Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

I had the privilege of watching the Georgia Supreme Court hear arguments on the constitutionality of "caps" on what a jury may award, after medical negligence has been proved, on "noneconomic" damages. That decision is expected soon.

In the meantime, a video that belies the descriptions of those who would trivialize non-economic damages may be viewed here.

WE THE PEOPLE from Georgia Justice on Vimeo.

WE THE PEOPLE from Georgia Justice on Vimeo.

As is usually the case with truck accidents, bus accidents on Georgia roads and highways many times result in serious injury and sometimes death for passengers. The sheer size and weight of theses vehicles make them inherently more dangerous than lighter vehicles.

Just this week, the NY Daily News reported on a bus accident. They reported that the New York City Transit has been ordered by a jury to pay two women a total of $7.5 million in damages after finding that the bus ran a red light and careened into the women’s car seriously injuring both. Interestingly, the bus company could have settled the case prior to trial for $3 million dollars but chose to take their chances with the jury.

If you or a loved one have been seriously injured as a result of being involved in an automobile accident, a truck accident or a bus accident, 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.

Georgia injury lawyers know that an innocent guest passenger can sued a host driver for serious personal injuries caused by the negligence of the host driver. Likewise, the family of a deceased guest passenger can sue a host driver for the wrongful death of their loved one if the host driver was responsible for the death.

Just last week, a Georgia truck accident involving alcohol resulted in death for one passenger and serious injuries to five others in the truck. The truck accident occurred before 3 a.m. on Friday in the northbound lanes of Interstate 75 near Macon, Georgia. Investigators say that the truck involved, left the roadway and went over a guardrail before crashing. Shannon Hendricks, 29 years old was pronounced dead at the scene of the accident. According to an article in the Macon Telegraph, none of the victims were wearing seatbelts and investigators are still trying to determine which one of the individuals was operating the truck at the time of the deadly accident.

If you have been seriously injured in an automobile accident or truck accident, 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.

Georgia injury lawyers are well aware that use of cell phones and other hand held devices cause a significant number of automobile accidents and truck accidents. Just this morning I witnesses a near collision because a woman changing lanes was too glued to her cell phone to turn her head to make sure the lane was clear. Worse yet are “gotta stay connected type A types” who are constantly checking emails or texting while driving. The Georgia Legislature needs to get their act together and pass legislation to try to remedy the problem.

The Associated Press reported this week that the Florida Legislature is expected to consider several bills during its upcoming session that would ban drivers from using their cell phones or texting while driving. According to the article, the National Safety Council released a report in January that claimed 28 percent of all traffic collisions (1.6 million crashes a year) are caused by drivers using cell phones or texting.

The Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP routinely subpoena phone records from cell phone companies when we have reason to believe that our client’s have been injured in automobile accidents or trucking accidents by drivers using cell phones or other hand held devices.

If you or a loved one have been injured as a result of being in a Georgia motor vehicle collision caused by a driver who was using one of these devices, call us to learn about your rights. We have been representing people in serious injury cases and wrongful death cases for over 45 years.

As a Georgia injury lawyer, I am always amazed at the number of deck collapse cases I read and hear about. Many of these decks are built high off the ground and do not meet any acceptable or recognized building code. Unfortunately the deficiencies of the construction do not become apparent until the decks are loaded up with people and the deck pulls away from the house and falls. In recent years there have been a number of death cases related to deck collapses.

Some of the deck collapses simply result from the deck material rotting over time. This should be readily apparent to anyone doing a reasonable inspection. A failure to inspect is negligence. It has also been my experience that many deck collapses result from the ledger board not being secured to the home properly. In some cases the ledger board is secured to the side of the house using nails. This is always insufficient to secure the deck to the house and should never be done. Instead, the ledger board should be securely attached with lag screws or if possible, lag bolts.

Just this week, a Roswell, Georgia woman was injured when the deck on her townhome collapsed and fell. As a result she sustained a broken leg.

If you or a loved one have been injured as a result of a deck collapse, call the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP. We have over 45 years experience representing victims in personal injury and wrongful death cases. Call us for a free consultation at (800) 228-9159.

