Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

As Georgia injury lawyers, we often get calls about pharmacy mistakes and prescription errors being committed by medical providers, including drug stores. Many times, the mistakes are caught before any damage is done; however, sometimes serious injury or death occurs. Recently, we read about a case where a pharmacist at a Wal-Mart store allegedly mislabeled a pill bottle, resulting in a woman in her 70's taking twice the recommended and prescribed dose of a blood pressure medication. As a result, she has suffered serious injury and almost died. Apparently the woman’s physician quickly discovered the pharmacy error but not before she suffered permanent heart damage and incurred substantial medical expenses.

In 2006, it was estimated that more than 1.5 million Americans were injured every year by drug errors in hospitals, nursing homes and doctor’s offices. Even as far back as 1999, it was estimated that at least 7,000 people die annually from drug errors. There are many reasons for the errors that occur. Most prescriptions are hand written and in some cases are difficult to read. In addition, many times there are bad interactions between different drugs a patient may be taking. Technology alone has the potential to eliminate some of these errors but industry and government has been slow to implement a comprehensive plan, including E-prescribing. For now, consumers must be aggressive in questioning doctors, nurses and pharmacists about their medications whether they are looking out for a friend or loved one in a nursing home or hospital or handling their own prescription medication at home.

If you or a loved one have been seriously injured as a result of drug store errors or prescription mis-labeling, contact an experienced Georgia injury lawyer at Finch McCranie, LLP.

Our attorneys have seen many cases in which patients are injured, sometimes severely, by healthcare professional in Georgia hospitals committing careless and preventable errors or by medical device defects.

The ECRI Institute recently released its annual list of top hospital medical device hazards for last year. The ECRI Institute, a nonprofit organization, dedicated to bringing the discipline of applied scientific research to discover which medical procedures, devices, drugs, and processes are best, in an effort to improve patient care. It is one of only a handful of organizations designated as both a Collaborating Center of the World Health Organization and an Evidence-Based Practice Center by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Updated annually, the list is based on problems reported to and investigated by ECRI and includes detailed descriptions and information on how to avoid such hazards.

The ECRI Institute’s 2008 list of most dangerous medical device hazards include:

1) Needlesticks and Other Sharps Injuries. Intravenous and other injection devices can cause injuries to physicians, patients, laboratory personnel, pharmacy staff, housekeeping personnel, and waste handlers by an exposed needle or other sharp. Consequences include serious cuts and exposure to blood borne pathogens such as HIV or the hepatitis B or C virus.

2) Air Embolism from Contrast Media Injectors. X-ray imaging of blood vessels where contrast media is injected into the patients vasculature and can create the risk of injecting air, potentially resulting in a fatal embolism.

3) Retained Devices and Un-retrieved Fragments Left in Patients: In these cases an entire device is left behind in surgery or a portion of a device breaks away within the patient. Sometimes, surgical items are intentionally placed in the patient, but can pose the risk of infection or burn hazards when the patient undergoes MRI examination.

4) Surgical Fires: Medical devices or other components can ignite, such as electrosurgical units; electrocautery devices; lasers and related disposable components; oxygen, which can ignite easily and burn intensely; and fuel, such as from fenestration towels and gowns.

5) Anesthesia Hazards due to Inadequate Pre-Use Inspection: These include serious problems such as misconnected breathing circuits, ventilator leaks, and empty gas cylinders.

6) Misleading Displays: Ambiguous or counterintuitive displays can create misinterpretation.

7) CT Radiation Dose: High doses can present an increased risk of cancer, possibly linked to 6,000 additional cancers a year, roughly half being fatal.

8) MR Imaging Burns: Patients become burned from the Magnetic Resonance Imaging technology.

9) Fiberoptic Light-Source Burns: Light sources used in endoscopes, retractors, and headlamps can cause burns to staff and patients from the light itself or from its heated cable connections.

As a Georgia injury lawyer I read more and more about ATV accidents involving serious injuries and deaths, especially among children. Although there have been dozens of tragic deaths, I recall that in 2003 five Georgia children died after a car struck their ATV. The children, ranging in age from 11 to 14, had piled into the ATV and were going for a ride on a winding road during a birthday party when the collision occurred.

Two years ago, we represented the estate of a young girl who riding (as a passenger) on the back of an ATV being driven by another young girl at night. Our client was thrown from the ATV which resulted in her sustaining internal injuries which lead to her death.

