Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

It is well known that large tractor-trailer trucks are very difficult to stop even when being operated prudently. Because of the weights on large tractor-trailers, if a tractor-trailer needs to suddenly stop for whatever reason, it takes much longer for the truck to stop than it would for the ordinary passenger vehicle. It is for this reason that regulations exist requiring trucks to slow down in inclement weather. Wet roads result in greater stopping distances for large tractor-trailer vehicles and thus, if it is raining, a prudent truck driver should slow his truck down one-third (1/3) of the normal speed. This is required by regulation and is required by common sense and safety considerations for the motoring public. Regrettably, far too often, truck drivers because of the need to deliver their loads and due to the economic pressures upon them, fail to slow down during inclement weather with the predictable result that accidents, which otherwise could have been avoided, occur with greater frequency.

All drivers regardless of whether they are operating passenger vehicles or tractor-trailer rigs need to slow down in inclement weather, whether it be wet weather, snowy weather or a mixture of sleet and rain. The fact is that such conditions are known to be dangerous to all drivers. Commercial drivers having a special license and being professionally employed to driver large trucks, which are harder to stop, have an extra special duty of care under such circumstances. Regrettably, we have seen first hand here at our firm far too many cases where innocent third parties are seriously injured or killed when truck drivers fail to slow down during inclement weather thus, causing significant carnage on the road when they plow into other cars impacted by their negligence. There is a reason we see signs that say “Speed Kills.” Speed during inclement weather kills more often thus, the need to slow down and the rationale for the regulations requiring a reduction in speed by one-third (1/3) of that typically in place.

Time and again here at our firm we see situations where clients may have been injured by defective products but due to the failure preserve crucial evidence, the claim oftentimes is irretrievably lost. An example might be an exploding tire where there is a tire blowout which causes a vehicle to overturn. Unless the tire itself is preserved as evidence and can be examined to determine the cause of its failure, for obvious reasons, it would be impossible to prove a defective product due to a design or manufacturing problem with the product as opposed to poor maintenance, under inflation, over inflation or other sundry causes other than a defect in the product. The same is true for house fires which result is serious injuries or death where a suspected heater, air conditioning unit or air purifier is believed to have caused the fire. Unless the product is preserved and examined by an expert, the evidence necessary to prove a products liability claim will be missing and therefore the claim virtually impossible to pursue.

In any case where serious injuries or a wrongful death results from a situation where a defective product is believed to have contributed to the incident, it is absolutely imperative that all available evidence be preserved for examination by experts. Obviously, the initial focus in such cases is on the injury or death and not the possibility of a lawsuit. However, if the cause of the incident is believed to be a defective product, nonetheless, family members, investigators, law enforcement personnel and other people connected to the incident should do what they can to preserve the evidence for later examination. The family can hardly be blamed for remembering to do so during a time of personal tragedy and grief but family friends, outsiders, investigators and other personnel connected to the incident can and should do so in order to have the claim properly investigated. Absent preservation of critical evidence, it may be impossible to obtain justice for the victim of a dangerous and defective product.

In serious injury cases, usually arising from tractor-trailer collisions or automobile accidents, it is not uncommon to see clients with serious back injuries which create a host of physical and mental problems for the innocent victim. If someone is rear-ended by a tractor-trailer, as an example, and suffers a significant back injury requiring a fusion or other surgical procedure, it is not uncommon at all for such a client to develop leg problems, hip problems and other associated maladies. The mental stress and emotional damage caused by permanent and intractable pain is part of the injury as well. In the unfortunate cases where clients lose their legs or suffer traumatic amputations, the injury to the leg can result in an injury to the back and the hips. In short, a vicious cycle is involved in these cases which is why it is necessary that the injured claimant have the best possible medical assistance possible.

Many times it is difficult for the medical community to establish the exact cause of pain for a particular client. Sometimes it is a herniated disc in the back, sometimes it is nerve root impingement, sometimes it is generalized nerve damage and sometimes it is simply a chronic pain syndrom due to the trauma to the spinal column. As stated, typically, the injured individual with the bad back will have problems with their leg and hips which, of course, affects all of their daily activities, not to mention their work, if they are still able to work. For these reasons, it is vital that the injured individual receive medical treatment from a Board certified orthopaedist, orthopaedic surgeon, neurologist or neurosurgeon. Depending upon the facts of the case, the mechanism of injury, the location of the injury or otherwise, one or more of these specialists may be involved as well as physical therapists. Treatment may begin with physical therapy and epidural steroid injections, but in many cases ends in surgery, particularly for the more serious back injuries.

Unless one suffers from a significant back injury, it is hard for others to truly appreciate just how disabling such injuries can be. In personal injury cases involving serious back injuries it is sometimes wise to obtain a Function Capacity Evaluation to demonstrate objectively just how the injury affects the injured individuals ability to function at performing daily tasks, whether it be stooping, lifting, bending or otherwise. Such cases are very sad, typically, because they do involve a significant impact on the individual’s lifestyle and can affect not only their work, their marriage, their family, but their overall quality of life. Sadly, such injuries oftentimes are permanent and the impact of an accident can affect someone for the rest of their natural lives, which is why it is necessary to work these cases up very carefully with the long term interest of the client being closely monitored throughout the recovery process.

As we have written before, it is becoming increasingly necessary that plaintiff’s counsel be prepared to attack the veracity and credibility of so-called “independent” experts in personal injury cases. Insurance companies and defense law firms routinely retain medical “experts” to testify that plaintiffs are not injured at all or have only suffered minor injuries. They do this by examining diagnostic tests and/or by offering testimony that the test results do not substantiate a traumatic injury. Such testimony can be extremely misleading because oftentimes a clinical diagnosis made by a treating physician is much more reliable than a so-called independent review by someone who has never seen the plaintiff much less examined them. Nonetheless, such testimony is dangerous and can often be effective if the witness offering the testimony has a good medical pedigree, as they often do, and presents a good appearance before the jury. This makes the cynical use of so-called experts extremely dangerous because by paying a fee for the so-called “independent” opinion, the jury can be mislead and an innocent victim of a negligent act can be victimized again and denied the right to fair and reasonable compensation for their injuries.

“Independent” experts oftentimes testify in back injury cases as an example of this problem. They testify that an examination of radiological films proves to them that the “back injured” claimant was not injured at all. Many experts will testify that herniated discs in a back cannot be caused by trauma or that trauma did not cause the injury complained of, etc. Such testimony is tantamount to junk science and is completely unreliable but the problem is that many jurors do not recognize this. Jurors receive sworn testimony and based on their lack of medical training actually oftentimes believe that the so-called “independent expert” is, in fact, independent when nothing could further from the truth. Thus, to be effective in representing a personal injury claimant with a bad back or neck case, the best way to go about doing so is to attack the so-called independence of the expert. Many of these witnesses receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation each year from the insurance industry because they know where there bread is buttered and they know what is expected of them, which is to testify that the claimant is not injured and/or that they are malingering. This cynical approach to dispensing justice in a personal injury context is disheartening, frustrating and at times exasperating but, nonetheless, it is part and parcel of the landscape in our society. All one can do is fight against it and hope that fair and impartial jurors will see through such cynicism and will disregard the testimony of junk science experts who, for their own secondary gain, perniciously seek to influence their verdicts.

Increasingly we are seeing a trend that started many years ago but continues today. This involves the use of so-called “independent” experts to provide testimony in personal injury cases to the effect that the claimant has suffered no injury at all or, if any injury, only a minor one. Insurance companies employ so-called “independent” medical examiners to review radiology films, many times, so that a radiologist can testify that based upon an examination of the film, there is no evidence of trauma seen, thus the plaintiff could not have been injured. Of course, a radiologist cannot see damaged nerve endings or herniated discs on an x-ray film but this does not stop these so-called “independent” experts from providing junk science medical testimony for the jury’s consumption.

This trend is extremely troubling and has been decried by our courts in the past. In a well reasoned opinion written by the Georgia Court of Appeals over twelve (12) years ago, Justice Blackburn wrote “I write separately to point out a systematic problem in the general use of “independent” experts in the litigation process. This problem, while not limited thereto, is greatest where insurance companies use “independent” medical expert opinions to deny or limit payment of claims. The inherent weakness of this process is that the insurance company which controls the flow of business to “independent” medical services providers has a financial interest in the negative finding of such provider...”.

Insurance companies have a huge financial interest in making sure that cliams are not paid. One way to do this is to hire a so-called “independent” experts. It is disheartening to see a medical doctor testify for money paid that someone is not injured when the doctor, of course, has no way of knowing whether such is the case. Insurance companies typically get what they pay for which is a medical opinion that the claimant is either not injured at all or shows no objective evidence of injury based upon an examination of diagnostic films or other tests. Such testimony is extremely dangerous because it appeals to the cynicism of jurors who may believe that someone seeking money is simply out for secondary gain and is not legitimately injured. While there are fraud claims and while there are claims of embellishment and exaggeration, in many legitimate claims, nonetheless, these so-called “independent” experts are providing testimony that serves no other purpose but to deny justice to those who have been legitimately injured and are in need of adequate and just compensation for their injuries.

As we shall blog about it in future entries, the best way to attack this problem is to attack the hired gun witness by showing their financial interest in the proceedings and their inherent bias. By proving that the so-called “independent” expert is not independent at all, hopefully, a jury will understand that paid for testimony is not the most reliable evidence one could hope to rely upon in a personal injury case.