Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

According to news reports, Atlanta Police Officer Sgt. Darrell Johnson was killed on Friday morning, October 24 when his vehicle was struck head-on by a fleeing suspect during a high speed police chase. Not only was the police officer killed, the fleeing suspect was killed as well.

The newspaper reports are sketchy, however, it appears that the high speed chase began when authorities received a 911 call from a member of the public who had spotted the suspect’s car while weaving. The officers apparently attempted to make a traffic stop of the suspect. When the suspect refused to stop for the suspected traffic violation, he took off, thus initiating a “high speed” chase. During the chase, the suspect lost control, crossed the center line and hit Sgt. Johnson’s vehicle head-on.

According to the news accounts of this tragic incident, it appears that the fleeing suspect was a veteran of the Iraq war. He may have had personal issues based on his experience there. The police allege that he was driving while drunk, but there is no indication whether this is based on a blood alcohol test or just based on his driving at the time. Either way, it seems evident that a drunk driver who is not being pursued by the police is not nearly as dangerous as is the drunk driver who is attempting to elude officers while traveling at high speeds while impaired. At least one expert, Professor Geoffrey Alpert of the University of South Carolina, has been known to say that the one thing that is much worse than a drunk driver is a drunk driver being chased at high speeds by the police.

While it is difficult to evaluate this particular case based on the sketchy news reports, what is troubling about the account is that it appears that this high speed police chase was initiated for a traffic violation only. Clearly, the danger to the public presented by a high speed police chase can be greater than is the danger presented by a mere traffic violator. The police should not be chasing someone for a mere traffic offense when other innocent members of the motoring public are placed at risk of either serious injury or death. To impose the death penalty upon an innocent member of the motoring public in order to apprehend a traffic violator makes little or no sense. The police simply need to recognize that sometimes the suspect has to be allowed to escape so that the chase itself will not endanger the innocent motoring public.

Having seen many other innocent persons killed or injured during high speed police chases, we continue to advocate that the police should chase at high speeds only when the public itself is endangered by the suspect. Yes the police should chase murderers, rapists, carjackers and other armed violent felons, but to chase someone at high speeds for a traffic violation is to unnecessarily place the entire public at risk. When the death penalty is imposed upon the innocent for a minor traffic offense, we would submit that the public is neither served nor protected which, of course, is the paramount duty of all law enforcement officials.

Continue reading "High Speed Chase Ends In Two Deaths: Was It Worth It?" »

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

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

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

No major negative reactions have been reported with Bayer’s drugs, according to the agency.

Bayer, a German conglomerate, said it stood behind the claims on both products, adding that they were not intended to replace professional medical advice.

The FDA. regularly issues warning letters to companies that do not follow regulations for manufacturing and marketing. The letters are not legally binding, but the agency can sue companies if they are ignored.

In our serious injury practice, we are often encountered by cases where there is a dispute concerning liability for a particular collision. The tractor-trailer driver contends that he was forced off the road by an unknown John Doe motorist. The at fault driver who ran over the pedestrian claims that he or she could not see the pedestrian due to lighting conditions. The driver who is speeding denies that, in fact, he was speeding, and on and on. In cases involving serious or catastrophic injuries and/or death, it is often necessary in such cases to retain the services of a qualified accident reconstruction expert to establish exactly what happened. A qualified forensic engineer typically can reconstruct an accident based on measurements made at the scene by investigating police officers and/or based on the physical damage to the vehicles. A crush analysis can be performed on vehicles whereby a trained accident reconstruction expert can determine the speed of the vehicle which had to have occurred in order to create the objective crush damage to the vehicle. For example, if a vehicle’s front end is knocked in by a foot or so by another vehicle, the engineer can get the respective weights of the vehicles and can determine through calculations exactly how much force had to be applied to deform the vehicle to such an extent. This then can be translated into speed which can prove liability on behalf of the driver who caused the collision.

For those unfortunate victims of serious injury claims, particularly in those cases where there is a dispute concerning liability for a particular crash or collision, it is necessary that such a victim confer with counsel who is experienced dealing with accident reconstruction experts. Quite literally, a good accident reconstruction expert can either make or break a case where liability is contested. Our firm likes to use engineers from the Georgia Institute of Technology because they carry quite a bit of credibility with local juries. However, we have also worked with accident reconstruction experts throughout the country depending upon the type of vehicle collision involved. For example, there are some experts that specialize in under-ride situations where a car under-rides a tractor-trailer, there are other experts who specialize in engineering issues concerning the design of dangerous roads and bridges and there are other experts who have considerable expertise with respect to rollovers, seatbelts, brakes and the like. The point to be made, of course, is that in any serious or catastrophic claim, the victim needs to confer with counsel who is experienced in dealing with forensic engineers so that responsibility for a particular collision can be reconstructed by that engineer and liability established. Without proof of liability, of course, counsel’s ability to obtain compensation for the innocent victim of a serious collision is limited, thus because such proof is so important, an accident reconstruction expert should always be considered in any potentially serious injury case involving contested liability issues.

Needless to say, our attorneys are often asked by our clients when they should settle their personal injury lawsuit and in what amount. These question, many times, presuppose that both liability and damages are clear enough to warrant a settlement in a particular case. Oftentimes, liability is hotly contested as are damages and a case is therefore made more difficult from the settlement standpoint. However, in a case where the liability of the person causing the injury is rather clear and the damages are well documented, a fair settlement should be achieved. It is with respect to this type of case that we attempt in this blog to answer the question posed.

When should the client settle his lawsuit when he or she has a good case of liability and damages? The answer is when an offer is made that represents the fair value of the claim. How is the fair value of a claim determined? By analyzing Jury Verdict research data for similar cases involving similar facts of liability and damages in similar venues to make sure that the settlement offer being made is most likely the same amount that could be obtained by the client in front of a jury. Our attorneys tell our clients that if they are offered in settlement an amount of compensatory damages that would roughly be what they could expect to receive from a fair and impartial jury then they should settle their case. If they do not get such an offer they should refuse the settlement and proceed to trial. Obviously, if they get an offer over and above the claim evaluation of what a fair jury would do, they clearly should take the settlement offer.

Many times our clients tell us to settle cases when we recommend against it. Sometimes an offer is made that, in our judgment, is lower than what we would obtain from a jury and nonetheless the client does not wish to gamble and wishes to settle the case even though the amount of money being offered might not reflect the best settlement possible. In other cases, when a fair offer is made, we have had clients who have told us not to accept the offer because they do not think it is enough based on their own subjective evaluation. Obviously, when subjectivity enters into the picture and dominates the analysis, cases become difficult to settle.

One who has been seriously injured has a great deal of difficulty attaching a dollar figure to their pain and suffering. Indeed, no amount of money can compensate for amputated limbs lost vision, paralysis, broken backs, broken necks, incredibly complicated surgery, lost jobs, foreclosed homes, etc. We see all of these things in serious and catastrophic injury cases and therefore it is very difficult to talk about “fair” compensation for such claims. The innocent victim of negligence, who was sitting at a red light and hit by the drunk driver, who undergoes surgery, loses their job and is permanently injured has a great deal of difficulty determining what might be a fair settlement for their case. Subjectivity, obviously, enters into the picture which is why it is they need objectivity from their attorney. An objective attorney looks at the facts, compares it to what other juries are doing under similar circumstances and advises the client what a fair settlement would be, again, that being the amount of money that a jury most likely would award if they heard all the evidence, both on liability and damages.

Continue reading "Settling a Personal Injury Law Suit" »

Our attorneys routinely handle serious injuries arising out of car collision and crashes. We are always amazed to learn just how little the public knows about automobile insurance coverages and generally how they work. The purpose of this blog is simply to set forth some of the basic principles so that the public can be educated about how automobile insurance coverage works in the typical case.

When someone runs a stop sign and causes a car crash and collision, the innocent victim who did nothing wrong to cause the collision but, nonetheless, is injured has a claim against the at fault driver. Under Georgia law, as is true in most cases, the legal claim cannot be filed against the insurance carrier for the driver but only the driver alone. The driver’s automobile liability insurance policy, however, will provide the at fault driver with a defense against the claim.

In order to legally operate a vehicle in Georgia, all drivers must have a valid liability insurance policy with minimum coverage in the amount of $25,000.00 per person $50,000.00 per accident. What this means is that if there is a car crash or collision and someone is injured, the at fault driver’s insurance company will be responsible to pay no more than $25,000.00 to any person injured in the accident, and no more than $50,000.00 for all persons injured in an accident no matter how many persons are involved. Obviously, such minimum limits are woefully inadequate to address the serious injury or catastrophic claim. This is why we always recommend to our clients that they purchase uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage.

In the hypothetical case mentioned, if the at fault driver runs a stop sign and catastrophically injures the innocent victim, should the at fault driver only have the minimum limits required by law, that being $25,000.00 per person $50,000.00 per accident, it is evident that the $25,000.00 in coverage would probably be consumed by medical bills arising from the incident not to mention lost wages, pain and suffering and other economic and non-economic damages. To protect one’s self from the negligence of a third party who has minimum or no insurance coverage, the public should always purchase uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage for the benefit of themselves. If in the hypothetical situation the innocent victim had $100,000.00 in uninsured motorist coverage, even if the at fault driver only had $25,000.00 in coverage, the innocent victim could seek the difference from their carrier, that being $75,000.00 in underinsured coverage for a total recovery of $100,000.00 ($25,000.00 liability coverage and $75,000.00 underinsured coverage) verses a recovery of only $25,000.00 which would have been the maximum recovery had there been no uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage available.

In addition to liability insurance coverage which is mandated by law to operate a vehicle, as mentioned, the importance of uninsured motorist coverage cannot be stressed enough. For those who do not have good healthcare plans, there is also the availability of Medical Payments coverage which applies to medical bills arising out of an automobile collision regardless of fault. Once again, we advise those clients that we represent to always look at their medical payments coverage very carefully and to explore whether they need such coverage should they not otherwise have good healthcare coverage.

Continue reading "Car Crashes, Car Collisions and Automobile Insurance" »

Today, Delta Enterprise Corp a children's products maker will announce a recall of 1.59 million cribs linked to two infant deaths. This recall follows other recent recalls of cribs and bassinets involving other manufacturers.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC, is expected to hold a news conference later this morning to announce the recall, which is being conducted on a voluntary basis by the company. Mandatory recalls are rare, though the CPSC sometimes has to pressure manufacturers to agree to repair or pull their products from the market.

According to the company, the recall results from two different types of hardware used on cribs sold from 1995 through 2005. The hardware, which includes safety pegs for one set of cribs and spring pegs for another, can create a hazard if not properly installed. The improper installation can cause the drop side of the cribs to fall and disengage, creating a gap that can entrap and suffocate babies.

Delta's recall is the biggest in a recent series of crib and bassinet recalls urged by the CPSC. In mid-September, the agency announced a recall of about 600,000 Simplicity Inc. drop-side cribs that involved hardware problems. A month earlier, 900,000 Simplicity convertible bassinets were recalled after federal regulators linked the products to two infant deaths from strangulation. In that case, metal bars were spaced too far apart to prevent infants from slipping through. Another recall last September involved about one million defective Simplicity cribs with drop-side hardware problems that regulators linked to at least two other infant deaths.
Last week, Playkids U.S.A. of Brooklyn, N.Y., recalled about 2,000 convertible cribs because of sides made of a mesh that can create a dangerous gap when it expands.

The CPSC reports that on average, just 15% to 30% of consumers who have purchased a defective product respond when an item is recalled.

There is a common misconception that all work related injuries are solely covered by Workers’ Compensation statutory benefits. While it is true that any employee who is injured on the job while working for their employer is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits, this does not necessarily mean that the injured worker is limited to the recovery of such benefits. If a third party, such as an independent contractor unrelated to the employer, participates in a negligent or wrongful act that results in a injury to the innocent victim, there may be a claim that can be filed against that third party separate and distinct from the workers’ compensation benefits available to the injured employee for the on-the-job injury.

Oftentimes in our practice, we see situations where clients have been represented by other attorneys who have only recovered workers’ compensation benefits for them, notwithstanding the fact that there was a potential third party claim. As an example, if an employee is injured in a manufacturing plant due to a defective machine, there may be a third party product liability claim against the company that manufactured or maintained the defective machine. If the injured employee is hurt on the job because of the negligence of a third party vendor or supplier, there may be a liability claim that can be asserted by counsel for the injured employee against that third party.

It is always important in any on-the-job injury case that counsel diligently explore the possibility of pursuing third party claims. Workers’ compensation benefits are quite minimal, particularly where catastrophic injuries are involved. While the injured employee is entitled to receive repayment of their medical expenses, lost wage benefits are less than $500.00 a week. Accordingly, if someone is catastrophically injured, the only available recovery for pain and suffering and lost earning potential will be a third-party liability suit assuming a third party was a participant in the underlying act that lead to the on-the-job injury.

When dealing with a work related injury case, the victim in such a circumstance should always make sure that they confer with counsel about the possibility of third party claims relative to their workers’ compensation case. This cannot be stressed enough because often there are other avenues of recovery which experienced counsel can explore and later exploit for the injured employee. Indeed, in many catastrophic and serious injury cases, were it not for the availability of a third party recovery, the injured employee would hardly be compensated in any just manner.

Under Georgia law, the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle, including a law enforcement vehicle, when responding to an emergency call, has certain privileges that are not available to other drivers. As an example, the authorized emergency vehicle operator may proceed past a red or stop signal and exceed the maximum speed limits posted so long as he or she does not endanger life or property. The authorized emergency vehicle may also disregard regulations governing direction of movement or turning in specified directions. The exceptions for authorized emergency vehicles only apply, however, when the emergency vehicle is making use of an audible signal and use of flashing and revolving lights visible for a distance of 500 feet. Thus, fire trucks, ambulances and police officers are excepted from normal statutory provisions governing the movement of their vehicles provided they have their siren and lights operating at the time. However, even if lights and sirens are being used, the foregoing provisions “shall not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons.” See O.C.G.A. § 40-6-6(d)(1).

There is no inherent right of an emergency vehicle operator to disregard the law. If it is unsafe to do so and an ambulance driver or fire truck proceeds through an intersection without slowing down, this can be negligence which is actionable under Georgia law. While the facts of each case are obviously different, even authorized emergency vehicles must exercise “due regard” for the safety of the public. If they operate their emergency vehicles in a manner which is clearly dangerous, the governmental entity can be held liable under Georgia law. Nonetheless, sovereign immunity is always a problem in these cases. If the officer was truly responding to an emergency and was exercising due regard for the safety of the public, sovereign immunity will work to defend the government against civil claims arising from an unfortunate collision that occurs during the authorized use of an emergency vehicle.

We have seen many cases where innocent third parties were caught up in collisions with emergency vehicles. We have seen these with ambulance drivers, police vehicles and fire trucks. Eyewitness testimony concerning whether lights and sirens were being used and/or whether the operator of the vehicle was exercising due regard for the safety of the public is key to investigating these cases. Because every case is factually specific and because the doctrine of sovereign immunity is always an issue in these cases, any victim of such a collision should confer with counsel as soon as possible.

Yesterday, the National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, requested that the Federal Aviation Administration increase inspections of certain Pratt & Whitney engines on dozens of passenger jets to detect possible flaws linked to the most catastrophic type of failure. The NTSB asked that the FAA require that PW2037 engines undergo recurring inspections for the time being once they reach a certain point in their operation.

The request affects more than 700 engines on some 300 Boeing Co 757 aircraft worldwide, including at least several dozen operated by U.S. airlines. These include Delta Air Lines Inc, United Airlines, a unit of UAL Corp, Northwest Airlines Co, and American Airlines, a unit of AMR Corp.

The NTSB action was prompted by a failure of an engine in a Delta flight during takeoff on August 6 in Las Vegas. The takeoff was aborted safely and there was no fire or injuries among the 166 passengers and crew.

The specific failure, called an uncontained failure, occurs when the engine gives out and parts are ejected through a protective covering. The parts blown through the engine can penetrate the fuselage, with catastrophic results.

In the Delta case, investigators found holes in the engine cover as well as damage to the engine turbine. The investigation also revealed missing parts and cracked turbine blades. The safety board said it has since learned of cracked parts in other PW2037 engines.

A new federal report found that nine of every 10 nursing homes were cited for violating federal health and safety standards last year. For-profit homes were more likely to have problems than other types of nursing homes, according to the report. Problems included infected bedsores, medication mix-ups and poor nutrition. About one-fifth of the complaints verified by federal and state authorities involved the abuse or neglect of patients.

Elderly people are entitled to basic safety, respect and dignity. If you or someone you love is a victim of elder abuse or nursing home abuse, you have the right to hold the abuser responsible in court. Finch McCranie, LLP has represented injured Georgians in elder abuse lawsuits and other personal injury suits since 1965. With our firm on the case, you can rest assured that you'll get the extensive experience and personalized attention you deserve. For a free consultation, call our Atlanta office today at 404 658-9070.

Digoxin was developed by the company Actavis Totowa to treat arrhythmias (abnormal heat rhythm) and allegedly to prevent heart failure. In April of this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a recall of this drug. As it turned out, the use of this product leads to a dangerous side effect known as digitalis toxicity, a process that occurs when digitalis is not excreted normally through urine and the body is overexposed to the drug. This process may be fatal to the victim, which is why this drug was recalled from the market.

We had previously written a blog about Byetta developed by Eli Lilly and Company and Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. This drug is used in the treatment of Type 2 diabetes, however, reports of patients developing pancreatitis, a potentially deadly side effect, occurred late in the 2007 period and have been increasing since that time. Indeed, in the fall of this year, a lawsuit was filed in California by a plaintiff who had been hospitalized for pancreatitis.

It seem as though there are new drugs coming to market almost everyday. Television ads about drugs are omnipresent. These two drugs, two among hundreds of other drug products, help to demonstrate the dangers associated with drugs that are not carefully screened by a manufacturer before being placed into the marketplace. Consumers now, more than ever, must be made aware of the dangers associated with drug treatment. The American public clearly is using more and more drug treatment. For this reason alone, it is increasingly imperative that manufacturers provide adequate warnings to patients and their physicians of dangers known to be associated with these products. Side effects can be deadly when powerful medications are involved and the public has a right to know of these dangers.

Our firm will continue to blog about these and other dangerous drugs in the future in an effort to warn the public of the dangers associated with their use. Regrettably, litigation may be the best available tool to insure that manufacturers will provide better and more informative warnings on their products so that consumers can make educated decisions about the risks and benefits of using these products.

New federal regulations that restrict Medicare payments to hospitals for the extra care required to treat patients harmed by certain preventable infections and medical errors went into effect on Wednesday, October 1.

The rules adopted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) aims to provide hospitals with a financial incentive to improve patient care.

Under the new regulations, CMS will withhold payments to hospitals for care needed after patients suffer from certain preventable errors or omissions in care. These include hospital acquired urinary tract infections; certain bloodstream infections and select surgical site infections - specifically from coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), certain weight loss surgery (laparoscopic gastric restrictive surgery and gastroeneterostomoy), and orthopedic procedures (spine, neck, shoulder, elbow); serious bed sores; objects left in patients’ bodies following surgery; blood incompatibility; air embolism; deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism (formation/movement of a blood clot) following total knee and hip replacement; falls and trauma (such as burns and electric shock); and extreme blood sugar derangement.

The new regulations include protections to prevent hospitals from billing patients when payments are withheld and to minimize avoidance of patients perceived to be at risk for infections.

Lisa McGiffert, Director of Consumers Union’s Stop Hospital Infection’s campaign stated that “Medicare’s new policy sends a powerful message to hospitals that harming patients will harm their bottom line,” and, “This policy will help prevent needless suffering and deaths and ultimately ensure that the health care taxpayers pay for is safe and effective.”

Motorcycle injuries and deaths continue to rise as more people utilize motorcycles and scooters for daily transportation. The Washington Post reports that in an eight-hour span over the Labor Day weekend motorcycle accidents in the metropolitan District of Columbia area left four people dead. One top transportation official calls the rise in motorcycle crashes "our nation's greatest traffic highway safety challenge."

While only 2 percent of all vehicles on the nation's roads last year were motorcycles, they were involved in 11 percent of all traffic accidents. More than 5,100 riders were killed and 103,000 injured, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Deaths have more than doubled over the last ten years. During this same time, overall traffic fatalities dropped last year to their lowest level since 1994. Some attribute this overall decline to safer cars and less travel due to gasoline prices.

The number of registered motorcycles and scooters in the United States is nearly 7 million. Sales of new motorcycles rose every year between 1992 and 2006 and now tops more than a million annually.

In response, the U.S. Department of Transportation, is formulating national standards for entry-level riders and has launched an educational campaign on the importance of wearing helmets and other safety gear. Congress has also become involved, authorizing $2 million for a study of crashes' causes.

Nursing homes care for the elderly and disabled, some of the most vulnerable persons in society. But, a recent report has disturbing news. More than 90 percent of nursing homes were cited for violations of federal health and safety standards last year according to a report issued by the federal government. For-profit nursing homes were more likely to have problems than other types of nursing homes.

The report revealed that about 17 percent of nursing homes had deficiencies that caused actual harm or immediate jeopardy to patients. Problems included infected bedsores, medication mix-ups, poor nutrition and abuse and neglect of patients.

Inspectors received 37,150 complaints about conditions in nursing homes last year, and they substantiated 39 percent of them.. About one-fifth of the complaints verified by federal and state authorities involved the abuse or neglect of patients.

The report disclosed that 94 percent of for-profit nursing homes were cited for deficiencies last year, compared with 88 percent of nonprofit homes and 91 percent of government homes.
According to the report, investigators found cases in which nursing homes billed Medicare and Medicaid for services that were not provided, or were so wholly deficient that they amounted to no care at all.

More than 1.5 million people live in the nation’s 15,000 nursing homes. The homes are typically inspected once a year and must meet federal standards as a condition of participating in Medicaid and Medicare, which cover more than two-thirds of their residents, at a cost of more than $75 billion a year.

Deficiency rates varied widely among states. The proportion of nursing homes cited for deficiencies ranged from 76 percent in Rhode Island to 100 percent in Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming and the District of Columbia.

Last night's deadly charter bus crash in California reportedly killed at least ten passengers, after the bus veered from the road, and rolled over into a ditch. Predictably, passengers were ejected from the bus or tossed around inside the bus, which in our experience greatly increases the severity of injury.

In last year's deadly bus accident involving the Bluffton University Baseball Team, our firm represents the most seriously injured surviving passenger. As we have written about previously, the NTSB found that the lack of seat belts or other passenger restraint systems, as well as type of materials used in windows, were factors in allowing passengers to be ejected from the bus.

Obviously, such basic equipment as seat belts saves lives--and yet somehow buses in this country continue to operate without them.

We will be following the reports and investigation of this crash, and our prayers are with the families of the victims. If the work we have done can assist them in any way, we will be be more than happy to share it.

.

Three new lawsuits were filed in the state of California in September concerning the injectable diabetes drug Byetta. The lawsuits allege design defect and inadequate warnings of the drug’s alleged links to pancreatitis. The lawsuits name the manufacturer, Amylin, and the marketer, Eli Lilly, as the named defendants in the suit.

Byetta is a injectable drug for adult Type 2 diabetes. The principle ingredients of the drug are a derivative of the saliva of the Gila Monster, a lizard found in the southwestern United States. According to public information, approximately 1 million patients have used Byetta since it went on the market in June of 2005. The lawsuits pending against the named defendants are alleging that the defendants concealed from the public the extent of their knowledge concerning the possible linkage between the use of the drug and acute pancreatitis. In December, 2007, the United States Food and Drug Administration issued a Safety Alert indicating 30 reports of acute pancreatitis in connection with the use of this drug. In August, the FDA supplemented this safety alert by indicating an additional 6 adverse reports of pancreatitis.

If you or a loved one have used this drug and have developed acute pancreatitis, obviously, you may wish to confer with counsel concerning your legal rights. If the manufacturers were aware of a documented linkage between acute pancreatitis and the use of this drug, to the extent that they did not include warnings of this link to pancreatitis, there may be the valid basis of a claim against these defendants for a failure to warn of known dangers.

As Georgia trial lawyers we have handled a wide variety of slip and fall injury cases. While serious injuries from falls can occur at any age, it can be particularly serious for senior citizens. The elderly fear breaking a hip when they fall, but a government study indicates that hitting their head can also have deadly consequences: Brain injuries account for half of all deaths from falls. The study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is the first comprehensive national look at the role brain injuries play in fatal elderly falls. It examined 16,000 deaths in 2005 that listed unintentional falls as an underlying cause of death. CDC researchers found that slightly more than half of the deaths were attributed to brain injuries. The other deaths were due to a variety of causes including heart failure, strokes, infections and existing chronic conditions worsened by a broken hip or other injuries sustained in a fall.
Each year, one in three Americans age 65 and older fall. About 30 percent of such falls require medical treatment. Previous CDC research showed that the U.S. death rate from falling has risen dramatically - about 55 percent - for the elderly since the 1990s. The new study highlights the role that brain injuries play in such deaths. The severity of brain injuries isn’t always immediately apparent, and some people may not lose consciousness. In our practice we have repeatedly noted a scenario seen in hospitals in which an elderly fall victim comes in alert and talking, but dies an hour or two later. The research is being published in the June issue of a scientific publication, the Journal of Safety Research.