Parents who purchase ATV’s and make them available to children may be exposing themselves to substantial personal liability when they fail to supervise the use of them. Many of the tragic cases I read about involve children riding other children on the back of the ATV. Other than with a few models manufactures most ATV’s clearly have labels which say that they are not to be used to ride passengers. Yet parents continue to allow their underage children to ride quests around on the back of the ATV. If it is not bad enough that they are allowed to ride passengers, many do so at night on public roads!

In Georgia, a parent can be held liable if they negligently entrust an ATV to a child who injures or kills someone with it. They can be held liable to a third party for failing to properly supervise a child operating an ATV and can certainly be held liable for knowingly allowing a child to operate an ATV in a negligent or dangerous manner. If the parents provide the ATV for the use and enjoyment of the family, they can be held responsible to third parties for injuries or death caused by its use or misuse.

If you or a loved one have been seriously injured as a result of the negligent operation of an ATV, call the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP.

With the growing popularity of ATV’s or All-Terrain Vehicles, serious injury and death cases are on the increase in Georgia, especially among children. Believe it or not, the only legal requirements governing ATV operation in Georgia are that they have brakes and a muffler, and that the operators do not ride on private property without permission. Because of the ever increasing number of fatalities and serious injuries to ATV operators, especially children, the Georgia legislature decided it was necessary to study this problem to determine whether additional safety requirements should be added to the current law. To this end, the House ATV Safety Study Committee was created. The committee organized three public forums in three regions of the state for the purpose of hearing testimony from local law enforcement, medical professionals, ATV enthusiasts, industry representatives and concerned citizens about the issues surrounding safe ATV operation. In December 2005, the committee issued their report. One of the findings of the committee was that almost all ATV fatalities or serious injuries occur while violating one or more of the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s “Rules of ATV Operation”. Those rules are as follows:

1. Children under sixteen (16) should not ride adult-sized ATV (engines bigger than 90 cc’s).
2. Take a hands-on safety course.
3. Always wear a helmet while on an ATV.
4. Never drive an ATV on paved roads.
5. Never drive while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
6. Never drive an ATV with a passenger, and never ride as a passenger.

Notwithstanding all of the “work” that went into studying the problem, as of 2009 Georgia has yet to enact any legislation governing ATV operation in Georgia. Adults and parents of children must act responsibly to insure that ATV’s are not made available to young children and that they are operated safely. Some models of ATV’s have been found to have design defects and to have been manufactured with defective parts rendering them dangerous even if operated properly.

If you or a loved one has been seriously injured on an ATV, call the Georgia injury lawyers and product liability lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP.

In Georgia, worker’s compensation is essentially an insurance program regulated by the state and required of most employers. Worker’s compensation pays medical bills and lost wages for employees who have had work related accidents resulting in illness or injury.

Employees with work-related conditions or injuries are entitled, but not limited, to:

• Reimbursement of travel expenses, including mileage to and from medical appointments

• Prescription reimbursements

• Two-thirds of your weekly wage while you are unable to work and are off work up to a maximum amount (currently $500.00) set by the State

• Two-thirds of the difference between what you were earning at the time of your injury and what you are earning at the time you reach maximum medical improvement up to a maximum amount (currently $ 334.00) set by the State, if you return to work at a lesser paying, modified job.

• A physical impairment rating if your work-related condition is permanent

• Penalties if the worker’s compensation carrier does not follow certain rules

If you have had a work related accident in Atlanta, or anywhere in Georgia, contact the worker’s compensation lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP in order to discuss your worker’s compensation claim and your benefits.

This past month our firm handled two different cases which both illustrate how to get the best possible settlement for a client in a personal injury case. It is oftentimes said that many cases settle on the courthouse steps. This is true. The reason for this is because if the case is not settled, it will have to be presented to a jury at considerable expense and with great time and effort by all parties. The uncertainty of what a jury might do, either returning a greater award than the defense would like to pay or a lesser award that the plaintiff hopes to get is the basis for compromise. However, unless counsel for a plaintiff who has been injured through the negligence of another is ready for trial it is almost guaranteed that before will not receive the best possible settlement for his or her client.

The two cases we have handled here recently are like many others we have handled in the past. Settlement offers were not made until it was demonstrated to the insurance carrier that counsel was ready for trial and was ready in a professional manner to present the case in such a manner as to likely receive from a jury more than the defense was previously willing to pay. In both cases, no offer was made until the case reached the courthouse steps. If counsel had not prepared the case of trial diligently and professionally through taking videotaped depositions, preparing demonstrative exhibits for the jury, submitting Requests to Charge relative to the legal and factual issues involved, marking all exhibits, subpoenaing all witnesses, etc., the insurance company would likely have gambled and defended the case will full knowledge that plaintiff’s counsel was not prepared. However, once the defense attorney and the insurance company got to the courthouse steps and realized that their adversary (in this case our firm) was prepared to proceed professionally, they offered to settle the matters for the actual value of the cases. In short, they made an offer of what we all along had been willing to accept thus obviating the need for a jury trial.