In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act. A key component of this law was to prevent attorneys from contacting members of a victim’s family for at least forty-five (45) days after an airline crash. After a crash involving serious injuries or deaths, families need to be left alone to tend to family matters. They do not need to be besieged by attorneys seeking to profit upon their misfortunes. In recognition of the fact that oftentimes members of the Bar fail to adhere to the high standards of professionalism we would hope would be adhered to without this law, Congress passed this law to protect victims of these tragedies.

We read last week that a Detroit lawyer has been ordered to pay $5,000.00 to settle a Complaint against him filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Michigan concerning a violation of this Act. Allegedly, the lawyer sent a solicitation lawyer from his Detroit office directly to a victim’s family within twelve (12) days of a tragic crash. The case apparently was investigated by the Inspector General’s Office for the United States Department of Transportation and resulted in the civil fine imposed on the attorney.

Unfortunately, lawyers oftentimes approach victims in hospitals right after tragedies and in other contexts where it is inappropriate to do so. Yes, clients need to be advised of their rights and yes, clients need legal advice when dealing with tragedies affecting their loved ones. But, clients do not need to be solicited directly by attorneys when they are grieving or dealing with the results of a tragic event. Clients should reach out to attorneys when they are ready to do so and they should not be besieged and bombarded by those seeking to profit from their misfortune.

Georgia injury lawyers know that when there is a motorcycle accident, the injuries are usually serious. Motorcycles are by their very nature far less crash worthy than closed vehicles and crashes frequently result in catastrophic injuries or death. In 2000, I spent two weeks in the trauma unit of the Orlando Regional Hospital (a fantastic hospital) where my daughter was a patient. Throughout the day and night, helicopters landed on the roof with critically injured motorist, most of which were involved in motorcycle crashes. Sadly, many died as a result of brain injuries and other serious injuries.

Recently, I went to the Georgia DOT website to locate some recent statistics on motorcycle crashes. For reasons unknown to me, the latest posted data was from 2003. According to their study:

. There were 2,851 total motorcycle crashes, 2123 involving injury crashes, and 101 fatal crashes.
. Motorcycle crashes accounted for 7% of traffic fatalities, but only about 1% of the crashes.
. Of all motorcycle riders in crashes, 56% had at least visible or more severe injuries compared to only 4% of passenger cars occupants involved in a crash.
. Males represented 87% of the injuries and fatalities in motorcycle crashes.
. Motorcycles made up 2% of all registered vehicles.
. Half of the motorcycle operators (50%) involved in fatal crashes did not have a valid Class M license or permit.
.
Because of the seriousness of the injuries sustained in motorcycle accidents and because many of the motorist who cause these accident are under-insured, Georgia injury lawyers need to be creative when representing riders. It is imperative that the victim’s attorney examine all potential avenues of recovery so that the client can be fully compensated. Other areas to review include failure of the motorcycle’s mechanical systems, failure of other motorcyclists to observe the motorcyclist, failure maintain the roadway and debris on the roadway from trucks, including tire tread separation.

If you or a loved one have been injured in an automobile accident, truck accident or motorcycle accident, consult the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP. Our firm has been representing personal injury victims for over 45 years.

Last fall Toyota announced the largest auto recall in U.S. history after numerous sudden unintended acceleration accidents were reported, many of which resulted in fatalities. Now, Toyota has announced an additional recall of 2.3 million vehicles to correct this same problem. Why the additional recall? It appears that Toyota is doing so because ABC News is soon to report an increase in sudden acceleration cases since the recall last year. According to news reports, there have been 60 new cases of sudden unintended acceleration cases involving Toyota vehicle.

In one tragic occurrence outside of Dallas, Texas, four people were killed when a Toyota sped off the road through a fence and landed upside down in a pond. Even though Toyota has long blamed maladjusted floormats for the unintended acceleration problem, however, in this particular accident, the floormats were found in the car’s trunk where the owners had been advised to put them as part of the earlier recall. Thus, the evidence continues to mount that this problem with Toyotas is not caused by floormats but rather by onboard computer glitches and other engineering issues.

While we are pleased that Toyota has finally recalled its dangerous products, obviously, it is disturbing that Toyota refused to do so earlier for all affected vehicles. From the reported news coverage, had it done so, it may be that an additional 60 cases involving injuries and/or fatalities may have been avoided.

This is a question that we are asked by virtually every client in every case we have. The answer is that if a settlement offer is made which is approximately equal to what one can expect to receive at a jury trial then the case should be settled. In other words, there would be no need for a jury trial because the settlement offer being made is approximately what one would likely receive in front of a fair and impartial jurors. If the offer is below what one is likely to receive from fair and impartial jurors then we recommend that clients not accept the settlement offer. Obviously, if the offer is above what we reasonably believe a fair and impartial jury would award in a particular case, we recommend that our client accept such an offer.

It is not always easy to predict what a fair and impartial jury would do with a particular case. The nuances and unique facts of any case obviously influence claim evaluation. If liability is strong and if damages are good and the client otherwise makes a favorable impression, such a case has a greater settlement value than does a case where there are liability issues, damage issues and/or client problems. As always, the facts are key but sometimes the law as it pertains to the unique facts involved will dictate as well the outcome of the case and/or the evaluation of a particular claim.

Sometimes the law is not favorable to a particular position that a party has in litigation. The less favorable the law to their position, the less valuable the claim from a claim evaluation standpoint. In those cases where a client has been victimized by the negligence of a third party, they are truly innocent in the premises and their damages are clear and easily proven, such a case has greater settlement value than does one where the damages may be attributable to acts other than the negligence, there is contested liability based on the facts and circumstances of the case and/or the client’s expectations are unreasonable or they do not make a very positive impression and thus a jury may not like them.

What we try to do in representing our clients is to make sure that their cases are presented in the best light possible so that we can get the best possible result for them. If an offer is made that is equal to what we believe a fair and impartial jury would award, we always recommend that such a client consider such a settlement proposal assuming it is made. Of course, it is the client’s ultimate decision whether they wish to settle or rely upon fair and impartial jurors to resolve their case. Going to trial can be a gamble because oftentimes one can get a lesser verdict than they would have obtained via settlement. If the client is fully informed of these risks and nonetheless wishes to go to trial, sometimes the award obtained is higher than one might otherwise obtain through settlement. As long as the client is fully informed of their options and counsel is fully prepared to present the strongest case possible to the jury, the client should be advised that a jury trial is an option that they should consider, however, in weighing their options, if the offer made is reasonable and is likely to approximate what a fair and impartial jury might award, then in that event, we always recommend that our clients consider such a settlement offer while deferring to their discretion whether they wish nonetheless to accept the risk of going forward to a jury trial.

Mediation can be employed at any stage of a civil dispute. It can occur before or after a lawsuit is filed. Our experience at this firm has typically been that mediation occurs after a lawsuit is filed and after the parties have become well acquainted with the strengths and weaknesses of both sides of the dispute. Once the parties have access to all the operative and materials facts via written discovery and depositions, it is not uncommon for one party to suggest a mediation of the dispute.

Once mediation is agreed upon, a third party neutral or mediator is selected to preside over the mediation session. The third party neutral is typically an experienced attorney or judge who has experience with the type of dispute at issue. Whether the case involves medical malpractice, products liability, wrongful death, a tractor-trailer accident or other personal injury claim, typically, one tries to select a mediator who has extensive experience in such a case. The parties then appear jointly at a prearranged mediation conference after which time the mediator takes over as a presiding third party neutral.

The role of the mediator at the mediation conference is to facilitate settlement negotiations. The mediator typically listens to both sides summarize their respective contentions and then the mediator meets privately with each side trying to get one side to make an offer and the other side to make a counteroffer thereto. During the negotiation process the mediator probes the weaknesses and strengths of each side and encourages both sides to be open minded always agreeing to compromise their respective positions. Any successful mediator or third party neutral tell both sides that in order for a settlement to occur both sides have to negotiate in good faith and have to agree to compromise, that is accept less than what they would ideally want but nonetheless try to reach a good faith compromise agreement to resolve the dispute.

