Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

The World Health Organization issued its first guidelines on Tuesday aimed at reducing complications and deaths from the rising numbers of operations now being performed. Many who read the checklist will react by wondering why hospitals and surgeons have not been doing this for years.

The guidelines are a list of simple safety checks that the health organization said could halve the rate of surgical complications. The list is intended to improve anesthetic safety practices, avoid infections and improve communication among members of surgical teams.

One guideline calls for all members of the masked surgical team to identify themselves and their roles and ask simple questions like, “Does everyone agree that this is Patient X, undergoing a hernia repair?”

Other recommendations call for marking the correct site for surgery to avoid operating on the wrong patient or performing the wrong procedure; giving an antibiotic within 60 minutes of making an incision, to reduce infections; checking for allergies to drugs; inserting two intravenous lines for operations involving substantial blood loss; and counting sponges and needles to ensure that none are left in a patient.

The surgical guidelines grew out of a similar checklist aimed at reducing infections in hospitals. The infection guidelines were developed by Dr. Peter J. Pronovost of Johns Hopkins University, who borrowed the idea from the aviation industry.

Three countries — Britain, Ireland and Jordan — have said they will put the surgery guidelines in force in all hospitals, Professional groups endorsing checklists include the American College of Surgeons, the American Society of Anesthesiology and the Association of Perioperative Registered Nurses.

Earlier this year our Atlanta attorneys settled a wrongful death case involving a bicycle accident which occurred inside the city limits. In that particular case, the bicycle rider, who lost his life, became entangled with loose utility wires hanging from a utility pole near a busy intersection on Peachtree Street. The evidence established that the utility wires had been in a state of disarray for several months but had not been repaired. Unfortunately, this wrongful death case is not an isolated incident. Just this past week, we were retained to represent an individual who may be paralyzed for life due to a road hazard apparently caused by the negligence of the general contractor, subcontractors and/or the Georgia Department of Transportation .

When roadways and bridges are designed by public authorities, obviously, where it is foreseeable that one riding a bicycle may use the roadway, it is necessary that precautions be taken to protect bicycle riders from serious injuries. As an example, a storm drain that runs parallel to the road is a hazard. If a bicyclist’s tires should fall into the storm drain and the drain runs parallel with the road, not perpendicular to it, obviously the cyclist could be thrown from his or her bike if the wheels of the bicycle fall into the drain. Similarly, if there are expansion joints in the road over bridges where there is a 1-3" gap in the road, the tire of a bicycle can fall into the gap again causing the bicyclist to fall and sustain serious injury. Thus, it is imperative that when roadways are designed that the safety of all users of the road be protected, particularly those who are the most vulnerable to serious injury which many times includes those riding bicycles and motorcycles.

Those riding bicycles know that when they go out on the road that they need to be extremely careful of other motorists. Drunk drivers abound and there are multiple hazards along the side of roadways. To find a hazard in the roadway or immediately adjacent to it, however, is not normally anticipated by the average rider. When a loose utility wire, an improperly installed storm grade or unguarded expansion joint is allowed to exist, serious injury and even death is foreseeable. Such conditions should not exist but sadly they do. Regrettably, it may very well be that litigation is the best tool available to address these safety failures. If significant money damages are awarded in such cases, those responsible for the safety hazards will be “hit in the pocketbook” and hopefully will be deterred from similar acts of negligence. Even if deterred from future acts this is little comfort for the present day victim of a preventable injury. Nonetheless, if it takes litigation to encourage safety reforms and prevent future injuries, so be it.

Georgia Court Watch is a project of Georgia Watch, a nonprofit and nonpartisan group committed to strengthening the rights of consumers in Georgia. It has recently issued its annual report on Georgia appellate courts. The reports shows that, contrary to the statements of many politicians, the Georgia Appellate judges are not activists and not overly consumer friendly.

The report analyzed the activity on payday loan, insurance coverage, medical misdiagnosis, and other significant consumer issues. The “2007 Annual Report” identifies and profiles the most noteworthy consumer-related decisions released by the appellate courts throughout the year, and identifies emerging trends.

“Many of the decisions reached by the state Supreme Court and Court of Appeals significantly impact the rights that consumers have under law,” said Georgia Watch Executive Director Allison Wall. “Georgia Watch launched this project to provide ongoing, thoughtful, fact-based analysis.”