The main point of this blog entry is to emphasize something that we have known for years but which the public may not fully appreciate. Cases do not settle for their maximum value unless they are properly prepared by experienced trial counsel. In neither of the cases we have referenced, would there ever have been an offer of settlement made at any time unless the case had been properly prepared. Once the insurance carrier realized that plaintiff’s counsel was prepared to proceed in front of the jury and could, in fact, proceed in a professional manner and would make an effective presentation, then and only then did they pay the fair settlement value of the case. Had our firm not been prepared to proceed as professional advocates on behalf of our clients we would not have achieved the best possible settlement for our clients. The two cases that we write about were both very tough cases on liability, which were hotly contested. The insurance carriers may have continued to make no offer if they believed that plaintiff’s counsel was not prepared to put up a strong case. Once plaintiff’s counsel showed up on the courthouse steps with subpoenas, witnesses, exhibits, videotaped presentations and all the other necessary ingredients for a successful trial, the insurance company folded and the clients received fair settlements.

If one is to receive the best possible settlement for a client, one must be prepared to proceed to trial. Accordingly, if a client wants to make sure that he or she receives the best possible settlement in their case, they to make sure that they have a trial attorney that is prepared to present their case to a jury in the event the insurance company is not prepared to make a realistic and fair settlement offer. The best way to insure the latter is to be prepared for trial. Thus, any person injured by the acts of another through negligence or otherwise should always attempt to find an experienced trial attorney to represent their interests. This is the best way of insuring the best possible settlement results in any given case. Moreover, if the case cannot be settled, the client will have the satisfaction of knowing that their attorney can present the case to the jury, hopefully, in such a manner as to insure a successful verdict.

The simple answer to the question posed is - No. Some police chases are necessary in order to protect the interests of the public. If someone through a violent act commits the crime of car jacking, is a cop killer or otherwise is attempting to escape law enforcement for the commission of a violent felony where the suspect clearly poses an imminent and present danger to the public, then under such circumstances, the dangers presented by police chases are warranted from a societal standpoint. It is a different case altogether, however, when the police are chasing a minor traffic offender at high speeds and at the same time are creating great danger to the public where the need to immediately apprehend the suspect is outweighed by the danger presented to the public by the chase itself. Most experts in this area do not advocate banning police pursuits altogether. In cases involving violent felonies, even if the chase itself poses dangers to innocent members of the motoring public, nonetheless, the suspect being pursued is dangerous and needs to be apprehended if possible in order to protect the public. Again, however, the situation is different when the suspect really does not need to be apprehended immediately, poses little danger to the public and yet the chase itself kills or seriously injuries innocent members of the motoring public under such circumstances.

Most enlightened police departments throughout the United States have restrictive pursuit policies which limit the ability of their officers to chase non-violent offenders. If someone has a missing taillight it would hardly be justifiable to chase them at high speeds approaching 100 miles per hour while approaching a congested area or a school zone. People are likely to be killed because it is foreseeable that serious injury or death will occur during a high speed police chase. The law enforcement community has long known that approximately 400 to 500 people per year are killed in police chases and many thousands injured across this country. Because it is foreseeable that serious injury or death can result from a high speed police pursuit, such foreseeable risks should be minimized if at all possible particularly when the fleeing suspect does not present an inherent danger to the public.

There are many police policies that do not restrict the activities of their officers but nonetheless allow them to exercise their “discretion” as to whether they should continue a pursuit once initiated. Most such policies have language to the effect that if the danger to the public caused by the chase itself is greater than the danger presented by the suspect that the pursuit should be terminated. This is excellent policy language but the problem is it is difficult to implement and consequently the public is still being exposed under such policies to unnecessary risks of serious injury or death when non-violent traffic offenders are involved. It would seem that the better policy would be to have a restrictive policy that clearly spells out for officers what they can and cannot do in situation involving non-violent felonies. Nonetheless, until there is a uniform policy adopted by the law enforcement community restricting the rights of officers to expose the public to serious injury or death in situations involving non-violent felonies, at the very least, policies that provide discretion to its officers should be enforced and officers should not be permitted to expose the public to unnecessary risks of injury or death unless the need to immediately apprehend the suspect substantially outweighs the danger to the public presented by the chase itself.

