Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

Finch McCranie has been representing innocent victims caught up in police chases for over a decade. While the police should chase violent felons who are endangering the public, many of these cases involve chases where the police are pursuing non-violent or mere traffic offenders at high speeds with the end result being a third party killed or injured, caught up by happenstance in the dangerous pursuit. We have long advocated that the police should pursue violent offenders where the risk of the chase to the public is justified by the risk to the public caused by the offender. If the suspect being pursued has merely violated a traffic law or has committed some other non-violent offense or felony, even if they are apprehended, they are liable to be sentenced to a very light fine and perhaps no incarceration. And yet, in order to chase such a suspect, the police are all too often willing to endanger the rights of the innocent motoring public. Unfortunately, innocent third parties are killed during these dangerous pursuits.

Recently, the City of Milwaukee changed its high speed pursuit policy. From now on, Milwaukee police officers must have probable cause that a violent felony has occurred before they will be authorized to pursue a fleeing suspect. This is because four (4) people have already been killed in 2010 in separate incidents by drivers fleeing from the Milwaukee police. The Police Chief of Milwaukee issued a statement in which he stated that he had to consider the risk to the public caused by the changes in evaluating his City’s policies. As he stated: “I have an obligation to my officers, despite the risk they are willing to take, to limit their risk of injury or death, to make sure that the danger represented by the suspect justifies the risk of violent death. All too often it clearly does not justify that risk.” While this is a welcome change in policy and a sensible and rational approach to police chases in general, many other jurisdictions have failed to adopt a similar policy. Accordingly, officers in many jurisdictions in Georgia and elsewhere continue to chase non-violent offenders at dangerously high speeds sometimes with the result that an innocent third party gets caught up in the chase by happenstance and loses their life or sustains serious and permanent injuries.

We have long advocated that the police should chase those where the risk posed to the public by the suspect is equal to or greater than the risk associated with these dangerous pursuits. However, if the suspect has merely committed a traffic offense or other non-violent offense, the risk of these dangerous pursuits to the public is simply too great. Simply stated, to impose the death penalty on an innocent third party in order to apprehend someone who is non-violent makes no sense.

We are pleased there has been a change in policy in Milwaukee and we can only hope that other police departments will consider changes in their policies. The myth that such policy changes actually encourage crime (by encouraging flight) has been proven over and over again to be a false myth. Those jurisdictions that adopt more restrictive police pursuit policies (such as Milwaukee) have not experienced an increase in crime or in flight cases. There is no reason not to change dangerous non-restrictive policies in a sensible, rational way as has the City of Milwaukee. We applaud Chief Edward Flynn for his stance in this regard. He is doing something that makes sense. We hope that other police chiefs and departments will follow suit.

Our Atlanta product liability lawyers see many cases involving defective products which cause injury. None are more disturbing than those involving children. There have been 24 reported injuries of children involving Graco Harmony highchairs. In an effort to avoid further injuries Graco Children's Products announced Thursday that it is recalling 1.2 million Harmony highchairs because of stability issues.

The company makes car seats, strollers, swings and other products for kids. It reported that that its Harmony highchairs can be unstable and tip over. The highchair model, was produced from 2003 to 2009 and retailed for $70 to $120. The chairs were sold at Target, Toys R Us and Wal-Mart.

The company blamed the problem on screws holding the front legs of the highchair which can loosen and fall out, and a plastic bracket on the rear legs which can crack, presenting a hazard to children.

In February of 2006, John Lamb was killed when a bicycle he was riding became entangled with hazardous utility wires which draped across a city sidewalk. Mr. Lamb did not see the wires that were still attached to the utility pole until it was too late. Unfortunately, he was thrown from his bicycle, landed on his head, broke his neck and was killed.

This spring, PEDS, a pedestrian safety advocacy group located in Atlanta, will be conducting the Second Annual John Lamb Hazardous Wire Hunt. Citizens are encouraged to photograph hazardous wires on or near City sidewalks and then send the photographs to PEDS, which in turn will send them to the City of Atlanta and/or to the utility companies implicated by the pictures. Obviously, the purpose of this Wire Hunt not only is to honor the memory of John Lamb, who was killed through the negligence of the City and the utility companies who failed to maintain their wires in a safe condition, but also to prevent future accidents of a similar nature. Once PEDS sends the photos to the City and to the utility companies, it is anticipated that they will clean up their act (so to speak) and hopefully, one day, make the City “wireless.”

Finch McCranie, LLP was honored to have represented the Lamb family in connection with his tragic wrongful death. We are also pleased that PEDS is performing this important community service on behalf of each and every Atlanta citizen who enjoy using sidewalks for safe ingress and egress. The City has a legal duty to maintain its sidewalks safely. Leaving hazardous wires on sidewalks for periods of days, weeks, and sometimes months clearly is not a safe practice. It is our hope that the PEDS Hazardous Wire Hunt in memory of John Lamb will serve its intended purposes and help make this City’s sidewalks safe for pedestrian use. One preventable and unnecessary death is one death too many.

Thank you PEDS for all you do.

The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has issued an advisory warning parents and caregivers to be cautious when using infant slings for babies younger than four months of age.

After reviewing incident reports from the past 20 years, the CPSC announced it identified and is investigating at least 14 deaths associated with sling-style infant carriers, including three in 2009. Twelve of the deaths involved babies younger than four months of age.

According to the CPSC, slings can pose two different types of suffocation hazards to babies. In the first few months of life, babies cannot control their heads because of weak neck muscles. The sling’s fabric can press against an infant’s nose and mouth, blocking the baby’s breathing and rapidly suffocating a baby within a minute or two. Additionally, where a sling keeps the infant in a curled position bending the chin toward the chest, the airways can be restricted, limiting the oxygen supply. The baby will not be able to cry for help and can slowly suffocate.

Many of the babies who died in slings were either a low birth weight twin, were born prematurely, or had breathing issues such as a cold. Therefore, CPSC is urging parents of preemies, twins, babies in fragile health and those with low weight to use extra care and consult their pediatricians about using slings.

Two months ago, the CPSC added slings to the list of durable infant products that require a mandatory standard. Until a mandatory standard is developed, the CPSC is working with ASTM International to complete an effective voluntary standard for infant sling carriers.

The CPSC recommends that parents and caregivers make sure the infant’s face is not covered and is visible at all times to the sling’s wearer. If nursing the baby in a sling, change the baby’s position after feeding so the baby’s head is facing up and is clear of the sling and the mother’s body.

Typically government employees are entitled to qualified immunity for acts committed within their official job functions. Such official job functions are called usually discretionary functions and for any such discretionary acts, they are usually afforded complete immunity. The only way around this immunity from suit is to prove that the government actor acted with actual malice or intended to cause harm and/or were acting outside the scope of their authority. As is true of any other claim involving either sovereign immunity or official immunity/qualified immunity claims against government agencies and/or employees, it is necessary that a claimant, who has been injured through the acts of a government agency or employee, immediately confer with counsel.

As we have blogged on in the last week or so, there are many pre-suit notification requirements and there is quite a bit of analysis that has to be done to determine whether an individual government employee can be held personally liable in their personal capacity and/or whether there is any waiver of sovereign immunity such that claims can be brought against them in their official capacity. Because time is of the essence in these claims, any person that has a potential claim against a government agent or employee, should confer with counsel immediately.

The Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have represented individuals in many different types of product liability cases. One type of case we are investigating involves individuals who have suffered bone problems as a side effect of Fosamax (Alendronate Sodium). Studies have shown that the popular osteoporosis drug could increase the risk of the painful and potentially disfiguring jaw injury, known as osteonecrosis of the jaw. Other studies have indicated that the medication could also lead to necrosis of the hip, knee and shoulder and a possible increased risk of femur fractures. Fosamax inhibits bone turn over, which could lead to permanent bone decay. Osteonecrosis of the jaw is a rare, but serious problem which may develop following dental procedures, such as tooth extractions. The gums fail to heal, leading to exposed jaw bone and infection. As a result, it is often necessary for dead or decayed portions of the jaw bone to be surgically removed. Symptoms of jaw Necrosis include: jaw pain, gum infection or swelling, loose teeth or toothaches, and exposed bone inside the mouth. Although Merck was aware of this serious risk, they have failed to adequately warn patients or notify the medical community of these Fosamax bone side effects.

Just this week, ABC News reported on two women who have been taking Fosamax for over 5 years. In both cases, both women sustained fractured femurs, notwithstanding that the femur is one of the strongest bones in the body. In one case, a woman was simply jumping rope with neighborhood children when she felt her thigh bone snap into.

If you or a family member have taken Fosamax over a period of years for osteoporosis and developed problems with the jaw, hip, shoulder, knee, or femur (particularly a fracture of your femur), it may be related to your use of this drug. If you have sustained injury as a result of taking Fosamax call the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP.