Notable consumer cases discussed include:

Glenn v. State, a case in which the court upheld Georgia’s Payday Lending Law. Two individuals convicted of issuing payday loans argued that the statewide ban on payday lending was unconstitutionally vague and did not specifically prohibit the schemes they utilized in issuing loans, such as a “sales-leaseback” of a cell phone or coffee maker. The lenders also claimed they were not subject to the ban because they were located out-of-state.

Kaminer v. Canas, in which the court upheld the two-year statute of limitations for medical misdiagnosis, regardless of futures failures to properly diagnosis, even in the presence of a patient’s additional or significantly worsened symptoms. In Georgia, a claim must be filed within two years of the date of the first misdiagnosis, whether or not the patient knows they have been misdiagnosed. In Kaminer v. Canas, the patient unsuccessfully argued that repeated misdiagnosis over a decade of treatment by multiple medical providers should have restarted the statute of limitations.

Dees v. Logan, in which the court established that insurance companies are prohibited from creating offset clauses to reduce the amount owed to drivers who purchased uninsured motorist (UM) insurance. Offsets deny policyholders benefits already purchased that are needed to cover medical and property damage resulting from an accident with an underinsured driver. The court ruled that insurance policies containing offsets for personal injury benefits are in conflict with Georgia’s Uninsured Motorist Act. This year, the Georgia General Assembly responded to this decision by passing Senate Bill 276, which expressly permits insurance carriers to use offsets for workers’ compensation benefits, effectively overturning part of this decision. SB 276 also expanded drivers’ access to UM coverage.

In our personal injury practice we are oftentimes astounded at the lack of understanding by the public of the important nature of uninsured motorist coverage. Many people do not know what uninsured motorist coverage is. Regrettably, many people learn what it is too late to benefit from such important insurance coverage.

In order to get license tags to lawfully operate a vehicle in Georgia, the motorist must have a minimum of $25,000.00 in liability insurance coverage per person, $50,000.00 per accident. What this means is that if a motorist runs a stop sign and injures an individual, they must have liability insurance coverage that will pay a minimum of $25,000.00 in damages to the injured individual. As anyone knows with today’s rising medical costs, however, if anyone is seriously injured, $25,000.00 will not be adequate to compensate the injured individual much less pay medical expenses. Thus, an uninsured motorist can even include those who are underinsured as the term uninsured motorist under Georgia law includes both motorists who have no insurance coverage whatsoever, that being their insurance policies have lapsed or have been cancelled or never procured to begin with and those who have minimal coverage but have far less coverage than is needed for damages caused by their negligent acts..

Uninsured motorist coverage applies to a situation where someone is injured by an at fault motorist who either has no insurance at all or has minimal insurance coverage which is insufficient to address the damages caused by the negligent acts. If a drunk driver is illegally driving with no insurance and seriously injures someone, there is no insurance through the drunk driver and there will be no insurance for the injured individual unless they were prudent enough to purchase uninsured motorist coverage to protect themselves. Uninsured motorist coverage protects the injured individual through their own policy as uninsured motorist coverage is a part of everyone’s policy should they choose to purchase it. While it is not required to be covered as part of one’s policy, under Georgia law it is very important that if the family’s budget can afford it, that optional uninsured motorist coverage should be purchased.

In a hypothetical case where a serious injury occurs and someone, say loses their leg, obviously, the medical expenses in such a serious case could be hundreds of thousands of dollars. Lost wages could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Life altering serious injuries could result and far reaching financial implications, not to mention significant pain and suffering for the innocent victim. If the injured individual had a $1 million uninsured motorist policy, even if the person causing the limb amputation had no insurance or only had the minimum limits required by law, the injured individual could still recover up to $1 million in benefits through their own uninsured motorist coverage. Thus, whether uninsured motorist coverage be purchased at the rate of $50,000.00, $100,000.00, $250,000.00 or more the fact remains that such coverage can be very, very important for the individual who is seriously injured through the negligent acts of a third party such as the hypothetical drunk driver.

We would encourage all readers of this blog to meet with their insurance agents and go over the available costs attendant to procuring uninsured motorist coverage under their own insurance policies. It is very important that such coverage exists when serious injuries occur. Regrettably, we have seen far too many cases, including those involving wrongful death cases, where there is little or no insurance available through the insurance coverage for the at fault person and regrettably our client had no uninsured motorist coverage. We hope to see fewer of these cases in the future.

Our personal injury lawyers have seen closed head injuries in every locale surrounding metropolitan Atlanta whether it be Austell, Snellville, Roswell, Alpharetta, Jonesboro, Sandy Springs or the other numerous locales near the city. Victims of closed head injuries oftentimes have the most serious injuries we confront due to swelling of the brain caused by the trauma. What we have learned from taking numerous medical depositions and researching these claims is that a serious head injury can have profound consequences for the victim in situation where there is no skull fracture, per se, but rather merely “a closed head injury.” A closed head injury occurs when the brain is shaken within the skull itself. The brain is subjected to trauma when the bicyclist falls off the bike onto the pavement and strikes his head or when the pedestrian is hit by the car and lands on the road, again striking their head. However an accident occurs, when a victim’s head is injured, if the skull is not fractured, all of the trauma is contained within the skull. This is why it is called a closed head injury, because there is no open wound or opening of the skull via a fracture. If the trauma to the head and skull are severe enough, the brain can swell inside the skull (with no place to go) which can cause permanent brain damage sometimes leading to a coma, a stroke or paralysis.

We have seen innumerable closed head injury cases which have had life altering consequences for the victims of such injuries. Sometimes these injuries are difficult to initially diagnose because there is no skull fracture or other obvious injury. However, if the victim begins manifesting problems with memory, speech and/or cognitive abilities, the medical profession then begins to investigate the cause of these problems which typically leads to an MRI of the brain. Sometimes the MRI will show the swelling and sometimes it will not. Sometimes a neuropsychological evaluation is necessary to make a proper diagnosis. The fact remains that head injuries can lead to serious brain injuries, which in turn, can lead to life altering consequences for the victims of “closed head injuries.”

If you or any loved one has been subjected to trauma due to the negligence of a third party and you have sustained a closed head injury, it is obviously imperative that you be seen by a doctor who has considerable experience in dealing with such cases. The same is true for any attorney employed to investigate and represent the victim of a negligent act which caused such an injury. If there is to be an adequate financial recovery in such cases, there must be an adequate understanding of the significance of the injury and the difficulty in treating it. In short, closed head injuries are usually very serious and must be investigated promptly and handled with the utmost care and diligence. Not only does one need competent medical assistance in these cases, if there is a claim to be brought against a negligent third party, competent legal counsel is also imperative for the victims of such injuries.

In metropolitan Atlanta, our lawyers are seeing more and more pedestrian personal injury cases. Due to congested conditions caused by increasing population and more motorists on the road, as might be expected, there are more incidents involving pedestrians. Many cases involve situations where pedestrians are not in walking in crosswalks and are struck while crossing a road, sometimes in broad daylight. Other cases involve pedestrians crossing the road at night when they are difficult to see. Other cases involve joggers and people on sidewalks who are injured due to third party negligence. As might be imagined, these cases are typically very serious because when a pedestrian who has no protection is struck by a car, the injury is likely to be a very bad one.

In Georgia, every driver of a vehicle has duty to exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon a roadway and shall exercise proper precautions upon observing any child or obviously confused, incapacitated or intoxicated person. This law is found at O.C.G.A. § 40-6-93. The courts have held that this statute establishes that motorists on the highways must exercise ordinary care to both discover and avoid persons in the roadway.

Georgia is a comparative negligence jurisdiction which means that if the pedestrian fails to exercise proper care for their own safety then the jury can consider that in apportioning damages between the pedestrian and the at fault motorist. If a pedestrian is more negligent than the at fault motorist, the claim will be barred by the doctrine of contributory negligence. If the pedestrian is negligent but not as negligent as the motorist who causes the injury, then the negligent motorist can still be held liable but their liability is reduced by the percentage of the negligent pedestrian.

As these cases are always factually specific, it is imperative when serious injuries are involved that family members look after their loved ones by associating counsel at the earliest opportunity so that there can be an adequate investigation of the facts and so that witnesses with knowledge of the facts can be located and interviewed. These cases always turn on the facts so the more facts that are gathered, the better the analysis of the facts and the more likely it is that justice can be done either for the motorist who may or may not have been negligent and/or for the injured pedestrian.