Over the years our product liability lawyers have been involved in cases in Georgia in which infants are tragically killed by crib and toy dangers. Now in an effort that we applaud, major manufacturers of infant cribs have agreed on a proposal that would ban drop-side cribs in the United States.

Drop-side cribs allow parents to raise and lower one side for easy access. But bad designs, missing pieces and worn-out hardware have caused the adjustable railings to separate from the cribs. Infants have slid through the resulting gaps suffering injuries and in some cases death by strangulation.

Recently, the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission stepped up investigations of deadly cribs and is moving toward tougher federal rules.
The safety rules to be adopted by the major manufacturers are voluntary, but the biggest crib retailers require that their suppliers follow them.

The new safety rules would require that all four sides of the crib be rigidly attached to one another. That eliminates the moving parts that have broken loose and created entrapment hazards.

The drop side is especially helpful to shorter people or those with back problems. The proposed standard allows a small portion of the top of a crib railing to fold down, and that accomplishes the same goal while minimizing the chance that one side will separate.

Manufacturers in the past have rejected proposals that restrict their designs, preferring instead to mandate tests to detect hazards. However, many of the more than 3 million cribs recalled in the last two years for problems with drop-side railings passed the tests required under safety standards but still failed in consumers' homes.

A ban on the most common form of drop-side railings would affect all major cribmakers thereby allowing them to stop making the product without losing market share.

Our Atlanta lawyers see many cases involving serious head injuries which at first appear to be minor or nonexistent. The recent report about actress Natasha Richardson who fell at a Canadian ski slope is a prime example. According to reports, Ms. Richardson, suffered a minor fall while skiing.

According to reports, she was talking and joking after she fell Monday. But soon after she returned to her hotel room she complained of head pain and was taken to a nearby hospital, then to a larger medical center in Montreal. She was later flown by private jet to a New York hospital, where she is reportedly in critical condition.

A blow to the head that at first seems minor and does not result in immediate pain or other symptoms can in fact turn out to be a life-threatening brain injury. Immediate treatment is essential after a brain injury because damage caused by swelling is often irreversible.

The initial fall or injury doesn't have to be hard at all. The delay in symptoms can range from five minutes to three hours after the accident.

Experts report that a patient can appear deceivingly normal at first, but they may actually have a brain bleed and as the pressure builds up, they experience classic symptoms of a traumatic brain injury. This condition is commonly referred to as "talk and die" syndrome, because the patient can decline so rapidly.

These injuries are known as epidural hemorrhages. Blood gets trapped between the skull and the dura which is a hard layer of skin between the bone and brain. As the blood flows from the ruptured artery, the fluid builds and can puncture the dura.

The pressure is pushed on the brain, causing it to swell. Since the brain is restricted by the skull, there is often no room for it to move inside the skull cavity.

Nausea, severe headache, glossy eyes, sudden sleepiness, are all common symptoms of a brain injury. Getting to a hospital within the first few hours is critical to prevent permanent brain damage. Immediate treatment is essential after a brain injury because the initial damage caused by swelling often is irreversible.

Experts warn that the most important thing to do to lower your risk of a brain injury is to wear a helmet.

Continue reading "Minor Falls Can Lead To Severe Brain Injury" »

The Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have represented many victims of nursing home abuse over the years. With our aging population, we expect the numbers of these cases to increase. Nursing home abuse and nursing home neglect of the elderly and vulnerable in nursing homes and other facilities occurs in many forms. A Georgia nursing home lawyer is here to assist your loved ones with holding the wrongdoers accountable. Some types of abuse are obvious such as elder sexual or elder physical assault or financial exploitation. Other forms of abuse and neglect are less noticeable and are often the result of having fewer nursing staff and aides than are needed and required. Staffing and training issues lead to many forms of avoidable neglect such as: falls, pressure ulcers (bed-sores), medications errors, dehydration and malnourishment, urinary tract infections, unsupervised residents wandering or suffering burn injuries and a multitude of other problems.

If you suspect abuse or neglect to any vulnerable adult, please contact the lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP.

Emergency defibrillators in public gathering places have become common throughout Georgia. Now, about 14,000 external defibrillators are being recalled after 39 reported incidents, including two that involved patient deaths.

The recall was announced Tuesday by manufacturer Welch Allyn. It involves 14,054 AED 10 and MRL JumpStart external defibrillators made between Oct. 3, 2002, and Jan. 25, 2007. The company said there is a chance the AEDs, available through prescription, may produce low-energy shock, shutdown unexpectedly or be susceptible to electromagnetic noise interference.

These problems could prevent defibrillation of a patient in cardiac arrest and could lead to death. There have been reported 20 instances of low-energy shock, eight instances of electromagnetic noise interference, and 11 instances of the device unexpectedly shutting down.

The company denies that the defects of the device contributed to the two deaths.

In October 2007, the company recalled 1,794 AED10 automatic external defibrillators

Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia has been involved in a controversy concerning undisclosed payments to the head of the psychiatry department by drug companies. The danger that these financial relationships between physicians and drug and medical device manufactures can pose to patients is being brought to light in West Virginia.

Two companies that make medical devices and surgical materials may face sanctions related to medical malpractice lawsuits filed by patients against John Anderson King, an osteopathic surgeon on the staff of Putnam General Hospital in West Virginia between November 2002 and June 2003.

Wright Medical Technology Inc. and EBI Inc., disclosed potential financial penalties in required filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The U.S. Department of Justice has confirmed that it is investigating Wright Medical and several other medical device companies.

Last year, Hospital Corporation of America, which owned the hospital while Dr. King was working there, paid about $100 million to settle 124 medical malpractice lawsuits filed by former patients.

Several of the 124 lawsuits filed in Putnam County named at least one of the two medical device companies that supplied surgical tools that Dr. King used often. Wright Medical Technology Inc. is mentioned in 33 lawsuits. Wright manufactured Allomatrix, a bone-fusion material that failed to work properly during two experimental studies performed on rats and rabbits. A third study, using primates showed questionable results.

EBI Inc., a subsidiary of Biomet Inc. is mentioned in 38 lawsuits involving spine-stimulating devices Dr. King used during surgeries. EBI is alleged to have paid Dr. King a bonus each time he inserted one of its spacers into a patient's spine. The spacers have never been successfully used in animals or humans to replace diseased or damaged vertebral disks, according to a federal whistleblower complaint filed against Dr. King.

The complaint alleges that Payments and kickbacks to doctors such as Dr. King were disguised as consulting agreements. The kickbacks have taken the form of cash payments, travel benefits, entertainment and other benefits.

Patients have said Dr. King never informed them he was implanting experimental devices inside their bodies.

Many Bowflex exercise machines are found in homes and gyms throughout Georgia. Now, Nautilus Inc, the manufacturer is recalling 78,000 of its Bowflex Ultimate 2 Home Gyms.

There are reports that the seat rails can unlatch causing potentially serious injury. At least 18 people have been injured so far, with some customers suffering cuts to their heads and shoulders; some requiring stitches.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission said the gym’s horizontal seat rail, if not manually latched for storage, can fall on a user or bystander, causing the injuries.

The Bowflex gyms were manufactured in China and from June 2005 through January for about $2,300. The name “Bowflex Ultimate 2" is painted on the vertical part of the frame.

The Consumers Product Safety Commission states that consumers may continue to use their home gyms for exercising, but should not place the seat rail in the vertical (storage) position until a repair is performed. Registered owners are being sent a free repair kit. Owners who have not received a repair kit by March 10, 2009 should contact the firm.

This is the second Bowflex recall in the past two-and-half years.

Georgia residents and countless others across the nation received good news today. In a surprise decision handed down today the United States Supreme Court held that drug manufacturers who fail to warn of known dangers are not immune from liability due to the federal preemption doctrine.

In the case of Wyeth v. Levine , the Supreme Court was confronted with a situation in which drug manufacturer Wyeth had been sued by Levine. Wyeth manufacturers the anti-nausea drug Phenergan. Levine had been injected with Phenergan by a clinician using the IV-push method whereby the drug is injected directly into a vein. However, the drug entered an artery and doctors were forced to amputate her arm below the elbow.

Levine sued in the state courts of Vermont alleging among other things, that Wyeth knew of the increased risks of using the drug by the IV-push method, but failed to provide adequate warnings to healthcare practitioners. A Vermont jury determined that Wyeth was liable under state failure to warn claims and awarded damages against Wyeth.

Wyeth appealed arguing that prior approval of the label for Phenergan by the FDA preempted all state law actions, in effect granting them immunity from suit.

The Supreme Court squarely rejected this argument, finding that Wyeth’s argument would shift the burden of providing adequate warnings to the FDA when the duty to warn rests directly upon the manufacturer.

This is a major victory for consumers across the United States.

Continue reading "Supreme Court Ruling Affects Georgia Consumers and Others " »