Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

The Food and Drug Administration has announced plans to revise standards for over-the-counter cough and cold medications for children. The FDA said it will change the criteria that have allowed the products to remain on drugstore shelves . This could result in removal of the products from the market.

The FDA action is in response to increasing concerns that the remedies are ineffective and could be unsafe. Specifically, the action is in response to a petition filed in March 2007 by a group of pediatricians asking the FDA to restrict the use of the products, citing a lack of evidence that they work and mounting evidence they can cause hallucinations, seizures, trouble breathing, heart problems and other complications, including occasionally deaths.
The petition pointed out that the remedies had been allowed to stay on the market because they were approved at time when it was not considered appropriate to test medications directly in children. Instead, studies in adults were extrapolated to children, a practice now considered inadequate, the petition said.

A week before the FDA convened a panel of experts to consider the petition in October 2007, drug manufacturers voluntarily pulled all over-the-counter cough and cold products for children younger than 2.

The panel concluded that there was little evidence the remedies worked for children younger than 12, recommended that they not be used at all in those younger than 6, and called for new research to establish their safety and effectiveness directly in children.
In January, the FDA issued a public health advisory formally warning against using the products on children younger than 2, but it said the agency was still considering what to do about older children.

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

Posted In: Products Liability

Bookmark:

Para representar a las familias de las personas que perdieron la vida en el accidente aereo Spanair JK5022, nuestro bufete juridico esta trabajando con abogados especializados en casos de Litigacion Internacional de choques aereos, ya estan invesigando esta tragedia. Si perdimos familiars en este accidente, estos serian los abogados elegidos para representar a nuestras familias.

Para una consulta gratis, favor de enviar su correo electronico precionando aqui (haga clic aqui).

**********************************************************************************************************
Spanair Flight JK5022: To assist the families of persons who died in the airplane crash of Spanair Flight JK5022, our firm is working with some of the most experienced attorneys in International Air Crash Litigation, who are already investigating this tragedy. If we lost family members in a crash, these are the attorneys we would choose to represent our families.

Please contact us for a free consultation with these experienced attorneys in International Air Crash Litigation.

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

Posted In: Aviation Accidents , Torts , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

In the July 28 issue of Health Services Research, the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) reported that a recently completed study indicates that employers pay out $1.47 billion each year to cover costs for surgical patients incurred from preventable medical errors. The report analyzed data from a nationwide sample of more than 161,00 adult patients who underwent surgery in 2001 and 2002 and were insured by plans provided through their places of employment.

The study focused on 14 preventable errors which included acute respiratory failure, technical problems, infections, pulmonary and vascular problems, metabolic problems, wound problems, and nursing events.

The results revealed that respiratory failure and infections were the most costly. Insurers paid $28,218 and $19,480 extra for surgical patients who experienced these problems as opposed to similar patients who did not. Other costs included $12,196 for nursing events, $11,797 for metabolic events, $7,838 for pulmonary and vascular events and $1,426 for wound problems.

In the group studied, about 1 in 10 deaths occurring within 90 days of surgery were caused by a preventable error.

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

Posted In: Medical Malpractice

Bookmark:

It was reported by the news media on Friday, August 15, 2008 that an innocent motorist was killed on 8/14 when inadvertently caught up in a high speed police chase in Clayton County, Georgia. While the media reports are sketchy, it appears that the fleeing suspect was speeding and driving in an erratic manner. The police began to chase the driver and during the chase, the suspect struck an innocent motorist who was on a motorcycle. As a result, the motorcyclist was killed.

We do not know enough about the facts of this case to assess whether the police chase violated Clayton County’s policies and procedures for high speed pursuits. Nonetheless, Clayton County has a well known track record of having been involved in numerous police chases where serious injuries and deaths have occurred. Our law firm currently has 3 wrongful death suits pending against Clayton County and one serious brain injury case all arising out of high speed police chases. In each of these 4 cases, we have alleged that the pursuing officers recklessly disregarded proper police procedure in their decision to initiate the chase and/or their failure to terminate it after it became clear that the risk of injury or death to innocent third parties caused by the chase outweighed the need to apprehend the suspect.

In this case, it appears that the fleeing suspect was wanted for traffic violations. We have indicated before that the dangers associated with high speed pursuits are so great that unless it is absolutely necessary for the protection of the public to immediately apprehend the suspect, in many cases, termination of the pursuit is the best way to protect innocent third parties from the dangers presented by a chase. In this case, it is clear that the Clayton County officers involved did not terminate their pursuit with the result that yet another innocent third party motorist was killed. As in our other cases, this third party was simply at the wrong place at the wrong time and was doing nothing wrong and yet paid the price for this apprehension with his life. The question again arises. Is the death penalty to the innocent worth the price of catching a suspect who is wanted for mere traffic violations? We have said it before, we say it again: We think not.

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

Posted In: Police Chases

Bookmark:

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a $328,135 jury award to a widow and her son based on her husband's lost chance of recovery resulting from a doctor's negligence in not treating his stomach cancer. This ruling based upon the theory of “loss of chance” damages is being applauded by plaintiffs’lawyers.

The court held that the family could recover even though the victim had less than a 50-percent chance of survival when he first sought treatment. The "loss of chance" doctrine eases the burden for plaintiffs. Under traditional malpractice rules, doctors may only be held liable if their negligence was a substantial factor in the injury or death. Under the "loss of chance" doctrine, a doctor can be liable if his failure to diagnose reduced the patient's chance of survival.
The jury in the case found that the deceased was suffering from stage 2 adenocarcinoma at the time of his first visit to his doctor, who examined him and prescribed over-the-counter medication. A gastroenterologist who testified as an expert for the defense told the jury that stage 2 stomach cancer has a survival rate of 25 to 40 percent.

In its decision, the Massachusetts court noted that a majority of courts which have consider "loss of chance" damages have accepted the doctrine. These states include Arizona, Connecticut, Kansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. The District of Columbia has also approved "loss of chance" damages.

In Michigan and South Dakota, the legislatures have since passed statutes to preclude "loss of chance" actions where the opportunity to survive is less than 50 percent.

The highest courts in Florida, Kentucky, Idaho, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Texas, South Carolina and Vermont, have rejected the doctrine.

The Georgia Court of Appeals appears to he adopted the “loss of chance” doctrine in at least two cases. In Richmond County Hospital Authority Operating University Hospital v. Dickerson, 182 Ga. App. 601, 356 S.E.2d 548(1987), the court held that expert medical testimony that a patient’s chances of survival, even with surgery, were less than 50%, did not preclude a finding of causation. In Dowling v.Lopez, 211 Ga. App. 578, 440 S.E.2d 205 (1993), the Court of Appeals noted that while a wrongful death claim could not include a recovery for “loss of chance,” the claim brought by an estate could bring this theory of recovery.

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

Posted In: Medical Malpractice , Trial Techniques

Bookmark:

To identify the worst insurance companies for consumers, researchers at the American Association for Justice (AAJ) conducted a comprehensive investigation of thousands of
court documents, SEC and FBI records, state insurance department investigations and complaints, news accounts from across the country, and the testimony and depositions
of former insurance agents and adjusters. The AAJ final list includes companies across a range of different insurance fields, including homeowners and auto insurers, health insurers, life insurers, and disability insurers.

Allstate stood out as the worst insurance company for consumers,. The AAJ reported that Allstate’s concerted efforts to put profits over policyholders has earned its place as the worst insurance company in America. According to CEO Thomas Wilson, Allstate’s mission is
clear: “our obligation is to earn a return for our shareholders.” Unfortunately, that dedication to shareholders has come at the expense of policyholders. The company that publicly touts its “good hands” approach privately instructs agents to employ a “boxing gloves” strategy against its own policyholders. A former Allstate adjuster Jo Ann Katzman, reported that “We were told to lie by
our supervisors—it’s tough to look at people and know you’re lying.”

The insurance industry has so much excess cash it may spark a downturn in the industry. According to analysts at Standards & Poor’s, U.S. insurers are sitting on too much capital, and will likely endure at least three years of negative performance as a result.

According to the report, the ten worst insurance companies are:
1. Allstate
2. Unum
3. AIG
4. State Farm
5. Conseco
6. WellPoint
7. Farmers
8. UnitedHealth
9. Torchmark
10. Liberty Mutual

The report pointed out that the U.S. insurance industry takes in over $1 trillion in
premiums annually. It has $3.8 trillion in assets, more than the GDPs of all but two countries in the world. Over the last 10 years, the property/casualty insurance industry has enjoyed average profits of over $30 billion a year. The life and health side of the insurance industry
has averaged another $30 billion.

The CEOs of the top 10 property/casualty firms earned an average $8.9 million in 2007. The CEOs of the top 10 life and health insurance companies earned even more—an average $9.1 million. And for the entire industry, the median insurance CEO’s cash compensation
still leads all industries at $1.6 million per year.

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

Posted In: Insurance Company Abuse

Bookmark:

As Atlanta injury lawyers, we see many accident victims undergo knee and hip replacement surgery every year. Many of these victims are injured as a result of automobile and truck accidents and many result from work related injuries. The fact is nearly one million hips and knees were replaced last year in the United States alone. This represents approximately one-half (½) of the world’s total, making the U.S. the largest provider and user of implants.

Although the Food and Drug Administration is charged with monitoring devices such as artificial joints, the monitoring process is ineffective for several reasons. One reason is the FDA is overwhelmed by the vast number of products that it monitors. Another reason is that there is no system in place by which doctors can report problems with medical devices such as artificial joints. The sad truth is that the United States has no national database to track patients who receive artificial joints. Other nations, including Australia, Britain, Norway and Sweden have national databases which allow the monitoring of these medical devices. In these countries where “joint registries” exist, regulators are able to use data collected by the registry to force manufacturers of artificial joints to justify why poorly performing hips or knees should remain available and, in some cases have provided the data necessary for the complete withdrawal of products from the market.

For many years there have been efforts made to set up an open national registry in the United States; however, these efforts have failed. There are many reasons for this which include 1) medical providers not willing to complete paperwork, 2) fear that plaintiff’s lawyers would use such a database to either find cases or prosecute products liability cases and 3) perhaps because of suspected lucrative financial relationships between orthopaedic surgeons and the manufacturer of these products.

Whatever the reason, it is time for the United States to mandate a national database/joint registry for the protection of the thousands of Americans who undergo joint replacement surgery or procedures. With such a database, the existence of defective artificial joints would become apparent to orthopedic surgeons and their patients sooner rather than later. Early discovery of such defective products would save insurance companies and the government (Medicare) from paying millions of dollars in unnecessary repeat surgical costs and would save the patients from having to endure having to repeat the procedure.

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

Posted In: Products Liability

Bookmark:

We have previously written about the federal government’s new policy restricting Medicare payments to hospitals for the extra care required to treat patients harmed by certain preventable infections and medical errors. Now the federal government is expanding the program in an attempt to to provide hospitals with a financial incentive to improve patient care.

Under the expanded policy, Medicare will not make payments to hospitals for care needed after patients suffer from certain surgical site infections (specifically for total knee replacement, laparascopic gastric bypass and gastroeneterostomoy, and ligation and stripping of varicose veins); deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism (formation/movement of a blood clot); and extreme blood sugar derangement.

Medicare considered adding a number of other hospital acquired conditions to the nonpayment list: staphylococcus aureus septicemia (bloodstream infection); Clostridium difficile associated disease (a bacterium that causes severe diarrhea and more serious intestinal conditions such as colitis); Legionnaires’ disease (a type of pneumonia caused by a specific bacterium); Iatrogenic pneumothorax (collapse of the lung) delirium; and ventilator-associated pneumonia. However, none of these hospital acquired conditions were included in the final nonpayment rules just issued by the agency to be implemented on October 1, 2009.