Vaccines have caused serious injuries to children for many years. There are many legal hurdles and restrictions faced by parents and victims who seek legal redress from vaccine manufacturers for their losses. The United States Supreme Court has accepted a case in which it will determine whether drug makers can be sued by parents who claim their children suffered serious health problems from vaccines.

Last Monday the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal from parents who want to sue Wyeth over the serious side effects their daughter, six months old at the time, allegedly suffered as a result of the company's diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine.

According to the lawsuit, Hannah Bruesewitz was a healthy infant until she received the vaccine in April 1992. Within hours of getting the DPT shot, the third in a series of five, the baby suffered a series of debilitating seizures and continues to suffer from residual seizure disorder.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Pennsylvania ruled against Robalee and Russell Bruesewitz, saying a 1986 federal law bars their claims. That law set up a special vaccine court to handle disputes as part of its aim of insuring a stable vaccine supply by shielding companies from most lawsuits.

The vaccine court earlier rejected the family's claims.

Drug maker Wyeth won in the appeals court but also joined in asking the court to hear the case, saying it presents an important legal issue that should be resolved. The Obama administration joined the parties in calling for high court review, although the government takes the side of the manufacturers.

The Georgia Supreme Court is the only state high court that has ruled that families can sue in a vaccine case. The vaccine industry has opposed the Georgia ruling in a case in which the parents of a child claim their son suffered neurological damage after receiving vaccine booster shots made by pharmaceutical companies Wyeth and GlaxoSmithKline that contained the preservative thimerosal.

We have blogged before about pre-suit notification requirements against counties. Simply stated, such a notification must be provided within twelve (12) months of the date of the occurrence or event claimed to have caused personal injury to the claimant. Fortunately, there is a body of law that states that filing a lawsuit within one (1) year of the event will serve to provide Notice to the county. This body of law, however, is entirely different from claims involving State government and also is entirely different from claims against municipalities. Why it is that the difference exists is not completely understood, but the fact remains that if a claimant with a personal injury claim against a county agency or employee files a lawsuit within twelve (12) months of the date of the occurrence or omission involved, they usually will be protected. It is still a good idea, however, to give a written Ante-Litem Notice or pre-suit notification even prior to filing the lawsuit so that no assertion can be made that the county did not receive notice of the potential claim for injuries. Once again, we urge anyone with a possibility of a claim to assert it just as soon as possible and to confer with counsel as soon as possible so as to protect their rights under the law.

If anyone has a claim against the State of Georgia for personal injuries caused by a state employee’s negligence, notice must be given in writing, mailed by certified mail return receipt requested, to the Risk Management Division of the Department of Administrative Services. This is set forth in O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26(a)(2). Additionally, a copy shall be delivered personally to or mailed by First Class Mail to the State government entity involved. Content of the notice is governed by O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26(a)(5). As a general proposition, such an Ante-Litem Notice must state the extent of the claimant’s knowledge of the circumstances including the name of the government entity, the act or omission involved, the time and place of the alleged negligent act, the nature of the loss suffered, the amount of the loss claimed and the acts or omissions which caused the loss.

As can be seen, Ante-Litem Notices against the State are governed by statute and if these statutes are not closely observed, a claim against a State government agency or employee can be lost altogether. While such claims must be given with in twelve (12) months from the date of the date the loss was discovered or should have been discovered, even if an attempt is made to file a pre-suit notice of loss within twelve (12) months, if the form is not sent in the correct way to the correct individuals, the claim can be time barred. Accordingly, once again, we urge all claimants who may have potential claims against a State government agency or employee to confer with counsel just as soon as possible so as to protect their interests.

Under Georgia law, a person injured by the act or omission of a state, local or county government agency must file a written pre-suit notification of intent to file a claim before a lawsuit can subsequently be filed. These are known as “Ante-Litem” provisions. Under the State Tort Claims Act, for example, an Ante-Litem Notice must be filed within twelve (12) months from the date the loss was discovered or should have been discovered. Any person with a claim against the county must present that claim within twelve (12) months of the occurrence, however, claims against municipalities must be presented within six (6) months of the happening of the incident upon which the claim is based. Whether the claim is brought under the State Tort Claims Act ,against a county or a municipality, there are also provisions under the law which specify who must be served with the notice and what information must be contained within the Notice. Many cases have been dismissed for failure to file these notices in a timely manner and/or failing to provide the government agency with sufficient information to review the claim on an administrative basis.

Any individual who claims to have been injured by the acts of a government agency should confer with counsel immediately before their claims are time barred for failure to file the required pre-suit notification, the Ante-Litem Notice. If an injured individual does not timely file an Ante-Litem Notice, their claim may be barred by the statute of limitations. Accordingly, anyone with a potential claim should confer with counsel immediately.

Our Atlanta medical malpractice lawyers have written in the past about the unfairness of damage caps in medical malpractice cases and how they penalize the most severly injured innocent victims of medical malpractice.

Currently before the Georgia Supreme Court is the issue of the constitutionality of the $350,000.00 cap on non-economic damages enacted by the legislature in 2005. A decision is expected any day.

The attorneys who prosecuted that case have prepared a video which explains and details the terrible injuries suffered by their client. While the content is extremely disturbing and may upset some, we recommend that all citizens of this state view the video, so that they may be truthfully educated about the horrors of medical malpractice and the unfairness of caps on damages.

The link is as follows:
http://vimeo.com/9943651

Oftentimes we are asked by clients who have claims against government entities and/or employees to represent their interests in personal injury cases. Regrettably, due to the antiquated and harsh doctrine of sovereign immunity (for legal claims), this many times proves to be a difficult undertaking. Simply stated, sovereign immunity protects many government agencies and employees from lawsuits involving personal injuries. Thankfully, there are some exceptions to the rule, most notably when there is another statute that waives the immunity from suit.

With respect to county immunity, the Georgia Code states that county governments are entitled to sovereign immunity unless liability is imposed upon them by law. See O.C.G.A. § 36-1-4. The only statute that imposes liability upon counties by operation of law is O.C.G.A. § 33-24-51, which allows a waiver of sovereign immunity when a county purchases liability insurance for the negligent use or operation of a government owned motor vehicle. The law used to be that if a government employee ran over someone or ran a stop sign and caused serious personal injuries nothing could be done because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. As stated, there is now a statute that waives county government immunity in situations involving vehicles. However, if a county employee or agent hurts another person due to a difficult type of negligent act and there is no waiver of sovereign immunity, then there may not be any means of recovery for the innocent victim of the governmental negligence.
Because cases involving sovereign immunity are always factually unique, they require unique legal analysis as well. An ante-litem notice is required for virtually all claims against governmental agencies so anyone with a claim against a county, municipality or state government agency or employee should confer with counsel immediately to preserve their rights. Whether the doctrine of sovereign immunity can be overcome again will be a question of both facts and law, but the sooner the analysis begins, the better, because otherwise claims can be barred altogether for failure to file timely pre-suit notifications with the government agency involved.

General Motors Co. Is recalling 1.3 million Chevrolet and Pontiac compacts cars to repair or replace steering motors which can fail causing the vehicle to be difficult to steer at lower speeds. While this may not be an insurmountable problem for some drivers, the Georgia injury lawyers recognize that it may be a serious problem for older or elderly drivers who may surprised by the loss of the power steering and be physically unable to steer the vehicle. Under those circumstances a power steering failure could cause an automobile accident with devastating consequences.

According to an article published by the Associated Press today, General Motors told the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration about the recall on Monday. NHTSA began an investigation into 905,000 of the models on January 27th after getting 1,100 complaints that the cars lost their power steering. The complaints included 14 crashes and one injury.

If you or a loved one have been injured in an automobile accident involving a recalled vehicle, contact the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP .Our firm has been representing injured victims in products liability claims for over 45 years.

Insulin pump failures and defects are a serious and potentially deadly problem.The Food and Drug Administration announced last week that it has seen an increasing number of hardware and software problems with insulin pumps, tiny devices worn by thousands of diabetics to deliver insulin.
The FDA noted that critical insulin pump problems seem to exist across manufacturers. There have been 18 recalls of devices over a five-year period, including recalls by a Roche Holding AG unit and Medtronic.

The FDA is convening an advisory panel of outside medical experts to discuss what actions might be taken to minimize risks associated with the devices in these recall situations
Insulin pumps are primarily used by people with Type I diabetes, a condition in which the pancreas produces little or no insulin, a hormone needed to help the body properly use sugars from foods. People with Type 1 diabetes need to administer insulin daily whether through a pump or other methods like shots.

The more common form of diabetes, Type 2, which is often associated with obesity and typically develops later in life, is managed with oral medications designed to help the body properly use insulin, although some cases do require insulin.

The FDA said the number of Type I diabetics using insulin pumps has increased, with about 375,000 U.S. users in 2007, up from about 130,000 in 2002.

Manufacturers are required to report problems potentially associated with devices to the FDA. The FDA conducted a review of insulin pump-related adverse-event reports and found nearly 17,000 reports from Oct. 1, 2006, through Sept. 30, 2009. The reports don't necessarily mean a device caused a problem but serve as a signal for more investigation. Even if a device is functioning properly patients can inadvertently misuse the device. Of the reports, about 12,000 reported a patient injury (such as problems with blood glucose levels) and 310 deaths.

The agency said the information provided by manufacturers involving deaths "was typically incomplete." The agency said in 225 of the deaths reported the device problem was listed as "unknown," although in many cases the device was never returned to the manufacturer for additional follow-up.

However, in 41 death reports, a device problem wasn't identified but the circumstances involving the death involved diabetic coma and problems associated with blood-sugar levels being too high or too low, suggesting the device may not have been working properly.

Food products are prohibited by federal law and regulations from containing misleading or false claims on packaging or in advertising. The enforcement of these laws has been lax in the past eight years or so.

Now, under the Obama administration, a pattern of more rigorous regulatory action is evolving, particularly at the Federal Trade Commission and the FDA.

In a recent crackdown on false and misleading claims on food packages, the Food and Drug Administration has sent warning letters to 17 producers for making what it alleges are misleading statements about nutrition and health benefits.

The warning letters apply to 22 products and challenge labeling language on such issues as fat content, nutrient standards and the purported ability of a particular food to prevent medical problems. The increased enforcement was applauded by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the nonprofit advocacy group which recently released a report documenting purported labeling abuses.

Among the targets of the FDA action was a label for Mrs. Smith's Coconut Custard Pie, produced by Schwan's Consumer Brands North America of Bloomington, Minn. It advertised that the pie contained no trans fat, but did not disclose that it contained significant levels of saturated fat and total fat.

Diamond Food of Stockton was cited for making claims that its shelled walnuts warded off maladies such as arthritis, cancer and heart disease.

The agency also issued an industrywide challenge to upgrade the quality of nutrition labeling. FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg released a "Dear Industry" letter in which she invited food producers to collaborate on improving nutrition information, particularly on the front of food labels, where consumers are most likely to see it.

Bus accidents on Georgia roads and highways many times result in serious injury and sometimes death for passengers. Many people do not realize that under Georgia law, common carriers such as bus companies and airlines owe their passengers the duty to exercise extraordinary care in the operation of the bus or airplane which is a higher legal duty than is normally owed. Specifically, the Official Code of Georgia Annotated §46-9-1 provides as follows:
“Carriers as such are bound to exercise ordinary diligence. Common carriers as such are bound to use extraordinary diligence, and in cases of loss the presumption of law is against them, and no excuse avails them unless the loss was occasioned by the act of God or the public enemies of the state.”
If you or a loved one have been seriously injured in a bus accident, as a passenger on a bus or any other common carrier, call the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP to discuss your rights. We have been representing clients in personal injury and wrongful death cases for over 45 years.

The issue of tort reform has been embraced by many health care reform opponents as being necessary to bring down medical costs in the United States. This mantra is constantly repeated even though all unbiased studies show that the cost of medical malpractice is only a small fraction of the health care costs in the United States and that capping damages to severely injured people does little, if anything, to lower insurance costs for doctors or stop inflation of medical costs. Yet, the proponents of this so called tort reform constantly repeat this falsehood even though over 98,000 innocent people die every year in this country alone due to medical errors.

This week CNN covered a story that everyone concerned about high medical costs should view. Their reporters uncovered massive overbillings by hospitals. These outrageous billings included $1,000 for a common toothbrush. You can go to your pharmacy and buy 100 Tylenol pills for $10, yet one hospital billed $140 for a single pill. An alcohol prep pad, a piece of gauze, was billed at $44.00 by a hospital when the retail cost at a pharmacy is 23 cents. In another example a hospital billed an emergency room patient for 41 bags of IV fluid during a 2 hour visit. This of course is impossible.

Our own lawyers can tell similar stories. We had one client who was severely injured in an automobile accident and pronounced dead upon arrival at the hospital. Yet, when reviewing the bill we discovered a $25 dollar charge for a “mouthcare kit” which consisted of a plastic cup, a toothbrush, and mouthwash. Also charged for this patient who was dead upon arrival was $45 for a pillow.

These are just a few of the overbillings we have seen. In fact, CNN reported that health insurance companies rarely review hospital bills unless they are in excess of $100,00.00.

If the proponents of tort reform really want to lower healthcare costs these outrageous charges might be a good place to start.