Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

Consumers have received long overdue protections from abusive practices by credit card issuers . In enacting the most sweeping changes to credit cards in decades, federal regulators on Thursday approved new rules to crack down on unfair and deceptive practices by card issuers.

The rules were issued by the Office of Thrift Supervision and approved later Thursday by the Federal Reserve and the National Credit Union Administration.

The rules, which take effect in July 2010, will let credit card companies raise interest rates only on new credit cards and future purchases or advances, rather than on current balances as is the practice currently. They also restrict other unfair lender practices such as allocating all payments to balances with lower interest rates when a borrower has balances with different rates.

In addition, consumers will have to be given 45 days notice before any changes are made to the terms of an account, including a higher penalty rate for missing payments or paying bills late. Under current rules, companies in most cases give 15 days notice before making certain changes to the terms of an account.

Most of the rules were proposed in May of this year and drew more than 65,000 public comments the largest number ever received by the Federal Reserve.

The Office of Thrift Supervision led the efforts to reform credit cards when, in August 2007, it asked for public comment about financial institutions' lending practices. As expected, banks have led the opposition to the new rules.

One area that remains unchanged is the practice of credit card issuers placing mandatory arbitration clauses in their contracts with consumers. These clauses force consumers into costly arbitration of disagreements and claims against the companies and deny them access to the courts. There are currently pending bills in Congress to end this unfair practice.

Van accidents continue to be a major cause of death and injury on the nation’s roadways. Our Atlanta injury lawyers are keenly aware of these dangers. Fifteen-passenger vans typically have seating positions for a driver and 14 passengers. They are widely used by community organizations to take members on short trips and outings. Colleges use them to drive sports teams to intercollegiate games and vanpools use them for commuters.

Recent research conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has found that the risk of a rollover crash is greatly increased when 10 or more people ride in a 15-passenger van. This occurs because the passenger weight raises the vehicle’s center of gravity and causes it to shift rearward. The van then has less resistance to rollover and is more difficult to control in an emergency situation. Placing any load on the roof also raises the center of gravity and increases the chance of a rollover.

A rollover crash is a complex event. In studies of single-vehicle crashes, NHTSA discovered that more than 90 percent of rollovers occur after a driver has lost control of the vehicle and has run off the road. NHTSA identified three major situations which led to rollover accidents in 15-passenger vans.

1. The van goes off a rural road. In this case, the van is likely to overturn when it strikes a ditch or embankment or travels onto soft soil.

2. The driver is fatigued or driving too fast for conditions. A tired driver is more likely to fall asleep at the wheel and lose control. High speeds can cause the van to slide sideways off the road causing the tires to dig into dirt.

3. The driver overcorrects the steering as a panic reaction to an emergency or to a wheel dropping off the pavement.

In the last ten years over 80 percent of people killed in rollover crashes in 15-passenger vans were unbelted.Seat belt use is especially critical because large numbers of people die in rollover crashes when they are partially or completely thrown from the vehicle. The risk of death or serious injury can be greatly reduced in a rollover crash by the use of seat belts.

Since most rollover crashes involve single vehicles they are often preventable.
NHTSA offers the following tips for drivers to minimize the risk of a rollover crash and serious injury or death:

1. Avoid conditions that lead to a loss of control. Never drive while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. Make sure you are well rested and attentive, and always slow down if the roads are wet or icy.

2. Drive cautiously on rural roads. Be particularly cautious on curved rural roads and maintain a safe speed to avoid running off the road.

3.Know what to do if your wheels drop off the roadway. If your wheels drop off the roadway, or pavement, gradually reduce speed and steer back onto the roadway when it is safe to do so.

4. Properly maintain your tires. Make sure your tires are properly inflated and the tread is not worn down. Worn tires can cause your van to slide sideways on wet or slippery pavement. Improper inflation can cause handling problems and can lead to catastrophic tire failures, such as blowouts. Therefore, check tire pressure and treadwear once a month.

5. When a 15-passenger van is not full, passengers should sit in seats that are in front of the rear axle.

6. More than 15 people should never be allowed to ride in a 15-passenger van.

Our Georgia truck accident lawyers regularly investigate and pursue cases in which heavy truck drivers cause serious injury and death by driving while fatigued. The pressure on drivers to drive in this condition is enormous. The more miles driven the more a driver or company can earn.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration controls the limits on the hours a driver can drive in any one period.

Last Thursday, four public safety advocacy groups, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Public Citizen, the Truck Safety Coalition and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters filed a petition for reconsideration with the administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), requesting that the federal government reconsider a seriously flawed regulation that can compel professional truck drivers to work and drive in dangerously fatigued condition.

In the final rule published on Nov. 19, FMCSA ignored two court decisions that have been issued since 2003. The first decision found that the agency had not adequately taken driver health into consideration. The second decision vacated the two provisions of FMCSA’s revised 2005 final rule that raised the limits for daily and weekly driving and on-duty hours. Although courts have twice ordered the agency to reconsider the rule, FMCSA has re-issued virtually the same rule after each court order.

The new rule, which will take effect on Jan. 19, the last day the current administration is in office, allows truckers to drive up to 11 hours in a single shift, while driving 88 hours or working 98 hours over eight consecutive days.

FMCSA disregarded scores of studies conducted over more than 30 years showing that this increased working and driving schedule will lead to exhausted truck drivers who literally can fall asleep while driving. This new rule threatens the safety of everyone traveling on the roadways of the United States.

The petition asks FMCSA to reconsider the regulation based on numerous errors and misrepresentations of research findings clearly showing that much longer working and driving hours will inevitably produce severely fatigued drivers who also can suffer serious health problems from excessively long working hours.

Continue reading "Citizens of Georgia Endangered By New Trucking Regulations " »

The tragedy of preventable construction accidents was repeated last week at the Atlanta Botanical Garden, a beautiful area near my home enjoyed by young and old alike. News reports have described the horror of one dead, and eighteen injured, many of them critically.

In our experience from having handled contruction accidents--including a much larger structure's construction collapse during the building of Philips Arena that killed ironworkers erecting a section of precast concrete--the injured workers and their families are in a state of shock and confusion. They should have some medical care available through their workers' compensation carrier, but that will not be enough to make up for what sound like very significant injuries. Nor will those benefits be enough to compensate the losses of the deceased worker.

A careful analysis must follow to determine the identity of all of the parties who had any role in the project, as well as the scope of the work undertaken by each of them, and the legal responsibilities imposed by contract or by law.

The plans and specifications prepared by the design professionals (architects and engineers), and the contracts and various subcontracts on the project must be obtained and scrutinized. Not only the contractor and subcontractors, but also any inspectors and consultants involved will have their roles reviewed, to determine what went wrong.

While some parties will have immunity under the workers' compensation statute, others will not. Those who share responsibility presumably will have purchased insurance in planning for precisely this type of catastrophe, so that the losses can be reimbursed fairly. With so many claimants, however, careful review of the insurance coverage will be necessary in case there was insufficient liability insurance purchased to cover these tragic losses.

In the Philips Arena cases, the parties involved resolved the claims in the largest mediation ever held at Henning Mediation in Atlanta--48 people who spent many days, including with Judge Jerry Baxter, who was instrumental in helping get the cases resolved. The families were distressed by their losses, but felt that the legal system had treated them fairly.

Unfortunately, in our experience the families may be beset by unscrupulous persons hoping to take advantage of their shock--and some may be attorneys without the type of experience needed to represent these victims fully and fairly. We hope that the families of those injured consult with family and friends to find experienced attorneys who have had success in this area, and who will leave no stone unturned in representing their clients.

Footnote: According to news reports, architecture firm Jova/Daniels/Busby made this statement this morning:

"During the construction process, there are temporary components built and used to help erect and support the creation of a permanent structure such as the walkway being built at the Atlanta Botanical Garden. While the investigation underway will help us all understand what actually occurred, it is important for people to know that the permanent structure as designed by the architect and the engineers was not fully in place at the time of the accident.

"The temporary components that are under investigation were designed by a separate professional engineer working for the structural steel erectors. The temporary shoring would have been removed after the permanent structure was complete."

Abuse of elderly and disabled persons is one of the most disturbing matters our Atlanta based attorneys see. A report issued last Thursday by the Centers for Medicare and Services has revealed that almost 22 percent of the nation's nearly 16,000 nursing homes received the federal government's lowest rating in a new five-star system, while 12 percent received the highest ranking possible.

The new star ranking system has not been well received by the nursing home industry. It has been criticized for being too simplistic for a complicated care system. However, federal officials see the new rating system as a way to challenge nursing homes to improve the care they provide to nearly 1.5 million patients nationwide.

Under the new system, five stars means a nursing home ranks ''much above average,'' four star indicates ''above average,'' three means ''about average,'' two is ''below average'' with a one indicating ''much below average.'' The rankings will be updated quarterly.

The ratings are based on three major criteria: state inspections, staffing levels and quality measures, such as the percentage of residents with bed sores. The nursing homes will receive stars for each of those categories as well as for their overall quality.

Consumer advocates have warned that consumers should consider the star ratings, but not solely rely on them when comparing facilities. They have concerns that that nursing homes may appear in the ratings to give better care than they actually do.

The Centers For Medicare and Services used three year's worth of inspections to rate nursing homes based on an annual survey designed to measure how well homes protect the health and safety of their residents. The measurement for staffing reports the number of hours of nursing and other staff dedicated per patient each day. The measurement for quality looks at 10 areas, including the percent of patients with bed sores after their first 90 days in the nursing home and the number of residents whose mobility worsened after admission.

States with the highest percentage of nursing homes with a one-star ranking were: Louisiana, 39.6 percent; Georgia, 32.4 percent; Virginia, 32.4 percent; and Tennessee, 30.9 percent.

States with the highest percentage of homes with five stars were: Delaware, 30.2 percent; Alaska, 26.7 percent; New Hampshire, 24.4 percent; and Hawaii, 23.9 percent.

Un desplome de construcción que implica un puente fue informado esta mañana en los Jardines Botánicos de Atlanta. Desafortunadamente, parece que había una muerte y muchas heridas graves. Nuestros abogados han investigado y han archivado pleitos en numerosos casos de desplome de construcción. El más notable fue el desplome durante la construcción de la Arena de Phillips (Phillips Arena) en Atlanta.

Mientras los informes no indican la causa del desplome, habrá indudablemente una investigación por “OSHA” (the Occupational and Safety Health Administration) la Administración Profesional de Seguridad y Salud.

Muchas veces abogados creen errarmente que cualquier recuperación en estos casos es impedida por el estatuto de compensación de trabajadores. En esencia este estatuto prohibe a un empleado para demandar un empleador o a co-empleado para la negligencia.
Sin embargo, hay muchas avenidas potenciales para que se obtene una recuperación para estas tipas de muertes y heridas graves. Hay obligación legal potencial contra los diseñadores y arquitectos para el diseño impropio o peligroso. También puede haber obligación legal para la instalación o el trabajo

A construction collapse involving a bridge was reported this morning at the Atlanta Botanical Gardens. Unfortunately, there appears to be one death and many serious injuries. Our lawyers have investigated and filed lawsuits in numerous construction collapse cases. The most notable was the collapse during the building of Phillips Arena in Atlanta.

While the reports do not indicate the cause of the collapse, there will undoubtedly be an investigation by OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Many times attorneys mistakingly believe that any recovery in these cases is barred by the workers compensation statute. In essence this statute prohibits an employee for suing an employer or co-employee for negligence.

However, there are many potential avenues by which a recovery for these types of fatalities and serious injuries can be obtained. There is potential liability against the designers and architects for improper or dangerous design. There may also be liability for the negligent installation or work of others who are not deemed co-employees. We have also successfully established liabilty for the furnishing or selling of defective components such as poorly mixed concrete.

Construction injuries resulting from collapses or failure of equipment should always be explored and investigated thoroughly. The failure to do so can result in a deserving client or survivor settling for small workers compensation benefits when a much larger recovery was probable.

Consumer protection got an unexpected boost this week when the United States Supreme announced its decision in Altria Group v. Good. In a surprising decision that could have wide-ranging impact, the Supreme Court held that federal law neither expressly or impliedly preempts a lawsuit filed under the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act by Maine smokers. The underlying lawsuit claims that smokers of Marlboro Lights and Cambridge Lights cigarettes were misled by deceptive labels touting the cigarettes as “light” and “low tar” when the manufacturer knew that they were just as dangerous as other cigarettes.

In recent decisions involving federal preemption of state laws concerning medicines and dangerous products, the Supreme Court has come down squarely on the side of big business holding state consumer protection laws preempted by federal regulations.

The decision in Altria Group v. Good means this suit as well as other similar claims seeking billion of dollars in damages from tobacco companies can proceed. It also could spur tobacco companies to undergo massive relabeling of cigarette packages to avoid liability under similar state statutes.

The 5-4 opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, Stephen Breyer, and Anthony Kennedy.

Dangerous drugs have been placed into the stream of commerce by manufacturers for years without warnings. Recently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ordered the manufacturer of two drugs commonly used before colonoscopies to add warnings to the products. These are commonly referred to as “black box” warnings.

Visicol and OsmoPrep are oral sodium phosphate medicines used for bowel cleansing before colonoscopies. There have been reports of serious kidney injuries linked to their use. The FDA has received reports of 20 cases of kidney injury associated with the use of OsmoPrep, including three cases of acute kidney injury.

The onset of kidney injury varied, occurring in some cases within several hours of use and in other cases up to 21 days after use phosphate products for bowel cleansing.

The FDA ordered the manufacturer of Visicol and OsmoPrep to prepare a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, distribute a medication guide to alert patients to the risk of acute kidney injury, and conduct a clinical trial to further assess the risk of acute kidney injury.

Importantly, the FDA also recommended that consumers not use over-the-counter oral sodium medications as they have the potential to cause similar injuries

A New Jersey jury recently awarded nearly $13 million to three acne drug users who developed severe inflammatory bowel disease after taking the medication. The drug, Accutane, is manufactured by Hoffman-La Roche.

The three plaintiffs are Florida residents who used the drug to treat adolescent acne. All three developed bowel disorders including ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s Disease. The jury found that the drug manufacturer should have issued better warnings that the drug could cause bowel problems and that their failure to do so resulted in the plaintiffs' injuries.

If you are someone you care about was seriously injured by a dangerous prescription drug, you should speak with a litigation attorney at Finch McCranie, LLP. We have won justice for Georgians since 1965 and recovered millions of dollars to help sick and injured people seek justice. For a free consultation, call us at 1-800-228-9159.

Escalator injuries are increasing at an alarming rate. Our Georgia injury lawyers frequently review cases in which persons have been injured by malfunctioning or improperly designed escalators. The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported Sunday concerning this increase in injuries, especially among children.

Among the mechanisms of injuries reported to the state were the following:

A 17-year-old boy's right hand was bleeding after it got stuck in an escalator at MARTA's Lenox station in February. He had reached down to pick up a fare card that fell out of his pocket.

A 77-year-old man, who walks with a cane, suffered a laceration to the back of his head in April when he lost his balance on an escalator at the Dillard's store at Perimeter Mall, fell backward and struck his head on the escalator step.

An Atlanta woman's coat got stuck in an escalator in January at MARTA's Dunwoody station, pulling her down to the ground and popping her shoulder out of place.

A child's Crocs shoe became trapped between two escalator steps in May at the Renaissance Waverly Hotel. The child was able to get his foot out in time and only suffered a small bruise.

A woman, walking up an escalator at MARTA's Five Points station in May, lost her footing and suffered a deep gash to the center of her knee.

A man was found by Atlanta airport staff sitting in a chair with blood all over him after he tripped in June.

Especially disturbing is the increase in injuries to children wearing soft Croc style shoes. Some safety experts contend that escalators are inherently dangerous and question the blame recently heaped on Crocs-type shoes, which several children were wearing in highly publicized accidents across the country, including at Atlanta’s airport.

One safety advocate, Scott Anderson, a Houston petroleum engineer petitioned the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission in 1997 to require closing dangerous gaps along the sides of escalator . According to Anderson, if escalators were designed properly and met all the standards, it wouldn’t matter that children were wearing Crocs. In 1996, long before Crocs were on the market, his 4-year-old son lost three toes when his tennis shoe was sucked into an escalator.

Safety experts recommend that all escalator riders obey basic safety rules. These include:

Keep feet away from the sides of steps where entrapment can occur.

Learn the location of escalators' emergency shut-off buttons in case you need to stop the machine in an emergency. They're usually at each end of an escalator.

Do not bring strollers, walkers or carts onto escalators. Use elevators instead.

Make sure shoes are tied and that clothing doesn't drag onto escalator stairs.

Always hold children's hands and do not allow them to sit or play on escalators.

Face forward and keep a firm grip on the handrail. Report Injuries

Across the nation, the CPSC estimates, nearly 11,000 people were treated in hospitals last year for injuries involving escalators.The Journal Constitution reported that during the 1st eight months of this year there were at least seven incidents involving feet becoming entrapped in an escalators in Georgia. Reports show all but two involved children who were wearing Crocs or similar shoes.

In May, the CPSC warned of the risk of “popular soft-sided flexible clogs and slides” on escalators, saying they were involved in all but two of 77 foot entrapment incidents the agency was aware of since January 2006.

As attorneys representing injury victims of automobile accidents, tractor tailor truck accidents and medical malpractice claims we have had many occasions where the insurance company lawyer contacts our client’s own doctor to talk about the case without our knowledge. Fortunately that conduct is now a violation of law.

The Georgia Supreme Court recently heard a case where the plaintiff sued her husband’s doctor for malpractice. After she produced his medical records from three of his previous doctors, the insurance defense lawyer contacted them informally and asked about the man’s medical condition.
Under state law, once a plaintiff puts his or her medical condition at issue, the defense attorney can informally contact the treating physicians about the plaintiff’s medical condition. But the plaintiff argued that these ex parte conversations violated HIPAA’s provisions requiring notice and consent from the patient before the disclosure medical records. The Supreme Court of Georgia Court agreed and has now held that the insurance defense lawyer’s ex parte communications with the plaintiff’s prior to treating physician violated the privacy rules of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). In it’s decision the court said:

“We find that HIPPA preempts [state ] law with regard to ex parte communications between defense counsel and plaintiff’s prior treating physicians because HIPAA affords patients more control over their medical records when it comes to informal contacts between litigants and physicians...

“HIPAA... prevents a medical provider from disseminating a patient’s medical information, whether orally or in writing, without obtaining a court order or the patient’s express consent. In other words, HIPAA requires a physician to protect a patient’s health information, unless the patient is given reasonable notice and an opportunity to object...

“Thus, in order for defense counsel to informally interview plaintiff’s treating physicians, they must first obtain a valid authorization, or a protective order, or ensure that the patient has been given notice and an opportunity to object to the ex parte contact, all in compliance with the requirements of HIPAA”.