Last year, Medicare adopted rules to begin the nonpayment policy for certain hospital acquired conditions beginning October 1, 2008. These initial nonpayment rules cover certain urinary tract infections, staph aureaus bloodstream infections, and four other hospital errors unrelated to infections: serious bed sores, objects left in patients’ bodies following surgery, blood incompatibility, and air embolism.

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

Posted In: Medical Malpractice

Bookmark:

On July 1 of this year the state of California provided a great example for the state of Georgia in prohibiting by law drivers in California from holding a phone and talking while driving. Under the new law, a driver is prohibited from talking on a hand held cell phone while driving. Blue tooth handless cell use is permitted. There is also an exception for emergencies under this new law, however, obviously, the law is intended to promote safety awareness by drivers who are oftentimes distracted while talking on their cell phones.

This law should be emulated by every state in the country, not to mention the state of Georgia. Our firm has seen many accidents where the drivers were on their cell phones at the time of the incident. Indeed, we currently have a case where it appears that our client will lose his foot and possibly his leg due to the inattentiveness of a driver who was on her cell phone at the time.

California has been known in the past to lead the way on innovative laws that are designed to promote public safety. Interestingly, the first state to ban handheld cell phones was the state of New York. Both Connecticut and New Jersey also have similar laws on the books. From 2001 to 2006, police in New York have issued almost 1 million citations to motorists for talking on their phones while driving. Obviously, the law is being ignored by many in the driving public. Nonetheless, laws like this will increase public awareness of the dangers and hopefully will decrease driver inattentiveness.

We hope that the Georgia Legislature will soon follow these other states in enacting laws for the protection of Georgia citizens. If not, we feel that we will continue to see serious personal injury and wrongful death cases that could have been prevented.

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

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Torts , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

According to an Article in The Chicago Tribune, the Food and Drug Administration conclusively has linked 3 patient deaths to a foreign substance found in specific lots of Heparin, a drug manufactured by Baxter International. According to the news report, the FDA completed its review of 93 reports of deaths related to Heparin that were received from January through the end of March, a period when there was a huge spike in the potentially deadly allergic reactions from patients who had been injected with this medication. Three (3) of the deaths could be traced to lot numbers of Baxter products that had tested positive for an animal like substance known as oversulfated chondroitin sulfate.

According to Janet Woodcock, Director of the FDA’s Center of Drug Evaluation and Research, “We have what looks like a cause and effect in some patients. We know that they got contaminated Heparin and they died subsequently. This is one of the final links in the chain.”

Baxter recalled this product in February in the wake of the number of allergic reactions reported. Earlier this year, the FDA had announced that there were reports of more than 90 deaths and 1,000 adverse events associated with patients in the U.S. who had used this product. While some of the reported deaths now do not appear to have been related to contaminated Heparin, in many cases, the clinical information available was simply insufficient to specify the cause of death with “clinical certainty.” The government investigation continues.

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

Posted In: Products Liability

Bookmark:

Allstate Insurance Company is known by plaintiff’s attorneys for engaging in bad faith tactics. Last week, the Missouri Court of Appeals upheld a jury verdict that hit Allstate with more than $16 million in damages for bad faith tactics.

On March 24, 2000, Wayne Davis Jr., while drunk, drove his truck across the center line of a roadway and hit a compact car head-on. The force of the collision pushed the car back more than 100 feet. The driver and the passenger survived but suffered life-threatening injuries, and incurred combined hospital bills totaling $320,000.

The injured parties offered to settle with Davis for his insurance policy limits of $50,000. But, his carrier, Allstate, did not respond until six months later. That was after a statutory 60-day limit for accepting had expired.
After Allstate failed to settle, a lawsuit was filed and a consent judgment was entered in the injured parties’ favor for more than $5 million. The injured parties then agreed to forego execution of the judgment against Davis for assignment of his claims against Allstae for failure to settle his case.

Allstate claimed it lost the letter proposing the offer and responded late because it did not receive the parties’ medical record. The jury did not believe these claims and on Nov. 8, 2006, found that Allstate had acted in bad faith and awarded compensatory damages of $5.8 million plus 9 percent interest since the date of the judgment, as well as $10.5 million in punitive damages.
Allstate appealed, and on Tuesday a three-judge panel of the Missouri Court of Appeals held that the evidence was sufficient to justify the verdict.

Incredibly, Allstate argued that it was unsure the crash had caused the injured parties’ injuries. This was in spite of testimony that they had to be cut out of the wreckage, were flown by helicopter to the hospital and received intensive care.

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

Posted In: Insurance Company Abuse

Bookmark:

According to the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, last summer, more than 380,000 defective tires were recalled from the market. What is more troubling than this number is the fact that experts agree that less than 20% of the public was aware of the recalls involved. Accordingly, 80% of the defective tires are still being used and are probably on the roads today. In short, recall notices are rarely received and thus the entire public remains at risk as a result of the continued use of recalled tires. To make sure that your tires are safe, you can log onto the NHTSA website and click on Safercar.gov to check on the recall list.

In the event of an incident involving a defective tire which separates, explodes or otherwise causes a car collision, one should investigate the possibility of whether the tire was recalled and/or whether the manufacturer of the tire properly recalled the tire and/or warned the motoring public of the dangers associated with its use. Dangerous tires threaten all members of the motoring public and thus increasing diligence is needed to protect against these defective products.

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

Posted In: Products Liability

Bookmark:

On April 30 of this year on a busy interstate here in Atlanta, a Ms. Katherine Armstrong was killed when involved in a collision with an armored truck on a busy interstate highway in Atlanta. The driver of the truck was later charged with vehicular homicide. Ms. Armstrong was cleared of any wrongdoing. Based on what we have learned about this tragic incident, however, the emotional, psychological, physical and monetary damage caused by this wrongful death incident does not stop with the death itself but continues.

Ms. Armstrong was airlifted to the Grady Memorial Hospital following this incident. When she got there, a hospital employee by the name of Tacuma Jawara stole her wedding and engagement rings. This despicable crime was uncovered and the employee was charged with felony theft by taking. Thus, not only did the Armstrong family lose the life of a loved one, they had to undergo the indignity of a hospital employee stealing from a victim of this tragedy. Apparently Grady never conducted a thorough investigation of this gentlemen, for whatever reason, even though as we understand it, he has now been charged with yet another offense arising from a similar theft incident.

The victim’s husband is now left to raise by himself young children ages 1, 4 and 5. Not only did he lose his wife to an apparent vehicular homicide, he was further victimized by a criminal who essentially desecrated his wife’s body and committed acts that are totally and completely despicable. While this is bad enough, the fact remains that the emotional and psychological wreckage from this wrongful death incident unfortunately is only just beginning.

We see in our wrongful death practice tragedies similar to this all too often. The innocent victims of these tragic occurrences are left to themselves to pick up the pieces. Their families have been destroyed. Not only are there emotional scars, the young children obviously will have coping difficulties with the loss of their mother and the father/widower is now left to raise his family without the benefit of the mother’s and wife’s assistance. In short, the losses caused by these wrongful death tragedies are devastating but when criminal acts are involved, it is compounded almost beyond endurance.

When a crime is involved in the underlying act such as a driver under the influence of drugs or alcohol or some other aggravating circumstance, the full extent of the law should be utilized to make sure that those responsible for the wrongdoing are punished. We do not have sufficient information to determine the moral culpability of the truck driver who has been charged with vehicular homicide. However, based on what we have read, there can be no question about the moral culpability of the thief who preyed upon this family’s tragedy. We trust that the Court will impose the maximum sentence available under the law to punish this man for his transgressions. This family deserved better.

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

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Torts , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

Our Atlanta truck accident lawyers see many cases in which heavy trucks such as tractor trailer and dump trucks, are involved in serious accidents. Statistics show that about 5,000 innocent people are killed every year and more than 100,000 are injured in crashes involving large trucks in the United States. Heavy trucks account for just 3 % of all registered vehicles on the roadways in the Uniteed States, but account for 9% of all fatal crashes.

Heavy trucks also cause damage to roads and bridges. According to transportation experts, one 80,000 pound tractor-trailer can inflict as much damage to road pavement as 9,600 cars.

Now the trucking and shipping industries are launching a campaign to allow heavier and longer trucks on highways. Currently pending in the United States Congress is a bill which would allow trucks up to 100,000 pounds in 6 states as part of a pilot program. Georgia is one of the states included in the proposed program.

Consumer advocate group Public Citizen is leading the effort to lobby Congress to prevent this dangerous practice. Even some truck drivers recognize this danger. The Teamsters union has expressed opposition to this bill citing the dangers.

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

Posted In: Truck and Tractor Trailer Accidents

Bookmark:

In a major victory for consumers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled last week that information that automobile and tire manufacturers submit to the government about crashes resulting in death, injury and property damage is subject to release to the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The case was brought by the public interest consumer group Public Citizen. In its ruling the Court rejected the argument of the Rubber Manufacturers Association that it is exempt from FOIA’s disclosure mandates.

Since the 2003 enactment of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation Act, manufacturers have been required to submit the information, referred to as "early warning data," to the government. The U.S. Department of Transportation has been keeping the information secret while the Rubber Manufacturers Association appealed a trial court’s holding that the Act applied to the information.

The appeals court held that the plain wording of the TREAD Act meant exactly what it said and that it did not provide an exemption for the early warning data. In the court of appeals, the Transportation Department agreed with Public Citizen that the early warning data is not exempt from FOIA’s requirements. However, the mere existence of the case has had the practical effect of keeping the information from the public. In light of the court of appeals’ opinion, it is expected that the Transportation Department will now comply with FOIA’s requirements and begin processing requests for, and releasing, early warning data to the public.

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

Posted In: Products Liability

Bookmark:

On May 14, 2008, the manufacturer of Trasylol officially pulled all remaining supplies of the blood clotting drug from the market. This drug, manufactured by Bayer (AG) is typically used by surgeons to control bleeding during heart surgery. Unfortunately, in a major study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, it was reported that the use of this drug significantly raised the risk of death for patients who used this product as opposed to other similar products on the market. A study conducted by a Canadian group found that patients that had been given Trasylol had a fifty percent (50%) higher death rate than patients who were given alternative drugs.

Bayer (AG) originally suspended the sales of this drug in November of 2007 under pressure from the Food and Drug Administration. Patients who were undergoing heart bypass, valve replacement or other cardiac procedures were more likely to die than others who had received competing blood clotting drugs available on the market. Most the deaths that have been reported have been due to either kidney failure, heart failure, heart attacks or strokes following the surgery. In short, it has been well established that this drug is associated with severe complications attendant to heart surgery including renal failure. What is most troubling about this product is that for years it appears that the manufacturer was aware that it was dangerous but nonetheless concealed these known dangers from the public.

In a February 2008 report by the Television news program Sixty Minutes, it was reported that Bayer had been aware for decades of the safety concerns associated with this drug. Sixty Minutes reported that Bayer had conducted its own internal study to evaluate the risk of patient deaths from Trasylol and had found that there was an elevated risk of death and acute kidney failure associated with its use. Nonetheless, when the FDA conducted a safety review of this drug in 2006, according to the Sixty Minute report, Bayer did not reveal the study to the FDA and successfully lobbied the FDA to keep Trasylol on the market. Allegedly, over a year passed before the FDA again reviewed the adverse effects of this drug and ordered it to be recalled it from the market.

It is apparent from the information available in the public domain that Bayer should have recalled this product earlier than it did. The law in most states, including Georgia, provides that individuals seriously injured due to defective prescription drugs are entitled to compensation for their injuries based on either negligence by the manufacturer and/or a failure to warn of known dangers. Here, the manufacturer appears to have known of dangers that were not reported to the public while it continued to promote the implied safety and efficacy of the product. Given the information which has been developed, there is reason to believe that those who have suffered from the use of this product will have a viable legal claim against Bayer (AG).

If you or a loved one have suffered a serious injury following surgery in which you were given Trasylol or if you were the relative of a patient that has died after receiving this drug, you should contact an attorney for an immediate consultation in order to explore your legal rights and remedies.

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

Posted In: Products Liability

Bookmark:

Every serious injury claim our firm handles has its own set of complications, but one of the most complicating facts we are often confronted with is the case where someone is seriously injured in an automobile or tractor-trailer collision and they have no health insurance. Indeed, regardless of the type of claim, whether it be a slip and fall, a products liability claim, medical malpractice or any other tort case, the lack of available health insurance oftentimes severely compromises our ability to obtain justice for our clients. This also severely compromises the ability of the injured individual to obtain the necessary care to improve their health. While we often read in the paper about the crisis of our healthcare delivery system when it comes to poor and the indigent, we see this crises every day in our practice when innocent victim/clients who are suffering are unable to afford needed healthcare.

In a typical case where someone is injured by the negligent acts of a third party, even if the third party has very good insurance coverage, we do not have a “pay as you go” rule which entitles the injured individual to have their bills paid as they are incurred. Instead, we have a system whereby once the claim is fully matured and all of the bills and expenses are known, the injured individual is entitled to reimbursement for such expenses assuming liability for the damages is established. In Georgia as in most jurisdictions, if someone is injured through the negligent acts of a third party, they are entirely on their own when it comes to medical treatment following the injury. In the hypothetical case where a tractor-trailer truck rearends an innocent motorist and severely injuries the occupants of the car, there is no duty of tractor-trailer company or its insurance company to provide the resources necessary for medical treatment needed on an ongoing basis. Instead, the injured individual is literally left to their own resources in terms of getting the treatment necessary to treat their injuries. If there is no available health insurance coverage, this makes it exceedingly difficult for the injured individual to get the treatment necessary to improve their health much less establish the legitimacy and the extent of their personal injury claim.

Injured individuals who have no health insurance have an extremely difficult time obtaining medical care. While emergency rooms cannot turn away an injured individual in an true emergency context, once the person is stabilized, the hospital has no duty to provide ongoing care to them. Thus, the injured individual who is in need of medical care, particularly diagnostic tests such as MRIs, CT Scans and the like have an almost impossible time securing such tests and obtaining the treatment necessary in follow up. Instead, they are left to their own devices in finding healthcare clinics, community health centers and/or doctors who will agree to treat them free of charge. If the injured individual is not qualified for Medicaid, Medicare or any other government sponsored program and has no private health insurance, what they will find is that most doctors do not want to treat them. Doctors do not work for free. They have overhead obligations obviously and therefore work for a profit. If they treat too many patients with no charge, they will go out of business. The same is true of any kind of service company, including lawyers. Thus, the injured individual is in a “Catch 22.” They have been injured through no fault of their own and they need medical care. They have no Medicare, Medicaid or health insurance and even though they need treatment, they can’t find it. Thus, they suffer needlessly and when it comes time to try to help them resolve their legal claims arising out of the accident, which was no fault of their own, there is little or no evidence to support the extent of the injuries because there is a complete absence of MRIs, CT Scans and other diagnostic tests available to confirm the nature and extent of the injuries.

This vicious cycle is often encountered in cases we handle for the poor and indigent. The victimization continues because the injured individual who has done absolutely nothing wrong is without the resources to obtain necessary medical care. Thus, it becomes imperative that the individual find a compassionate doctor or healthcare provider who will treat them on an ongoing basis subject to a lien for their services in the event there is a settlement or recovery in their personal injury claim. This complicates the case because the treatment is oftentimes not as good as it would be if there was full available health insurance coverage.

Continue reading "The Complications Of A Serious Personal Injury Claim " »

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

Posted In:

Bookmark: