Medical Malpractice

Bookmark:

Last Wednesday the Supreme Court of the United States made it harder for injury and wrongful death victims to sue manufacturers of federally approved medical devices. This decision will also impact cases involving dangerous drugs. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Estate of Charles Riegel could sue a company under state law over a medical device which had previously been cleared for sale by federal regulators. Under federal law, a company must prove the safety and effectiveness of a medical device before the United States Food and Drug Administration will approve it for the marketplace. In an 8 to 1 decision, the Court ruled against the Estate of the injured patient who suffered serious injuries when a catheter burst during a medical procedure. As a result of this Supreme Court decision, state lawsuits are barred to the extent that they might impose requirements that are different from federal requirements. In other words Federal law will prempt state law where the two are in conflict or different. Not surprisingly, the Bush Administration sided with the medical device industry, saying unfavorable state jury verdicts would force companies to alter product designs or product labels that had already gotten FDA approval. This case is bad news for people injured by defective medical devices. The fallout from last week’s Supreme Court decision in this case will no doubt be felt throughout the country. Attorneys with cases pending against device makers such as Medtronic, Stryker and Johnson & Johnson expect these companies to file Motions to Dismiss the lawsuits which are currently pending. Lawyers also are concerned that this ruling may prompt judges to dismiss product-injury lawsuits before injured plaintiffs can gain access to data that might prove that the companies used false or misleading data to get government approval to market the devices.

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

Posted In: Dangerous Drugs , Pharmaceutical Manufacturer Liability , Products Liability

Bookmark:

Truck driver fatigue is a factor in a significant number of truck accidents involving deaths and other injuries, according to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the government agency generally in charge of promoting trucking safety. Consistent with the Bush administration’s continuing policy of protecting the interests of big business (at the expense of the public), in 2004, the federal government catered to the trucking industry and its lobby by changing the rules concerning hours that a trucker may drive. The rules actually increased the permissible driving hours and resulting trucker fatigue hazard. An article on the Insurance Institute For Highway Safety (IIHS) website even pointed out that since those new hours - in-service rules went into effect, truckers have been driving more hours and falling asleep more frequently.

Bureaucrats changing the rules, meant to protect the public, to circumvent congressional intent are nothing new to the current administration. We have seen similar conduct with respect to agencies like the Federal Drug Association (FDA). For instance, in January of this year, the FDA issued a proposed rule which directly contradicts Congress’ expressed intent when it passed the Food and Drug Administration Amendment’s Act of 2007 (FDAAA). Unlike the FDA’s proposed rule, Congress intended the duty to warn customers of a drug’s hazards rests with the drug company, who is in the best position to warn about problems associated with the drug. However, under the FDA rule, drug companies will enjoy more relaxed labeling requirements and will use the rule to claim immunity for failing to warn patients of potential drug hazards.

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

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Truck and Tractor Trailer Accidents

Bookmark:

Atlanta TV stations are reporting that this afternoon, a car veered into a bus stop during a police chase and struck four pedestrians. The incident was near Metropolitan Parkway and University Drive.

According to reports, the Atlanta Police were chasing three juveniles in a stolen vehicle when the car ran into the bus stop. One juvenile was apprehended at the scene while two others escaped.

Four of the people involved were injured, one critically. This is another instance of innocent civilians harmed and/or killed by police chases for non-violent offenses. The victims could have easily been your family members.

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

Posted In: Police Chases

Bookmark:

In January of this year, the FDA issued a proposed rule which directly contradicts Congress’ expressed intent when it passed the Food and Drug Administration Amendment’s Act of 2007 (FDAAA). Unlike the FDA’s proposed rule, Congress intended the duty to warn customers of a drug’s hazards rests with the drug company, who is in the best position to warn about problems associated with the drug. However, under the FDA rule, drug companies will enjoy more relaxed labeling requirements and will use the rule to claim immunity for failing to warn patients of potential drug hazards. The FDAAA requires a drug company to update its label to include drug hazard warnings as soon as there is reasonable evidence of that risk. This law allows consumers to be aware of a drug’s potential risks at the earliest possible moment and prevents injuries and deaths such as those associated with Avandia and Vioxx. However, under the new FDA rule, drug companies will only have to revise their warning label where they establish “sufficient evidence of a causal association” which could take years. This is a significantly higher standard that drug companies would have to meet before informing consumers of a potential hazard. It is imperative that Congress hold oversight hearings to curb this agency’s abuse of power because the FDA has ignored expressed Congressional intent and this proposed rule will not serve to make drugs safer. Instead the proposed rule will make it more difficult for consumers injured by prescription drugs to hold negligent drug companies accountable.

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

Posted In: Dangerous Drugs , Pharmaceutical Manufacturer Liability , Products Liability

Bookmark:

Two studies have concluded that heart surgery patients are more likely to die if given the anti-bleeding drug Trasylol. The drug has been widely used for the last 14 years to treat hundreds of thousands of heart bypass patients each year. Drug manufacturer Bayer AG ceased sales of the last fall, after a Canadian study was halted because of deaths among patients taking Trasylol.

The new studies are being published this week in the New England Journal of Medicine. Bayer funded one of the two new studies, and had the preliminary results before a September 2006 federal hearing on the drug's safety. It did not present the results at the hearing.

The company issued a statement this week saying both the new studies are flawed.

"I just don't know how much further evidence you need," said Dr. Sidney Wolfe of Public Citizen's Health Research Group. Federal health officials should pursue criminal charges against Bayer for withholding information from its own study from the FDA panel in 2006, Wolfe said.

Trasylol was used in heart bypass surgeries to control bleeding. The FDA approved it in 1993 after studies showed its clotting powers clearly reduced the need for blood transfusions, and it became a top choice for surgeons.

Bayer officials still say they believe Trasylol's benefits outweigh its risks when used properly. The company said it's waiting for the final results of the Canadian study before deciding whether to permanently suspend the drug's sales.

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

Posted In: Pharmaceutical Manufacturer Liability

Bookmark:

Two studies have concluded that heart surgery patients are more likely to die if given the anti-bleeding drug Trasylol. The drug has been widely used for the last 14 years to treat hundreds of thousands of heart bypass patients each year. Drug manufacturer Bayer AG ceased sales of the last fall, after a Canadian study was halted because of deaths among patients taking Trasylol.

The new studies are being published this week in the New England Journal of Medicine. Bayer funded one of the two new studies, and had the preliminary results before a September 2006 federal hearing on the drug's safety. It did not present the results at the hearing.

The company issued a statement this week saying both the new studies are flawed.

"I just don't know how much further evidence you need," said Dr. Sidney Wolfe of Public Citizen's Health Research Group. Federal health officials should pursue criminal charges against Bayer for withholding information from its own study from the FDA panel in 2006, Wolfe said.

Trasylol was used in heart bypass surgeries to control bleeding. The FDA approved it in 1993 after studies showed its clotting powers clearly reduced the need for blood transfusions, and it became a top choice for surgeons.

Bayer officials still say they believe Trasylol's benefits outweigh its risks when used properly. The company said it's waiting for the final results of the Canadian study before deciding whether to permanently suspend the drug's sales.

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

Posted In: Pharmaceutical Manufacturer Liability

Bookmark:

This Wednesday the Supreme Court issued a major anti-consumer opinion, making it harder for consumers to sue manufacturers of federally approved medical devices.
In an 8-1 decision, the court ruled against the estate of a patient who suffered serious injuries when a catheter burst during a medical procedure. The case has significant implications for the $75 billion-a-year health care technology industry, whose products range from heart valves to toothbrushes.

At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the estate of Charles Riegel could sue a company under state law over a device previously cleared for sale by federal regulators. Under federal law, a company must substantiate the safety and effectiveness of a medical device before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration will approve it for the marketplace.

Charles Riegel's family alleged that the catheter produced by Medtronic Inc. of Fridley, Minn., outside Minneapolis had a design defect and an inadequate warning label. Riegel survived the procedure to unclog an artery, though he had permanent disabilities. He died in 2004.

State lawsuits are barred to the extent they would impose requirements that are different from federal requirements, said the ruling by Justice Antonin Scalia. In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that Congress never intended "a radical curtailment of state common-law lawsuits seeking compensation for injuries caused by defectively designed or labeled medical devices."

Not surprisingly, the Bush administration sided with industry, saying unfavorable state jury verdicts would compel companies to alter product designs or labels that had already gotten FDA approval.

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

Posted In: Pharmaceutical Manufacturer Liability , Products Liability

Bookmark:

Our police chase injury lawyers have handled many cases involving the deaths of innocent civilians due to police chasing suspects for minor crimes. We have previously written about police departments that have adopted restrictive policies limiting chases and decreasing the chances that innocent civilians and police officers can be seriously injured or killed.

On May 30, 2007, in Forestville, Maryland, a police officer was chasing a motorcyclist for speeding. During the chase, the police officer tried to position his car to stop the speeding motorcyclist, but instead hit a civilian car that rolled down an embankment into oncoming traffic. This caused a seven car pile up injuring 15 and killing two innocent civilians. Among the injured were two police officers. The police car camera revealed that the officer was driving at times more than 120 m.p.h. as he drove onto the shoulder and back onto the highway.

Today, the police officer, Scott Campbell, was indicted by a Grand Jury on two counts of vehicular manslaughter for the May 30th crash. The indictment charges that Campbell, started the chase in violation of department policy. The police department policy permits officers to engage in high speed pursuits only if there is probable cause that the suspect used or threatened physical force or is involved in a hit and run accident resulting in serious injury or death.

The department policy states that an officer’s primary concern should be preservation of life, not capturing a suspect.

The indictment of an officer in connection with a police chase is extremely rare.

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

Posted In: Police Chases

Bookmark:

Last year, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a proposed rule which directly contradicts Congress’ expressed intent when it passed the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA), an Act which encompasses the Prescription Drug and User Fee Act. As a result, drug companies will enjoy more relaxed labeling requirements and will surely use the rule to claim immunity for failing to warn patients of potential drug hazards. When Congress passed the FDAAA it included language confirming the responsibility of the drug manufacturer to promptly update its drug label when they become aware of new safety information. Congress was clear that it intended to keep the burden squarely on the drug companies to update warning labels. Nonetheless, the FDA had promulgated this new rule against Congress’ expressed wishes. Congress explicitedly stated that it did not intend to ease the requirements on drug companies to inform consumers of potential drug hazards. It reiterated the need for drug companies to change its label if the drug company learns of reasonable evidence of that risk. In fact, the drug companies fought and lobbied hard to include language to loosen warning label obligations that the Congress specifically left out of the final Bill. But since the drug companies could not get Congress to agree to lessen their responsibilities towards consumers, they turned to the Bush Administration. Unfortunately, the FDA’s tactics are not new to Bush Administration bureaucrats. Unelected federal agencies have been ignoring congressional directives in a number of other cases. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), and others are also engaging in this tactic of bureaucratic activism.

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

Posted In: Dangerous Drugs , Pharmaceutical Manufacturer Liability , Products Liability

Bookmark:

We have previously written about controversial drug advertising that takes place in the United States. Once again, this practice has come to the forefront through Dr. Robert Jarvik, who is best known as the developer of an artificial heart. About two years ago, Dr. Jarvik began appearing in television ads for the drug Lipitor, manufactured by Pfizer.

In the ads, Dr. Jarvik is depicted in various athletic pursuits, such as rowing and running, and tells viewers that Lipitor significantly lowers cholesterol when diet and exercise are not sufficient.

Now, a Congressional Committee has become concerned and is taking preliminary steps to investigate drug advertising, particularly the Lipitor ads. Some critics point out that even though Dr. Jarvik is an M.D., he is not a cardiologist and is not licensed to practice medicine. In fact, people who know Dr. Jarvik have reported that he does not even row. Apparently, a stunt double was hired to portray him in rowing scenes shown in the advertisements.

According to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, it is looking into whether the advertisements give the public a false impression. Lipitor is the world’s single best selling drug. It is estimated it generates sales of over $12.7 billion a year. Recently, however, it has come under competition from cheaper generic drugs. Pfizer has used the Jarvik advertisements to help protect its’ market share. Between January 2006 and September 2007, it is reported that Pfizer spent $258 million advertising Lipitor.

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

Posted In: Pharmaceutical Manufacturer Liability

Bookmark:

The U.S. consumer advocacy group, Public Citizen, has called upon authorities to require that Botox and a similar injections come with strong warnings following reports of 16 deaths and other serious problems after the botulinum toxin spread inside the body. Public Citizen asked U.S. authorities to require the strongest possible warning, highlighted in a "black box," on Allergan Inc's Botox and Solstice Neuroscience Inc's Myobloc.

Botox is used widely to decrease facial wrinkles but also has approved medical uses such as treating cervical dystonia, or rigid neck muscles. Myobloc is cleared only for the neck condition. Both are made with forms of the botulinum toxin, which can paralyze muscles.

Public Citizen reviewed 180 reports submitted to the Food and Drug Administration by manufacturers involving patients injected with Botox or Myobloc. The reports detailed cases of muscle weakness, difficulty swallowing or aspiration pneumonia, a serious condition caused by breathing a foreign material into the lungs.

Sixteen of the cases reported were fatal, including four involving children under 18, Public Citizen said. Some patients were hospitalized.

Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group, said such problems can occur if toxin spreads from the injection site to the esophagus, causing partial paralysis. Instructions for Botox and Myobloc mention the issue but it is easy to miss, he said. He called for the increased warnings to physicians and consumers.

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

Posted In: Pharmaceutical Manufacturer Liability

Bookmark:

Our Atlanta personal injury lawyers know that truck accidents on Georgia’s freeways continue to leave a legacy of death, paralysis, closed head brain damage and other personal injuries for numerous innocent victims.
I have read that almost 5,000 people are killed each year in truck-related crashes. Because of their size and often dangerous pay loads, automobile accidents involving commercial trucks are devastating to pedestrians and occupants of other vehicles. I was recently reading about the increase in Mexican truck traffic on U.S. highways since the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). By way of a little history, a 1982 U.S. ban kept Mexican trucks off most of the highways of our southern border states, leaving truck accidents to the domestic trucking industry. However, even after NAFTA took effect in 1994, the ban held until a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court ruling removed the ban and opened wide the gates to Mexican truck traffic. Despite efforts by consumer organizations concerned about truck accidents, car accidents, exhaust pollution and other public-safety issues, eventually Mexico-based trucks were allowed freely onto America’s roads. Given the likely substandard condition of these trucks, the likely lack of regulation of that industry in Mexico and the likely absence of driver training one has to wonder what the future holds. The reality is that we are all at greater risk of car accidents.

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

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

Bookmark:

There is a well-kept secret of the insurance industry - one unknown to most personal injury victims of car accidents, truck accidents, SUV roll-overs and other motor vehicle crashes: Namely, Georgia state law automatically includes “uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage” (UM/UIM) in the typical auto liability insurance policy. However, in Georgia, that is not the case if the policyholder rejects that coverage in writing at the time the liability coverage is purchased or renewed. Uninsured motorist coverage or Underinsured motorist coverage exists to provide the policyholder (and certain others) with protection from “the other guy” who either has no liability insurance coverage, or has less coverage than the total of all of the personal injury victim’s legal losses - - called “damages” - such as pain and suffering, mental anguish and so on. In Georgia, each policy should have a minimum of $25,000.00 of such UM/UIM coverage.

It has been our experience that uninsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage is usually quite cheap. Given the number of uninsured drivers and drivers with the minimum required coverage ($25,000.00) on Georgia’s roads, this coverage is a bargain. It is our belief that because the coverage is cheap and the chances that they will have to pay uninsured motorist claims is high, insurance companies rarely try to sell this coverage and are more than happy to have you waive your right to the coverage. Never decline uninsured motorist coverage and always try to purchase additional coverage if possible.

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

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

Bookmark:

Our Georgia injury lawyers are accustomed to seeing cases involving horrible injury and cases of death caused by all types of accidents but burn cases are at the top of the list. We were discussing the news accounts today in Savannah reporting that firefighters found three, and perhaps as many as six, bodies in the wreckage of a still-burning sugar refinery leveled by an explosion overnight. In addition to the death cases, dozens of employees have been injured, many critically burned. Officials suspect sugar dust, which can be volatile, as the cause of the explosion. Reportedly the explosion happened in a storage silo where refined sugar is stored until it is packaged.

Obviously all of the injured employees will immediately be entitled to workers compensation benefits, including payment of all medical bills but given the very limited disability benefits available under the workers compensation laws of Georgia, this is very little consolation to the injured. Having litigated products liability cases involving injury and death, we wonder whether there are some third parties who may be liable for this explosion. Surely, this huge sugar refinery was aware of the potential danger posed by sugar dust. Was there a system in place which failed? Was ventilation machinery defective or not properly maintained by third party entities hired by the refinery? All of these questions and more need to be explored in order to adequately protect the interests of injured workers and the families of those who died in this tragedy.

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

Posted In: Premises Liability , Products Liability , Torts , Workers Compensation , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

Truck wrecks occur more often than one would think in and near a busy city like Atlanta. When they do occur people often sustain very serious injuries and many such accidents result in the death of innocent people. The injury lawyers in our firm have “seen it all” when it comes to the causes of these tragedies. These causes run the gamut and include everything from simply not paying attention to driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol. We have even had a case where the driver switched seats with another driver while speeding down an interstate highway with a trailer loaded with steel.

When evaluating an injury or death case a lawyer must consider which theories of liability he will employ to hold the driver and the trucking company responsible. These may include: (1) negligent hiring, entrustment or retention of a driver, (2) negligent inspection, maintenance or repair of the truck and violations of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Many times, insurance companies that insure trucking companies actually make hiring decisions of drivers. Depending on the facts of a case, there may even be a negligent entrustment claim that can be made against the insurance company for the motor carrier. A good lawyer will leave no stone unturned when handling a truck wreck case.

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

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

Bookmark:

This blog will continue in our series of providing our readers with answers to frequently asked questions in the context of a serious injury case. This blog will address FAQ number 10:

10. Is my case likely to settle or will it go to trial and, if so, how long will the process take?

Answer: Over 90% of all serious injury claims are settled by means of compromise. While every case is different and dependent upon the facts involved, most cases do settle but sometimes it takes considerable time to achieve a settlement. This is because there are always unique issues concerning whether the at fault defendant’s liability is indisputably established and whether they have sufficient insurance coverage to pay all damages caused by their negligence. If there is sufficient coverage, and damages are clearly demonstrated, settlements can occur on a quicker basis than those cases where liability is disputed and/or the damages are difficult to assess.

Many times, injured individuals have prior medical histories which complicate settlement discussions. If someone with a bad back is injured in a hypothetical automobile collision, in such a case it is always difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. Was the back already injured such that the new injury merely constituted an aggravation and, if so, to what extent was the problem aggravated by the trauma? These are difficult questions to resolve and many time reasonable men can differ over the value of such claims. The good news, again, is that in 90% of all cases, a compromise is worked out and a settlement achieved.

The time it takes to resolve a serious injury case, again, is dependent upon the facts involved. The clearer the evidence the quicker the settlement. The more ambiguities are involved in the case with respect to the issue of liability for the damages and the damages, the longer the process takes.

Continue reading "Georgia Serious Injury Cases: Frequently Asked Question Number 10" »

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

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

Bookmark: