Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

The United States Department of Justice has charged the drug maker Forest Laboratories with defrauding the government of millions of dollars by illegally marketing the popular antidepressants Celexa and Lexapro for unapproved uses in children and teenagers.

In a civil complaint filed by the United States attorney’s office in Boston, federal prosecutors alleged that former top executives at Forest concealed for several years a clinical study that showed that the drugs were not effective in children and might even pose risks to them, including suicides. The drugs are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration only for adults.

Doctors can legally prescribe drugs to patients, including children, for whom those drugs are not approved by the FDA, but it is illegal for companies to actively promote such uses

Lexapro is Forest’s biggest product, with total sales of $2.3 billion in 2008.

The complaint alleges that from 2001 to 2004, Forest heavily promoted results from another clinical trial it had financed that showed that the drugs were effective in children, without disclosing the negative study to the FDA, its own medical advisers or its sales representatives.
The complaint states that Forest told prescribing physicians a half-truth and thereby prevented them and the public from having all potentially available information when making decisions about how to treat a serious medical condition in pediatric patients.

The action follows a federal investigation that began with complaints filed by two former company officials. Under the civil charges brought against Forest, the government is seeking to recover up to three times the amount of money spent by federal programs to pay for pediatric prescriptions of Celexa and Lexapro.

Prosecutors also charged that Forest paid kickbacks, in the form of baseball tickets and gift certificates to expensive restaurants, to doctors who prescribed its drugs, and provided some doctors with paid vacations.

We have posted entries before about traumatic amputations and just how profound such injuries can be on the victims of the same. Unfortunately, we have seen these injuries too often in the context of motorcycle accidents. Because there is so little protection to the human body, if an accident is bad enough, the unfortunate victim riding on the motorcycle can lose a leg, an arm, a foot or a hand. In addition to traumatic amputations, traumatic brain injuries are also a distinct possibility in such cases. We have seen many such cases even when the motorcycle rider (or passenger) was wearing a helmet. If the blow is hard enough and the victim is thrown from his motorcycle and lands on the pavement, even with a good helmet, one can sustain either a closed head injury or a fractured skull. We have also handled cases where a broken neck resulted in death and/or paralysis. Again, when a motorcycle rider is involved in a serious collision, it is almost to be expected that there will be serious injuries involved.

The most dangerous aspect of riding a motorcycle is not the driver of the motorcycle but the third party driver who does not see the motorcycle and pulls out in front of it. Drivers are accustomed to seeing other cars and for whatever reason, many times pull out in front of motorcycles and fail to yield right-of-way to them. This can cause a serious collision between the motorcycle and vehicle resulting in a serious injury to the motorcycle rider. Traumatic amputations, traumatic brain injuries and associated orthopaedic injuries are what we typically see, which obviously indicates that motorcycle riders must be extremely cautious at all times when operating their bikes. This is particularly true in an urban area such as Atlanta where there are so many vehicles on the road. As accidents can happen in a split second and as such accidents are always serious for the motorcycle rider, wearing a helmet is absolutely mandatory from a safety standpoint but, of course, a helmet provides little protection from injuries to one’s limbs.

If you or a loved one are involved in a serious accident while riding a motorcycle, you should consult with counsel who has experience handling such cases. Typically the injuries are serious and thus qualified and experienced counsel is needed to assess the physical, emotional and vocational needs that arise from these types of cases. In addition, if liability is contested, an accident reconstruction expert may be needed to evaluate the claim. If the injuries are likely to be permanent, a Life Care expert may be necessary if something as serious as paralysis or traumatic brain injury or amputation is involved. In short, these are serious cases that involve extremely serious matters which require that qualified and competent counsel with experience in such cases be retained if the innocent victim’s interests are to be properly protected.

Georgia injury lawyers have seen products liability cases involving food poisoning for years; however, none like the one involving Peanut Corp. Of America (PCA). It appears that the problems of PCA extend well beyond their Georgia processing facility. Federal officials said Tuesday that tests have confirmed that peanut butter made from peanuts processed at a Texas plant contains the same strain of salmonella blamed for the poisoning hundreds in a national outbreak. Both the Texas plant and the Georgia plant were operated by PCA, which filed for bankruptcy amid fallout from the outbreak that had sickened more than 600 and may have contributed to nine deaths. Reports show that, federal inspectors are now taking a closer look at PCA’s plant in Virginia. There is also a criminal investigation underway by federal authorities to determine whether PCA knowingly shipped tainted food.

If it can be proven that the company knowingly shipped tainted product, then victims may not only be able to seek compensatory damages for injuries and wrongful death but may also be entitled to an award of punitive damages. If you or a loved one has been injured as a result of consuming adulterated or contaminated peanut butter products, call the experienced Georgia products liability lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP at (800) 228-9159.

The motorcycle accident lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have represented many motorcycle riders over the years who have been seriously injured in collisions involving automobiles. Some result in brain injuries and others involve amputation of limbs. Just in the last couple of weeks ago we settled a case where our client sustained very serious injuries to his leg and foot when his motorcycle was struck in an intersection by a medical doctor who ran a red light in her SUV. As a result of the injuries he sustained, doctors had to amputate several toes and part of his foot. In this case and most others, the motorcycle rider was obeying the law and did nothing to cause or contribute to the collision.

As an example, we read an article yesterday about a motorcycle accident. A 22-year-old former Georgia resident who was traveling southbound on U.S. 1 near St. Augustine, Florida when a car pulled out onto the highway in front of him. Although he tried to avoid the car, he collided with its left rear fender and had to be flown to a hospital in Jacksonville where he was in critical condition. Unfortunately, he was not wearing a helmet or jacket.

If you or a loved one are involved in a serious accident while riding a motorcycle, you should consult with counsel who has experience handling such cases. The Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have years of experience handling these cases. Call us for a free consultation at (800) 228-9159.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has prohibited Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., India’s largest drug manufacturer, from introducing new generic drugs from one of its factories after it falsified data about products’ shelf life.

Yesterday, the FDA announced that a facility owned by Ranbaxy Laboratories falsified data and test results in approved and pending drug applications. The facility, Paonta Sahib, has been under an FDA Import Alert since September 2008.

The FDA announced that it was continuing to investigate this matter to ensure the safety and efficacy of marketed drugs associated with Ranbaxy’s Paonta Sahib site. To date, the FDA has no evidence that these drugs do not meet their quality specifications and has not identified any health risks associated with currently marketed Ranbaxy products.

In the meantime, the FDA recommends that patients not disrupt their drug therapy because this could jeopardize their health. The FDA recommended that those who are concerned about their medications should talk with their physicians.

The affected applications are for drugs that fall into three categories:

Approved drugs made at the Paonta Sahib site for the U.S. market;

Drugs pending approval at the FDA that are not yet marketed; and

Certain drugs manufactured in the United States that relied on data from the Paonta Sahib facility.

The FDA has invoked its Application Integrity Policy (AIP) against the Paonta Sahib facility. The AIP is invoked when a company’s actions raise significant questions about the integrity of data in drug applications. This AIP covers applications that rely on data generated by the Paonta Sahib facility only.

Under the AIP, the FDA has asked Ranbaxy to cooperate with the agency to resolve the questions of data integrity and reliability. This would include implementing a Corrective Action Operating Plan (CAOP) to provide assurance of the integrity and reliability of data from the Paonta Sahib facility. A CAOP includes, but is not limited to, conducting a third-party independent audit of applications associated with Paonta Sahib.

When the AIP is implemented, the FDA stops all substantive scientific review of any new or pending drug approval applications that contain data generated by the Paonta Sahib facility.
On Sept. 16, 2008, the FDA issued two warning letters and instituted an Import Alert barring the entry of all finished drug products and active pharmaceutical ingredients from Ranbaxy’s Dewas, Paonta Sahib and Batamandi Unit facilities due to violations of U.S. current Good Manufacturing Practices requirements. That action barred the commercial importation of 30 different generic drugs into the United States and remains in effect.

The Georgia Injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have seen many automobile accidents and tractor trailer accidents which have left victims with a diagnosis of traumatic brain injury (TBI). Some clients have suffered from major, catastrophic brain injury while others have what would be considered as mild TBI. The signs and symptoms of a TBI can be subtle. Symptoms of a TBI may not appear until days or weeks following the injury or may even be missed as people may look fine even thought they may act or feel differently. The following are some common signs and symptoms of a TBI:

Headache or neck pain that do not go away;
Difficulty remembering, concentrating, or making decisions;
Slowness in thinking, speaking, acting, or reading;
Getting lost or easily confused;
Feeling tired all of the time, having no energy or motivation;
Mood changes (feeling sad or angry for no reason);
Changes in sleep patterns (sleeping a lot more or having a hard time sleeping); Lightheadedness, dizziness, or loss of balance;
Urge to vomit (nausea);
Increased sensitivity to lights, sounds, or distractions;
Blurred vision or eyes that tire easily;
Loss of sense of smell or taste; and
Ringing in the ears.

If you or a loved one have been involved in an accident of any type involving trauma to the head, you should be aware of the many symptoms that might indicate a TBI. The injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP are experienced at handling TBI cases. If you have been injured as a result of the negligence of someone, please call us at (800) 228-9159.

Regrettably, here in our office, we have handled many serious personal injury cases involving traumatic amputations, usually arising in the context of a bad car accident or tractor-trailer collision. Just this past week, we settled a case involving a young man who lost his foot. Not long ago we settled a automobile accident case involving a gentleman who lost his leg. In both cases, we were reminded just how traumatic these cases can be for the innocent victims of the negligence of third parties. Suffice it to say, such injuries have life altering consequences that are permanent in nature, both physically and psychologically. The good news is that many of these clients can through modern medical treatment go on to live full and happy lives. For some, however, the road to recovery is a very long one.

One of the issues one must deal with in these cases is the need for a prosthetic device which will have to be replaced many times over time. Most prosthetic devices only last for a few years and have to be refitted or replaced. These devices many times are hand made and custom fitted and are very expensive. Thus, when analyzing the needs of such a client over the course of his or her life, one has to take into consideration how many different prostheses will be needed to address the client’s needs into the future. Of course, any time any one loses a limb, particularly a leg, there can be collateral consequences to the rest of the body. If one loses a right leg then the left leg has much more strain on it as does the back and the entire body. This can result in other problems for the client in addition to the amputation. Moreover, as discussed above, there is also the problem of psychological adjustment to these very serious injuries. One’s self image obviously can be greatly affected and depending on the makeup of the individual, either the adjustment is a good one, that is the client does adjust, or a bad one, that is that they simply cannot adjust to the lifestyle change and the overall change in their life.

A traumatic amputation case not only effects one physically and mentally but can result in profound consequences for one’s career. If one’s occupation involves a great deal of manual labor, obviously, the consequences of such an injury can be devastating. Climbing ladders, stooping, bending, lifting, all of these activities which so many of us take for granted can be greatly affected by a traumatic limb amputation.

Our experience handling these cases has indicated that one must be extremely cautious in trying to assess the needs of such clients. Professionals have to be consulted with respect to the future costs of prosthetic devices, the future costs of medical care, the likely consequences of the injury on other parts of the body and an assessment of the economic impact of the injury as it pertains to the client’s occupation. Great care and attention to all of these matters must be observed if the client’s interests are to be effectively represented.

As Georgia injury lawyers we see many wrongful death cases from motorcycle accidents. Most motorcycle accidents seem to involve young drivers; however, that is not always the case. In the last two weeks, a Georgia man was killed in a single-vehicle motorcycle accident when the driver, age 57, lost control of his 2009 Revtech EX Wide motorcycle in a curve and laid the bike down on its left side. According to the Georgia State Patrol’s investigation, the motorcycle left a 113 foot-long gouge in the pavement before leaving the roadway on the right shoulder. It then overturned for 51 feet before coming to rest. The rider was ejected from the motorcycle, thrown 61 feet and was pronounced dead a local hospital.

Interstate trucking companies are governed by the safety regulations found at 49 C.F.R. §§ 300 through 399. Trucks engaged solely in intrastate commerce are governed by the corresponding rules in each state’s regulatory Code. Many states, such as Georgia, have adopted the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations as part of its Code, thus, in Georgia at least, state and federal regulations governing the operation of large trucks are very similar. In one respect, the federal code, however, is superior because the Code of Regulations requires employers to adhere to numerous requirements before a truck driver may be hired. Significantly, the Code of Federal Regulations also requires that all records concerning drivers hired to operate trucks must be maintained by that carrier or the employer for a minimum of three (3) years thereafter.

Before a driver can be allowed to operate a truck in interstate commerce, the carrier/employer must administer and the driver must pass a written test about the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and a road test demonstrating competency. Significantly, a trucking company must also check the driver’s records for the past three (3) years in every state in which the driver held a license. The carrier/employer must contact prior employers for the previous three (3) years and ask about the applicant’s employment status and quality of work. In additional, federal law requires pre-employment, post-accident and random drug testing of drivers.

Failure to comply with state and federal regulations with respect to the duties of carrier/employers to monitor the competency of their drivers can create a claim against the trucking company for negligent hiring and retention of an incompetent driver. If a driver fails a drug test, has a poor safety record or otherwise has not fulfilled his or her duties under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and/or if the employer has similarly failed to fulfill its safety duties, then in that event, a claimant can bring a claim against a motor carrier in which it is alleged that the employer/carrier negligently hired and/or retained the services of an incompetent, unqualified driver.

It may be possible in some of these cases to bring a claim for punitive damages if the driver is disqualified from operating a motor vehicle due to violations of safety regulations but nonetheless is still allowed to operate a commercial vehicle. Additionally, if the trucking company fails to conduct an adequate pre-employment screening background or otherwise fulfill their pre-employment safety duties, a claim for punitive damages can be brought as such conduct establishes a disregard for public safety justifying such additional damages.

Stryker, a leading maker of medical devices is reportedly the subject of a Justice Department investigation into Stryker’s marketing of human bone growth products. The investigation has already resulted in guilty pleas by former company sales representatives. Two former sales representatives pleaded guilty to charges that they had promoted off-label use of the products even though they knew that such use had earlier caused problems in some patients.

The investigation is reported to involve several issues. These include whether Stryker abused a federal exemption that authorized it to sell only limited quantities of its bone growth products for “humanitarian” reasons. The products are used by surgeons to aid the growth of bones that fail to heal properly.

One Stryker product, called OP-1, is a protein that promotes bone growth. The other product called OP-1 putty, is a moldable compound that includes the protein. Neither has been formally approved by the Food and Drug Administration for widespread medical use. In 2001, the F.D.A. approved limited use of OP-1 in patients whose broken shin or thigh bones had failed to heal properly. In 2004, the F.D.A. allowed limited use of OP-1 putty in patients who had failed spinal fusion procedures.

The F.D.A. has the power to grant a “humanitarian” exemption” when it believes that a small group of patient may benefit from a treatment, even though the effectiveness has not been fully proved. Under this exemption, a device can be used in up to 4,000 patients a year.

The Justice Department investigation is reported to be seeking to determine whether Stryker knew the products were being promoted for unauthorized, or off-label, use.

Stryker is already operating under federal oversight as a result of an earlier Justice Department investigation of kickbacks paid by makers of artificial hips and knees to doctors.

It was announced last week that The Peanut Corporation of America has decided to file for bankruptcy. Under bankruptcy law, one may not sue a company that has filed for bankruptcy protection. Accordingly, with respect to the wrongful death actions and serious injury claims that are likely to be brought as a result of the widely reported salmonella contamination at the Company’s Blakely, Georgia plant, the corporation has cleverly maneuvered into bankruptcy court to prevent the filing of these lawsuits. This will buy the corporation some time. Additionally, and more troubling from a victim’s standpoint, is a separate lawsuit filed by the liability insurance company for The Peanut Corporation of America (The Hartford Casualty Company) in which the insurance company is seeking to be relieved of any obligation to provide coverage for the acts and omissions at issue allegedly because the insured company committed criminal acts thereby allegedly voiding the insurance coverage which provided protection for negligent acts.

The described legal maneuvering should be very concerning for all victims and their families. On the one hand we have an insurance company (The Hartford) that is seeking to be relieved of any obligation to provide coverage for the acts and omissions of The Peanut Corporation of America. On the other hand, The Peanut Corporation of America has filed bankruptcy seeking to prevent individuals with valid claims from filing lawsuits against it. What this means is that the individual is going to have to file claims in bankruptcy Court as “unsecured creditors” with no judgments and that they may be in a long line of creditors with no ability to collect for their damages. Obviously, this makes the insurance company’s Petition for Declaratory Judgment even more important from the victims’ standpoint.

It is not yet clear whether the insurance company for The Peanut Company of America will be successful in its attempts to have a court declare that it has no obligation to provide coverage for the Salmonella contamination. The argument is that the client was insured for negligent acts, not for criminal acts, and since the client allegedly sent out contaminated peanuts with full knowledge of the contamination that this criminal act voided the coverage. Obviously, this will depend upon an analysis of the language in the policy and the facts involved. Nonetheless, both the bankruptcy filing and the separate Declaratory Judgment action filed by the insurance company are two troubling developments for innocent victims of the salmonella outbreak. The legal maneuvering by both the Corporation and its insurance company is just that. Legal maneuvering designed to protect their legal interests, not the rights of innocent victims. All such victims should associate legal council to protect their interests as neither the Corporation or its insurer will act to do so.

Many Georgia consumers have been impacted by a recent Supreme Court ruling granting immunity from lawsuits to medical device makers for products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Our Atlanta Georgia lawyers have previously written about this decision.

Since that ruling judges in Georgia and across the United States have used it as a basis to dismiss cases against a wide range of manufacturers, including Medtronic. The most recent dismissal was this past Tuesday, by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The New York Times reports that on the same day last month that a federal judge in Minnesota dismissed hundreds of lawsuits against the maker of a faulty heart device, a man entered a nearby hospital to have one of the flawed products surgically removed. The risky surgeryhad a tragic result. As doctors removed the device, a vessel was punctured, causing extensive bleeding. The 33-year-old patient died two days later, leaving behind a wife and two young sons.

His widow and children are left without a remedy due to the Supreme Court decision. This is especially appalling in light of the fact that numerous reports show the FDA has not been adequately testing these products before granting approval.

But now, some members of Congress want to give potential plaintiffs a chance for legal recourse. Two House Democrats, Henry A. Waxman of California, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Frank Pallone Jr. of New Jersey, the head of its health subcommittee, plan to reintroduce soon legislation that would effectively nullify the Supreme Court decision. A similar Senate bill is expected to be reintroduced.

Not surprisingly, medical device manufactures and some conservative legal groups have begun to gear up campaigns to oppose the legislation.

This situation was perhaps best summed up by David C. Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center. He was quoted as follows: “The F.D.A. has shown itself incapable of keeping dangerous products off the market, and now the Supreme Court has said patients can’t sue companies for redress.”

Continue reading "Georgia Victims Denied Legal Remedies" »

The Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have handled many products liability cases involving many different defective and dangerous products, including a defective and dangerous deer stand. When these products fail, catastrophic injury or death often results. This week I read about a recent case in which a jury returned a $157M (million) dollar verdict in a wrongful death case against three companies, L & L Enterprises in Hattiesburg, Miss., Ol’ Man Tree Stands in Jay, Florida, and TSR Inc. in Pace, Florida, who were involved in the manufacture and sales of a deer stand.

If you or a loved one have been seriously injured as a result of a defective product, the trial lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP stand ready to represent your interest and seek justice for you. Call us at (800) 228-9159 for a free consultation.

Every year the Georgia injury attorneys at Finch McCranie, LLP get calls about people being seriously injured on All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs), especially children. Just last year we had a wrongful death case involving a minor and an ATV. In that case, we represented the family of a young girl who was thrown off of the back of an ATV while riding as a passenger, at night and with no helmet! As spring approaches, a quick warning about the dangers of ATVs is in order. When used appropriately and with proper safety precautions, ATVs can be an enjoyable form of recreation. However, when used inappropriately, these vehicles pose a great risk for catastrophic injury, including TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury). Consumer critics argue more limitations must be placed on ATV use. Backing then are some staggering numbers. For instance, children under the age of 16 account for two-thirds (2/3) of ATV-related deaths and injuries. Some states have passed regulations prohibiting young children from riding and requiring riders to wear helmets. One state (North Carolina) now requires safety training for all ATV riders. Unfortunately Georgia has no age restrictions and no helmet law. Regardless of what the lawmakers say, parents must insure their children are safely using ATVs, in order to avoid serious injuries or death. In our recent case, neither the driver of the ATV or the passenger were being properly supervised by adults. As a result of negligent supervision, she died. If you or a loved one have been injured on an ATV either as a result of a product defect of the ATV or because of the negligence of someone operating one, call the experienced lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP at (800) 228-9159.

Recently, we had a client whose vehicle was rear-ended at a high rate of speed. She immediately began to experience visual problem, including double vision which lasted for about two weeks. Many people involved in a serious automobile accident experience the same symptoms which is a classic sign of a traumatic brain injury. A person who has suffered a traumatic brain injury (TBI) may often experience difficulties with balance, spacial orientation, coordination, cognitive function, and speech. In most cases, a referral for visual consultation only occurs if there is an injury to an eye or if ocular pathology is suspected. Persons with TBI frequently will experience double vision, movement of print or stationary objects such as walls and floors, eye strain, visual fatigue, headaches and problems with balance, to name several. Frequently, people will report problems with their vision to rehabilitation professionals and be referred for eye examination. Unfortunately, many will be told that there is nothing wrong with their eyes and that it is the effects of their TBI. Others will be told that their symptoms are not related to their vision. Visual problems are among the most common sequella following a traumatic brain injury and should not be ignored. Competent medical providers and rehabilitation specialists should immediately recognize the significance of post trauma visual problems and treat their patients in conformity with new TBI treatment guidelines. If you or a loved one has sustained a traumatic brain injury as a result of an automobile or trucking accident, call the professional Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP.

Not a month goes by that the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP don’t run into serious automobile accident or tractor trailer accident cases where our client has sustained a traumatic brain injury to some degree. These can occur from all types of accidents, including workers compensation accidents, ATV/All Terrain Vehicle accidents, motorcycle accidents and premises liability accidents.

A traumatic brain injury (TBI) is caused by a blow or jolt to the head or a penetrating head injury that disrupts the normal function of the brain. Not all blows or jolts to the head result in a TBI. The severity of a TBI may range from “mild,” i.e., a brief change in mental status or consciousness to “severe,” i.e., an extended period of unconsciousness or amnesia after the injury. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), TBIs contribute to a substantial number of deaths and cases of permanent disability annually. Of the 1.4 million people who sustain a TBI each year in the United States, 50,000 die; 235,000 are hospitalized; and 1.1 million are treated and released from an emergency department. Among children, ages 0 to 14 years, TBI results in an estimated 2,685 deaths; 37,000 hospitalizations; and 435,000 emergency department visits annually. The number of people with TBI who are not seen in an emergency department or who receive no care is unknown. Interestingly, the two leading causes of TBI are falls (28%) and motor vehicle crashes (20%).

If you or a loved one has sustained a severe head injury in an accident, contact the experienced lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP. (800) 228-9159

We have blogged before about the need for consumers to protect their interests when trying to retain an attorney. Truck accident cases present many obstacles for attorneys who do not regularly practice in the area. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations oftentimes control this type of case and yet many attorneys are not familiar with the requirements imposed by federal law. Additionally, the technology available on trucks that can be downloaded by experts with proper computer software may present different evidentiary and investigative challenges for the attorney who has never confronted similar issues. Moreover, due to the nature of the case, the injuries likely to be involved in any trucking case are usually serious, many times involving brain injury, amputation, paralysis or death. Thus, because the cases are more serious by nature, they demand a higher skill set for the attorney.

Any consumer looking to hire a Georgia trucking accident lawyer should look at their qualifications and should ask the attorney how many cases they have worked on involving interstate trucks collisions. The consumer should ask many questions about whether the lawyer is a member of any professional associations involving other truck accident attorneys, whether they have tried cases before juries in federal or state courts involving serious truck accidents, whether they have been asked to speak as lecturers on the subject, whether they have published articles on the subject and approximately how many such cases they have handled over the years which have resulted in settlements and/or jury verdicts. In short, these are the types of questions that a potential client should ask of their attorney in most any case but the questions become more important when dealing with a serious injury which is likely to be involved in a serious motor vehicle accident involving a tractor-trailer or a large truck.

The attorneys at Finch McCranie have considerable experience dealing with interstate trucking accidents and the serious injuries and wrongful deaths that regrettably flow from these collisions. Our attorneys have lectured on this subject, have published on this subject and have presented cases to juries in both state and federal court on behalf of clients injured by the negligence of trucking companies. These are the qualifications one should seek when hiring an attorney and because our attorneys are qualified to handle such cases, any client that comes to this firm can be comfortable in the knowledge that their attorneys have the skill set needed to deal with the nuances of federal and state law as it pertains to trucking litigation.

A trucker was fired recently when he refused his boss's instructions to drive longer hours than the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) allow, and to falsify his log books. He came to my friend's office today to ask for legal help.

I passed along that there is a federal law that is designed to protect honest truckers, who refuse to break the law by violating the FMCSR. Our firm's truck accident lawyers regularly have wrongful death and serious personal cases involving the devastation that can result from a tired trucker who causes a tractor-trailer accident, so we hope truckers use the law to protect all of the public:

49 U.S.C. § 31105. Employee protections

(a) Prohibitions.—

(1) A person may not discharge an employee, or discipline or discriminate against an employee regarding pay, terms, or privileges of employment, because—

(A) the employee, or another person at the employee’s request, has filed a complaint or begun a proceeding related to a violation of a commercial motor vehicle safety regulation, standard, or order, or has testified or will testify in such a proceeding; or

(B) the employee refuses to operate a vehicle because—

(i) the operation violates a regulation, standard, or order of the United States related to commercial motor vehicle safety or health; or

(ii) the employee has a reasonable apprehension of serious injury to the employee or the public because of the vehicle’s unsafe condition.

Continue reading "Illegal Trucking--Truckers Who Refuse to Violate Safety Regulations (FMCSR) Prevent Trucking Accidents" »

Georgia law relating to uninsured automobile insurance has changed effective January 1, 2009. We have previously written about the importance of uninsured/underinsured (UM) coverage. Essentially this is coverage which protects you and your family if you are injured in a wreck caused by a person with no or low limits of insurance. Unfortunately there are many of these drivers on the roads in Georgia.

Under the new law the major changes relate to the ability to purchase increased coverage. This is best understood by way of example. For purposes of this explanation we will assume you are involved in an accident with an at-fault driver with the minimum limits of $25,000.00. Under the new available coverage assume you have UM coverage of $100,00.00. Then the available coverage to you will be $125,000.00. This is the sum of the at-faults drivers $25,000.00 and your $100,000.00.

Under the old law, the amount of the at-fault driver’s coverage is deducted from your coverage. In the example above, the available coverage to you would from your UM policy would be $75,000.00. This plus the at-fault driver’s $25,000.00 would make $100,000.00 available.

If the at-fault driver has no insurance, there would be no change in the policy coverage. There would be $100,000.00 available under your UM coverage.

Your insurance company can and will charge more for this new coverage. We encourage everyone to seriously consider adding this new coverage to their auto policies.

As Georgia injury lawyers we, at Finch McCranie, LLP, often see victims of automobile accidents and trucking accidents who sustain trauma to the head. The care they get in the minutes and hours following can be crucial to their recovery. Often important signs of mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) are overlooked. Recently the American College of Emergency Physicians in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revised the clinical guidelines for mild brain injuries. Those new guidelines are expected to lead to better patient outcomes for the more than one million patients who visit the emergency department every year for traumatic brain injury or concussion. It is well know by qualified medical professionals that people with traumatic brain injuries may appear to be normal and their symptoms may be mild but there can be hidden dangers. TBI’s can also lead to significant, life-long impairments that prevent a person’s ability to function both physically and mentally. The revised guidelines are designed to help insure that patients even with mild TBI’s are identified early and receive the care they need.

Our Atlanta, Georgia lawyers see health insurance companies deny valid claims on a daily basis, depriving policyholders of necessary medical care to which they are entitled. Now, a California health insurer has been caught red handed. The insurer, Health Net, has agreed to pay as much as $14 million to settle a pair of lawsuits brought on behalf of 800 former policyholders whose coverage was dropped after they submitted substantial medical bills.

On February 11, the court granted preliminary to a settlement in which individuals whose health insurance policies were canceled since 2004 are eligible for payments of up to $218,000. The average payment is expected to be $7,836.

The settlement would resolve a class-action lawsuit filed by private attorneys and by Los Angeles City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo.

In addition to the payments to customers, it requires Health Net to pay a fine of $2 million to the city attorney and to contribute $500,000 to charities.

The settlement comes after a two-year crackdown by California regulators on the widespread and controversial practice known as rescission. Rescinding an insurance policy is a serious matter. It means that an insurer is accusing the policyholder of withholding or concealing vital information.

A policy rescission means that the consumers coverage is completely gone. Insurance companies can unilaterally cancel a health insurance policy, after issuance if the insurer later finds omission on the application. In many cases, the rescission is for a valid reason, such as failure to mention a history of severe cardiovascular problems. But many insurers collect premiums and when a large claim is filed, rescind the coverage over minor mistakes in the application.

In deals with California regulators, insurance providers Health Net, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield all have agreed to make substantial changes in the way they sell individual coverage in an effort to reduce the number of rescissions. Health Net has agreed to pay more than $40 million to resolve the regulatory actions and litigation over rescission.

According to documents Health Net rescinded 1,600 policies and saved $35.5 million over several years. Health Net paid bonuses to an employee based in part on how many rescissions she carried out.

We applaud the California officials who protected consumers from these reprehensible practices, and can only hope that Georgia officials will show the same courage.

Continue reading "Unethical Health Insurance Practices" »

The more one reads about the problems with the products distributed by the Peanut Corporation of America, the more one realizes that there were serious management problems with that Company’s plant in Blakely, Georgia. According to published reports, when federal and state inspectors went to the plant, they found evidence of mold, leaking roofs and other unsanitary conditions. According to an FDA report, not only was there mildew on the ceiling roof of the storage room, there was also evidence of infestation by cockroaches and rodents. Subsequently, it was determined that the Company through its internal testing had, in fact, detected the presence of Salmonella in several of its product lines. These contaminated products were, nonetheless, shipped out into interstate commerce. On January 30 of this year, the Department of Justice launched a criminal investigation to get more answers about the Salmonella outbreak. Even thought the Peanut Corporation of America has now recalled all of the possible contaminated products associated with its Blakely facility, there have already been more than 8 deaths and 600 illnesses reported in 43 states arising from this scandal.

On January 27, 2009, the FDA completed its inspection of the Blakely, Georgia plant. The FDA reported that the records from the Georgia facility showed that there were 12 incidents in 2007 and 2008 where the Company had identified some type of Salmonella during its own testing procedures and yet still allowed its peanut products to be shipped out for sale. Given the FDA’s own inspection which documented numerous unsanitary conditions, and because of these internal test results, it is clear that there was a major problem with management at this facility. Obviously, this is why the government has launched a criminal investigation. Obviously, there has been an apparent lack of concern for public safety given the manner and method in which this operation was conducted.

According to the media, when the FDA initially inspected the Blakely, Georgia plant, plant officials were asked if there had been any reports of Salmonella at the facility. Repeatedly the government was told there had been none. This is extremely troubling which might be a partial basis of the criminal investigation. (It is a federal crime to make false statements to federal investigators and from media reports it appears that such a crime may have occurred.) Of course, all the facts are not in yet and no indictment has yet been returned against anyone. Nonetheless, the public reports concerning the Peanut Corporation of America’s Blakely, Georgia facility are troubling to say the least.

As of February of this year, over 1,500 peanut products have now been recalled because of the nationwide Salmonella outbreak associated with this facility. Until further testing is done by the Centers for Disease Control, it is not yet clear just how many of these 1,500 products were contaminated. What is clear is that there was a major problem with Quality Assurance at this facility which apparently has lead to many deaths and hundreds of illnesses across the country. Thus, not only is a criminal investigation fully warranted by these facts, it is likely that there will be considerable litigation against the Peanut Corporation of America by the innocent victims of these unsafe products.

The above questions are often asked by clients who have been seriously injured in an automobile case or a trucking collision. Regrettably, there are some attorneys out there who will give unrealistic “pie in the sky” answers to such questions, usually for the purpose of trying to convince a client to retain their services. A good lawyer, however, will usually not provide a response to these questions until he or she has fully investigated the case and has access to all of the critical data needed to analyze the value of the case.

Obviously, there are many factors that determine the value of a case. Does the case involve strong evidence of liability against the defendant to be held responsible for the damages? Are there any aggravated circumstances involved? Does the client have a clean background and are the claimed damages fully documented? Is there good evidence of lost wages? Will there be a permanent disability and, if so, has this been documented by the treating physician? Is there a favorable venue or must the case be filed in a rural county where juries return small verdicts historically? In short, there are many questions that arise in trying to questions posed of a similar nature by clients who have been seriously injured and damaged in a bad accident.

Clients understandably want to know whether they are going to recover their damages and be adequately compensated. Regrettably, sometimes the answer is that they will not be adequately compensated. If there is little or no insurance available for an at-fault driver, there may be little or no chance of recovering an adequate compensation for the innocent injured client. If an at-fault driver was on the job for their employer and there is a commercial policy available with significant liability limits then full compensation may be a possibility.

We have seen far too many cases over the years where the at-fault driver had little or no assets and little or no insurance. These are the saddest cases because we have an innocent client who has done nothing wrong and who has been seriously injured and had their life completely turned upside down by an irresponsible driver who had little or no insurance and possesses little or not assets sufficient to satisfy a judgment against them. This is why we have written previous articles about the importance of possessing uninsured/underinsured insurance coverage to protect one’s self from irresponsible drivers who will drive without insurance or with the absolute bare minimum limits of coverage, which in a serious case, are grossly inadequate to address medical expenses, much less compensation for pain and suffering, lost wages and other similar damages.

As we have stated, good lawyers many times avoid answering these questions because the questions cannot be answered until all necessary data has been assembled. Many times a case is worth far more than is available by way of insurance to address the damages sustained. If there is adequate insurance available to address a particular situation, it is many times possible for a skilled attorney to obtain full compensation for the client. A lawyer is not a miracle worker and can only work with the facts presented to them. If the facts are good, the lawyer who has the proper skill set can maximize the recovery for the client. If the facts are bad (little or no insurance, bad evidence on liability, etc.) then the lawyer has to work with a different set of circumstances which could affect the outcome for the client. Again, sometimes a skilled lawyer can achieve good results even when the facts are tough.

The better question for a client to ask is: Do I have a lawyer that has the skill set that can maximize my recovery for the damages I have sustained? A qualified and experienced attorney can analyze the case and consult with the client in trying to arrive at the best result for any particular case. The facts many times will dictate the end result, but a skilled lawyer sometimes can obtain more favorable results for the client based on the same set of facts simply due to the utilization of professional skills and experience to maximize the recovery for the client. As we have posted before on this blog, it is important that potential clients hire qualified, competent, professional, ethical and skilled attorneys to represent their interests in any serious accident case.

An outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease has been confirmed at Atlanta, Georgia’s Grady Memorial Hospital. Water tests confirmed today that two units at Grady Memorial Hospital were the source of the bacteria that caused Legionnaires. Four patients have been sickened by the disease.

A Grady spokesman claimed this was the first time in Grady’s history that the Downtown Atlanta hospital has been the source for disease in patients. The two Grady patient units consisting of and 80 beds have been closed since last week. The Grady spokesman said crews are treating these units and additional floors and will continue testing throughout the hospital.

Three of the four patients have responded to antibiotics and have been discharged. The fourth is still receiving treatment. An additional 50 patients have been tested for the disease, but those tests were negative.

Legionnaires disease is named for an outbreak at a 1976 convention of the American Legion in Philadelphia. It is not spread from one person to another. People get the disease when they breathe in a mist or vapor that’s contaminated with the naturally occurring bacteria.

A type of pneumonia, Legionnaires’ disease can cause death in up to 5 percent to 30 percent of cases.

Many Georgia parents, and thousands of parents across the country who have children suffering from autism, received bad legal news today. They had claimed that childhood vaccines had caused their children to develop autism.

In a long awaited decision, a special court rejected their claims and ruled that they are not entitled to federal compensation. The decision in three test cases is a severe blow to a national movement that has argued that childhood vaccines have been responsible for the surge in autism diagnoses in the United States in recent decades.

The majority of the scientific community, backed by federal health agencies, has argued there is no link between vaccines and autism. They also argue that deterring parents from vaccinating their children places children at risk for a host of serious childhood diseases.

The decision was handed down by a special panel of three independent special masters. The burden of proof placed upon the parents was that of a preponderance of the evidence. That is, a showing of more likely than not.

The vaccine court was set up by Congress as part of what is known as the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. It was primarily designed to compensate the fraction of people who suffer serious side effects from vaccines. Rather than have the victims sue vaccine makers in regular court the Congress set up a "no-fault" system that required victims to prove to a special master only that vaccines had harmed them.

Thousands of cases charging childhood vaccines cause autism have been filed in the vaccine court in recent years. In an effort to streamline the proceedings, the court decided to hear three cases that suggested different mechanisms by which vaccines might have caused autism. It was the rulings on those three cases that were announced today.

In a harsh ruling on one case, special master George Hastings said the parents of Michelle Cedillo -- who had charged that a measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine caused their child to develop autism -- had "been misled by physicians who are guilty, in my view, of gross medical misjudgment."

Two other special masters reached similar conclusions in their cases.

The ruling does not preclude appeals.

On the way to work today I saw an automobile accident that had just occurred. A lady had been rear-ended by an automobile on the interstate highway. The cars were very badly damaged and it was clear that one of the drivers was injured. The ambulances had not yet arrived.

As I drove by the accident scene, I thought to myself, “I wonder how this unfortunate lady will find a competent Georgia automobile accident attorney to represent her interests effectively, competently, honestly, ethically and professionally?” Like any other choice a consumer must make involving an important personal matter, consumers must beware of who they hire to represent their interests in these cases. Not all lawyers are created equally nor do they have the same professional abilities. While there are many that advertise their services to the pubic, the public should investigate the background of any attorney to make sure that they are the proper attorney to handle their case.

Lawyers are no different from doctors. While there are many surgeons out there, not all surgeons are equally adept at certain surgical procedures. Some have a better reputation than others, some have greater experience than others, some have a better educational pedigree and background which qualify them for more sophisticated forms of surgery. In a automobile accident case where the person is not seriously injured, the differences in skill and competency may not matter. However, in a case involving serious injuries, lost wages and the possibility of a permanent disability, the greater the skill level of the attorney, the more likely it is that the client will receive competent representation.

When a client is looking for an attorney to handle their automobile accident case, like the lady who was involved in the accident witnessed this morning, the client should review the attorney’s educational background at a minimum. Where did they go to college? Where did they attend law school? How long have they been practicing law? What is their practice’s emphasis? Is the attorney active in professional organizations and/or otherwise active in the Bar? Has the attorney or their firm published articles in the field? Has the attorney been asked to speak at seminars on various topics pertaining to serious automobile collisions? Has the attorney tried many cases before a jury or does the attorney have at track record of settling everything and trying nothing?

The attorneys at Finch McCranie have handled hundreds upon hundreds of serious automobile accident cases over the years involving wrongful death, paralysis, amputation, neck, back, leg, internal and brain injuries. Having handled many hundreds of cases over the years, our attorneys have extensive experience in dealing with serious automobile accident cases. Our attorneys have been asked to speak at seminars helping to educate other lawyers in the field. Our attorneys have published articles in the area and have tried many cases to verdict involving wrongful death and serious injury. In short, the attorneys at Finch McCranie possess the qualifications one would need and desire for someone in need of competent and professional legal services. While there are other good attorneys throughout the state that possess similar qualifications, regrettably, there are many attorneys who advertise such services but never go to court, or rarely, have not published in the field nor spoken at seminars, possess little or no experience in dealing with sophisticated complex cases, and yet will still take such a case. Because lawyers possess different skill sets based on their experience, qualifications and background, a potential client looking for a good lawyer to handle a serious automobile case should investigate their lawyer’s background and qualifications before retaining their services.

We heard a radio piece on National Public Radio the week before last about the rise in uninsured motorists nationwide. It is now estimated that as many as 16% of the motoring public are driving without insurance. In today’s tough economic times, people are failing to pay not only their house bills, which has lead to the mortgage crisis, but also their car insurance bills. This means that many motorists are endangering the lives of their fellow motorists as they drive. Obviously, they are hoping that they will not be involved in an accident. If they are, it is not the driver who causes the accident which is at risk, it is the innocent victim of their reckless conduct.

The only way to protect one’s self against a uninsured motorist is to purchase uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance coverage. While all drivers are required by law to maintain liability insurance coverage to protect the rights of other motorists, 16% of our fellow drivers, apparently, are not fulfilling this duty. Many others purchase the absolute minimum limits required by law - typically $25,000.00 which provides no meaningful protection for serious injuries. Therefore, we are all 16% at risk when we get behind the wheel of being involved in an accident where the driver causing the accident does not have insurance. For those who can afford it and whose budget will allow it, it is therefore increasingly important that uninsured motorist protection be purchased. Without such coverage, if someone is involved in a terrible collision involving serious injuries or even death, there will be no recovery in all likelihood because anyone who is driving without insurance will not have personal assets sufficient to satisfy a judgment in any event

Continue reading "Georgia Drivers Beware: Uninsured Drivers On The Increase" »

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations specify that commercial truck drivers must use “extreme caution” in hazardous weather conditions. Like many other states, Georgia’s Commercial Drivers Manual provides that truckers should slow down as much as one-third (1/3) of their normal and customary speed during hazardous conditions. There are good reasons for these regulations. Indeed, in an analysis of large truck crash collisions conducted in 2007, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration determined that 23% of all tractor-trailer collisions involved truckers who were driving too fast for conditions.

Common sense indicates that it takes longer to stop a large tractor-trailer than it does an automobile. Automobiles average several thousand pounds in weight whereas some tractor trailers can average on 80,000 pounds with their loads. If there is a collision, it is going to be bad because of the disparity in the weights of vehicles typically involved in collisions with these big rigs. As is always the case with commercial trucks in general, safety is the operative term that must be paramount, not only for the truck drivers and their employers but also for the motoring public.

Truck drivers in Georgia and elsewhere that do not exercise extreme caution during adverse weather conditions are endangering every single person on the road. Drivers who continue to travel at high speeds during rain, sleet or snow are acting recklessly and are violating their mandatory safety duties and obligations. If a collision results from a driver’s failure to exercise extreme caution during adverse weather conditions, not only should liability be imposed against the driver and his employer, but punitive damages would be appropriate to deter the company from allowing its drivers to engage in such reckless conduct.

Continue reading "Georgia Truck Drivers Must Exercise Extreme Caution In Bad Weather" »

Our Atlanta lawyers interview potential clients on a daily basis concerning their injuries and hospitalizations. Many times, potential clients, even those who have been hospitalized for long periods, cannot tell us the name or names of the doctors who treated them in the hospital. Now, a recent survey has shown that this is a common occurrence. According to the survey, hospital patients are rarely able to identify their doctors by name or to describe their roles in the patients’ care.

Researchers at the University of Chicago interviewed 2,807 adults admitted to the school’s hospital over a 15-month period. The patients were asked about the roles of the various physicians attending to them and to name the doctors on those teams. The medical teams consisted of three to four people.

Amazingly, 75 % of the patients surveyed were unable to name a single doctor who participated in their care. Of the 25 % who offered a name, only 40 % were correct. The patients who claimed to understand the roles of their doctors were more likely to correctly identify at least one of their doctors.

In the study, patients able to name one of their physicians also were more likely to be unsatisfied with their care.

We encourage all patients to not only ascertain the identity of the doctors treating them in a hospital, but to actively question the doctors and healthcare personal about their treatment decisions.

Our personal injury and wrongful death attorneys in Atlanta, Georgia support MADD's Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving. If you have not done so, please go to Parade magazine's website at www.parade.com/drunkdriving, and vote "YES" in the poll asking this question: "Should ignition interlocks be mandatory for drunk drivers nationwide?"

MADD's National President Laura Dean-Mooney has asked that this message (below) be passed along, so we are using our blog to publicize it. Please pass this message along to your friends and family, to help eliminate drunk driving!

Hello! I hope you are having a wonderful Super Bowl weekend. I don't usually write to you on the weekends, but there is an extraordinary opportunity today and tomorrow to help advance the Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving quickly and easily, so I wanted to let good friends like you know.

PS. Would you please also ask your friends and family to vote? Thanks!

Continue reading "Atlanta, Georgia Lawyers Support MADD Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving--and the Injuries and Deaths It Causes" »

Every spring and summer as swimming pools open for the season, we read about tragic drownings, often involving children. Statistics show that drowning and near drowning are a leading cause of death and brain injury. Many of these unfortunate incidents could be prevented if swimming pools had proper anti-drowning drain covers and suction cutoff devices installed. These covers and suction cutoff devices are designed to prevent children from being caught in the swimming pool drain as a result of strong suction. Under the new federal regulation, which went into effect last year, public swimming pools and hot tubs are required to install special devices that will prevent drain suction from trapping children under water. These new rules apply to pools and spas used by the public, including municipal pools and those at hotels, private clubs, apartment buildings and community centers. The new law does not require retro-fitting of private home pools.
As with any case, it is always important to throughly investigate the facts of a tragedy in a timely manner so as to preserve evidence. The law firm of Finch McCranie, LLP has represented the families of victims of serious injury and wrongful death accidents for over 40 years.