Typically, at our firm, as long as the mediator is qualified, we allow the defense to select whom ever they wish. Our logic is that if the defense selects a mediator, by definition, they must have confidence in his or her abilities to evaluate a claim. We always agree to whomever the defense selects because we are confident that we can convince a neutral third party mediator of the strength of our case and thus, if they accept our position, they will be able to successfully advocate to the other side who selected them that they should reconsider their position and increase their settlement offer.

Some mediators are better than others either due to experience and/or personality. When an experienced mediator gets involved in the process, we have found that between 80 to 90 percent of the time a case does settle at mediation. This is a very good track record which indicates that when both sides have access to all of the material facts that are needed to evaluate a claim and when both sides are assisted by a third party neutral, the chances of a successful settlement are good.

It is a sad reality that innocent citizens are oftentimes injured by their own government. City and county employees and/or state employees operate vehicles on a day-to-day basis and like other drivers sometimes are guilty of negligence which cause considerable damage to innocent third parties. Because of the expansive conduct of governmental entities in virtually every aspect of our lives, there are many other real life scenarios whereby innocent third party citizens cam be and are injured by the acts of government employees. In such circumstances, there is always an issue as to whether the injured individual has a right to sue the government for any damages inflicted because of the longstanding doctrine of Sovereign Immunity.

Setting aside for a moment whether one can sue the government successfully and overcome a defense of Sovereign Immunity, another hurdle the injured individual faces in these cases is dealing with statutory pre-suit notice requirements. These pre-suit notice requirements are often referred to as “ante-litem” notice provisions. What this means is that before a injured citizen can sue his or her government with a claim for money damages, they must give the government pre-suit notice of the claim so that the government has a sufficient opportunity to investigate the claim and determine whether the government has any liability and, if so, what damages are involved. Here in Georgia, if an injured individual has a claim against a municipality, they must provide notice to that municipality within six months of the date of the occurrence otherwise their claim is time barred. If they have a claim against a county, they must give notice within one year and the same is true for claims against state government. There are also specific methods by which these notices must be given so if the injured individual is acting without the advice of counsel, they could run afoul of the various ante-litem notice provisions. If they do, they may not be able to sue the government - even if their claim is meritorious. This is why we have referred to these ante-litem provisions in other blogs written on the subject as “Traps for the Unwary.”

If you or any member of your family are injured by a government employee, you should immediately confer with counsel so that pre-suit notice requirements can be observed and your claims not held by law to have been waived for failing to provide statutorily mandated ante-litem notices to the government entity involved.

The Georgia Court of Appeals has recently accepted an Application for Interlocutory Review of a very important victim’s rights statute in this state. Here we refer to a case in which we represent the Plaintiff involving a tolling provision for the statute of limitations for victims of crime. O.C.G.A. § 9-3-99 was enacted as part of the Crime Victims Restitution Act of 2005 and will now be interpreted by the Court of Appals after a ruling in this appeal. Its tolling provision reads as follows:

The running of the period of limitations with respect to any cause of action in tort that may be brought by the victim of an alleged crime which arises out of the facts and circumstances relating to the commission of such alleged crime committed in this state shall be tolled from the date of the alleged crime or the act giving rise to such action and tort until the prosecution of such crime or act has become final or otherwise terminated, provided that such time does not exceed six (6) years. (Emphasis Supplied.)

As is apparent from a review of the broad language employed by the Georgia Legislature, this statute is very important for victims of crime. Many victims of crime do not know that they have civil claims against third parties. If someone is raped in a motel, they may not be able to independently recover that a rapist was formerly an employee of the motel and had been negligently left with master keys to their motel rooms. A victim of an independent trucker who is driving under the influence of drugs may not know that the trucker was operating under an oral lease agreement with a third party. This might be very important if the independent trucker had no insurance and the statutory employer/lessor had good insurance. A victim of a drunk driver may not discover until after two years that the drunk was provided far too much alcohol by a bar that knew that he would be driving in violation of the Dramshop Act. In short, there are many real life scenarios where an innocent crime victim may not even initially know whether they have viable third party claim and may not be able to discover the existence of such a claim until they are able to get access to the criminal investigative file concerning their case, something that may not occur for over 2 years. Moreover, in many cases, criminal perpetrators are not even apprehended for over 2 years and even if they are apprehended in a timely manner, they may assert their Fifth Amendment privilege and therefore withhold from the victim crucial information concerning the possible involvement of third parties.

The case that is on appeal before the Georgia Legislature will decide whether the language of the statute quoted herein applies to third parties and criminals or only to criminal perpetrators solely. In the case our firm is handling, the Defendants contend that the language of the statute only tolls the statute of limitations for causes of action that victims of crime have against the criminal perpetrators only. However, the clear wording of the statute is so broad as to clearly encompass claims against third parties as well. Indeed, it appears that the Georgia Legislature recognizes that victims many times are not only traumatized physically and emotionally and thereby delayed in bringing civil actions because of such trauma, but also are usually unable to access and/or discover important evidence and information in their cases, particularly with regards to the possible involvement of third party actors.

Continue reading "Important Victim’s Rights Statute Under Review" »

The Atlanta personal injury lawyers at Finch McCranie LLP have successfully litigated many cases involving merchandise falling from shelves in commercial establishments and seriously injuring and killing shoppers. However, what many people do not realize is that this danger also exists in homes.

For young children, the home is a playground, and while many parents childproof to ensure that their home is a safe place, some may not be aware that unsecured TVs, furniture and appliances are hidden hazards lurking in every room. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is urging parents to take simple, low-cost steps to prevent deaths and injuries associated with furniture, TV, and appliance tip-overs.

The CPSC estimates that in 2006, 16,300 children 5 years old and younger were treated in emergency rooms because of injuries associated with TV, furniture, and appliance tip-overs. Between 2000 and 2006, CPSC staff received reports of 134 tip-over related deaths.

Additionally, the CPSC reports it is aware of at least 30 media reports of tip-over deaths since January 2007 involving this same age group.

Typically, injuries and deaths occur when children climb onto, fall against, or pull themselves up on television stands, shelves, bookcases, dressers, desks, chests, and appliances. In some cases, televisions placed on top of furniture tip over and cause a child to suffer traumatic and sometimes fatal injuries.

Recent revisions to the voluntary safety standards for clothes storage units provide for the inclusion of warning labels and additional hardware to secure the furniture to the floor or wall.

To prevent these devastating events, the CPSC advises as follows:

Make sure free-standing ranges and stoves are installed with anti-tip brackets.

An Atlanta television station,11Alive, reported the death of a 19 year old Oxford College at Emory student who was struck and killed by an automobile as she was crossing the street. The girl was a native of North Carolina. Apparently the victim was crossing the street near the intersection of Mason Mill Road and Houston Mill Road in Atlanta when she was hit. The serious injuries she sustained resulted in her death early Saturday morning.

The Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have represented many pedestrian victims of automobile accidents and truck accidents over a period of 40 plus years. If you have been injured or lost a loved one due to an automobile accident, the attorneys at Finch McCranie, LLP can help. Call us toll free at 1 800 228-9159 for a free consultation.

Dangerous nurses and healthcare providers may be practicing throughout Georgia. In 1987, Congress ordered federal health officials to create a database of state disciplinary actions against nurses and other health professionals. This database includes the names of those who, among other things, have been found to have committed physical, mental and sexual abuse of patients.

While each state is required to maintain a database, no nationally available database has ben created. When a hospital or temporary agency wants to hire a nurse, there's no easy way to check whether the person has abused a patient or engaged in dangerous conduct elsewhere in the country.

This information was supposed to be added to a database of similar information about doctors which was made available to hospitals and other eligible health employers in 1990. But this has not happened.

As it stands now, only federal and state agencies and health plans, such as HMOs, are allowed access to the information about nurses. Incredibly, hospitals and nursing homes cannot access this critical data.

The federal government has announced that this information should be available on a nationwide basis to hospitals and other health facilities within a year. There is one major obstacle. Many hospitals and healthcare facilities rely on temporary agencies for nursing and other employees. Under the law, temporary agencies would be allowed to search a nurse's background only if they were designated as agents of particular hospitals or other facility. It is anticipated that these institutions will be unwilling to designate multiple staffing firms as their agents.

Unfortunately, while these problems are being debated by government officials, many innocent patients may become victims of dangerous perpetrators whose proclivities are known to the government, but unavailable to the very institutions which hire them and place them in positions of trust. This is an outrageous situation which must be corrected immediately. One can only hope that the government officials charged with this duty will take it seriously and proceed with the greatest of speed.

Whistleblower litigation is an area in which the attorneys at Finch McCranie LLP specialize. These cases are generally brought under The False claims Act which Congress adopted during the Civil War to solicit the help of ordinary citizens in fighting contracting fraud. The law encourages citizens to bring suit on behalf of the U.S. government by ensuring that a portion of any damages or civil penalties will be shared with the person bringing the lawsuit.

Since Congress strengthened the law in 1986, whistleblower lawsuits have recovered almost 20 billion dollars, of which more than 2 billion dollars has gone to citizens.
In recent years these lawsuits have especially targeted Defense Department and health services fraud.

The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in a major case testing when whistleblowers who discover fraud in federal programs may sue in the name of the United States and collect some of the settlement. The case revolves around the issue of when whistleblower lawsuits might be kept out of court under a provision aimed at opportunistic lawsuits based simply on information publicly available.

The False Claims Act prohibits citizen lawsuits arising from public disclosures "in a congressional, administrative or (Government Accountability Office) report, hearing, audit or investigation." The question Monday was whether that exemption relates only to federal reports or blocks a lawsuit bringing a claim based on information publicly available in a state or local report.

The case before the Supreme Court is a North Carolina case in which an employee of a state conservation district alleged fraud tied to the county's participation in a federal disaster relief program. A federal trial judge rejected the lawsuit holding that a county audit had documented some of the problems. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit reversed, saying only federal administrative reports, audits or investigations would have precluded a suit under the False Claims Act.

The United States Department of Justice has adopted the position that only federal reports would preclude a whistleblower lawsuit under the “prior disclosure” doctrine and argued this position at yesterday’s hearing.

Thirty states have joined the side of the North Carolina county urging the court to rule that the case should be thrown out.

A few years ago, the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP represented an elderly woman who had beeen knocked down and seriously injured by malfunctioning electric doors at an Atlanta grocery store. We sued the store and the door company responsible for maintaing the doors. Recently, an 80-year old woman settled a very similar case for $7 million with Target and a mechanical door company. She had been knocked down by a faulty door in 2007. The woman sustained brain injuries which left her with significant cognitive deficits and required her to move into a nursing home.

If you or a loved one has been injured while shopping upon the property of a retail store or at a mall, call the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP who have been representing clients in premises liability litigation for over 40 years.

Atlanta pedestrians are subject to many dangers. Transportation For America, a consumer advocacy group has ranked the metro area as the 10th most-dangerous city for pedestrians in 2007-2008. The group said there are 5,000 preventable pedestrian deaths in the U.S. every year.

The group assessed 52 metropolitan areas on how dangerous they are for pedestrians. The 10 worst for pedestrians in 2007-2008 were: Orlando, Fla.; Tampa, Fla.; Miami; Jacksonville, Fla.; Memphis; Raleigh, N.C.; Louisville, Ky.; Houston; Birmingham, Ala.; and Atlanta.
According to the study, Atlanta had a 1.37 annual pedestrian deaths per 100,000 residents and 1.3 percent of the city’s workers walked to work in 2007-2008.

The study found the safest metropolitan areas tend to be older northeastern or northern areas with generally compact development patterns. The top ten most dangerous areas were located in the south, with the first four being in Florida. The study attributed this high danger rate to the areas being characterized by low density rates and automobile oriented development patterns.

The study did point out that many cities have low danger rates due to a concerted effort to make streets safer for pedestrians. Notable among these cities were Portland, OR, Seattle, WA, and Minneapolis, MN.

Atlanta has an advocacy group dedicated to improving sidewalks and streets. You can learn more about this group, PEDS, at peds.org. The attorneys at Finch McCranie LLP, actively support the efforts of PEDS and urge all citizens to do the same.

Our Georgia product liability lawyers have filed many lawsuits against foreign manufacturers for dangerous products introduced into commerce in the United States. In these actions it is sometimes very difficult to find and serve the manufacturer in a foreign country.

This problem has now come into the spotlight as the result of the Chinese wallboard epidemic facing many unsuspecting consumers across the United States. The problem is enormous. By some accounts as many as 100,000 homes across the United States, built between 2004 and 2008, may contain defective and potentially dangerous Chinese drywall.

The wallboard has been determined to contain excessively high levels of sulfur. Homeowners have reported that the fumes from the wallboard cause illness and corrode the copper in home wiring, fixtures and appliances.

Until several years ago, most drywall used in the United States was made in this country. But when the housing boom increased demand, many sellers turned to China to meet the demand and due to lower costs.

Many insurance companies are refusing claims from homeowners to remediate the wallboard problem. While some owners have been forced to move from their toxic homes, many simply cannot afford to do so and the houses are not saleable.

While many lawsuits have been filed and undoubtedly many more are to come, it will be very difficult and expensive to identify the Chinese manufacturers and serve them with legal papers in China. Some attorneys are reporting that it is costing approximately $25,000 per case just to serve legal papers on one company. In many cases more than one Chinese manufacturer may be involved.

A bill now before Congress would place these foreign manufacturers in the same position as domestic companies. The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act now before the United States Senate would require foreign manufacturers that export to the U.S. to agree to abide by U.S. law and be held accountable in state and federal courts; and, to appoint an agent in at least one state where the company does business to accept the service of legal papers for any lawsuits or regulatory claims.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) points out that the list of recent examples of Americans injured by defective foreign products is shocking.

That list includes deadly blood thinner, children’s jewelry made from lead, a variety of food products contaminated with dangerous chemicals, 60 million packages of contaminated pet food and substandard tires that failed and killed people.

Two major consumer groups, Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America (CFA) support the proposed legislation.

The United States Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a very interesting case. The question before the Court in Pottawattamie County, Iowa, v. McGhee and Harrington is : Do citizens who have been framed by unscrupulous prosecutors for crimes they did not commit have a right to sue the prosecutors when the fraud is finally exposed?

Most public officials have qualified immunity, which means that they can’t be sued personally for actions taken in the course of their public duties unless it can be shown that they willfully violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. In almost all cases qualified immunity is enough to prevent suits against public officials.

The position taken by the federal government and being joined in by many state’s attorney generals is not that prosecutors should only be held accountable for wrongful convictions if it can be proven that they proactively and intentionally created false evidence or violated the clear legal and ethical requirements of their position.

But, the government is taking the position that all prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from lawsuits for actions they take even when they send innocent people to prison for life by fabricating evidence and hiding exculpatory evidence.

Under this argument no prosecutor could ever be sued under any circumstances even if it can be proven conclusively that they intentionally faked evidence and lied to the court, destroying the life of an innocent person.

According to briefs filed in the case, prosecutors in Pottawattamie County, Iowa, solicited false testimony implicating two innocent African-American teens in the murder of a retired police officer in 1977. At trial, the false testimony led to their convictions and they were sentenced to life in prison.

After the false testimony and other exculpatory evidence was discovered, the two men, Curtis McGhee and Terry Harrington, were released after 25 years in prison. They then filed a lawsuit against the prosecutors.

Lawyers for Mr. McGhee and Mr. Harrington argued that police officers who fabricate evidence do not enjoy such absolute protection from a civil lawsuit. They say prosecutors who actively participate in the pre-trial investigation of a case must be held to the same standard as police officers, detectives, and agents, who can be sued if they violate clearly-established constitutional rights.