Georgia Trial Lawyer Blog

About 5 million defective Roman blinds were sold by IKEA in the U.S. and global markets. One of the blinds caused the strangulation of a one year old child. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has the recall notice with the relevant details.

This is not the first defective product sold by IKEA. The store recently agreed to a $500,000 fine for failing to properly report defective outdoor candles that had caused at least 12 injuries, ranging from minor to severe burns. Those candles were recalled in 2006.

Retailers like IKEA have a responsibility to insure that the products they sell are safe and in good quality. We hope this fine, and the CPSC recall notices, will help protect consumers from stores that are not as vigilant as they should be.

Golden West Financial, the mortgage lender acquired by Wachovia Bank in 2006, is being investigated by the United States Department of Justice for fraudulent mortgage lending practices. The "preliminary investigation" was reported by the Associated Press and picked up by many news outlets, including Forbes.

The gist of the investigation appears to be allegations that the company engaged in predatory lending practices by misrepresenting the terms of certain loans, falsifying documents and persuading borrowers to obtain loans that were clearly inappropriate for them.

Our firm has been involved in many mortgage fraud investigations. We have represented both victims of fraudulent mortgage practices and those charged with being involved in mortgage fraud, including attorneys, mortgage brokers, real estate agents, appraisers, "straw purchasers," and investors.

These cases can be very complex to prosecute and to defend. If you think you were the victim of fraudulent mortgage practices, or have been charged with a mortgage fraud related offense, you may contact our lawyers for a free initial consultation to discuss your case. We have helped many people caught up in this mortgage mess, and we may be able to help you.

A delivery driver for Domino's Pizza was recently charged with vehicular homicide for causing the death of a 21 year old woman on May 17 of this year in a traffic accident in Macon Georgia. The driver was allegedly under the influence of both alcohol and marijuana at the time of the accident.

The Macon Georgia Telegraph has the story.

Vehicular homicide can be charged as a felony or misdemeanor, depending on the underlying reason for the accident. Usually, any DUI-type offense that leads to a death will be charged as a felony. Only people who have committed a very minor traffic offense that results in an accidental death receive misdemeanor treatment.

Our firm has represented injured drivers and their families in cases like this one involving drunk drivers. Now that the indictment has been returned, it is almost certain that both the driver and Domino's Pizza will be liable for the accident.

According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, one reported injury led to the recall of 3 different types of Lean Cuisine frozen chicken dinners. The concern is that there may be small pieces of plastic in the frozen chicken.

These are the products affected by the recall:

•9.5-ounce packages of Lean Cuisine Pesto Chicken With Bow Tie Pasta brand frozen meals. Printed on each side of each package is a production code of “8280595912” as well as a use-by date of “Best Before May 2010.”

•10.5-ounce packages of Lean Cuisine Chicken Mediterranean brand frozen meals. Printed on the side of each package is a production code of “8231595912” or “8241595912” as well as a use-by date of “Best before Sep 2010”; a production code of “8263595912,” “8269595911” or “8274595912,” as well as a use-by date of “Best before Oct 2010”; or a production code of “8291595912” or “8301595912” as well as a use-by date of “Best before Nov. 2010.”

•12.5-ounce packages of Lean Cuisine Chicken Tuscan brand frozen meals. Printed on the side of each package is a production code of “8234595911” and a use-by date of “Best before Sep 2009”; a production code of “8253595911” or “8269595912” as well as a use-by date of “Best before Oct 2009”; or, a production code of “8292595911” or “8296595911” as well as a use-by date of “Best before Nov 2009.”

Each package also bears the USDA mark of inspection as well as the establishment number “EST P-9018.”

As with any recall notice that involves food safety, consumers who have purchased these products need to identify them and contact the manufacturer for a refund. If you think you may have been injured by consuming this product, you should also contact a medical professional for treatment and diagnosis.

You may also wish to consult with a personal injury or defective product attorney to determine if the company has any liability for the injuries sustained by consuming the product. Our firm represents people injured by defective products and contaminated food. We never charge for the initial consultation with one of our personal injury, consumer protection or defective product lawyers.

The Savannah Georgia lawyer representing victims of the Imperial Sugar Refinery explosion recently tried to subpoena Senator Saxby Chambliss to depose him about his knowledge and involvement with the company. The Macon Georgia Telegraph has the story.

The focus of the deposition may have been to find out whether Senator Chambliss was asked by company executives to criticize a whistle blower at a recent Senate Committee hearing, and to see if Chambliss would acknowledge that he attempted to dissuade refinery workers from suing the company to recover for their injuries.

Senator Chambliss already has Senate lawyers representing him (apparently at taxpayer expense), and they have moved to quash the subpoena.

It doesn't appear that this will be a major factor in the run-off campaign between Chambliss and Jim Martin, but it may matter a great deal to the refinery workers and their families living in or around the Savannah area.

In Georgia, a bar can sometimes be held liable for injuries suffered by bystanders when a fight breaks out.

In Mulligan's Bar & Grill v. Stanfield, the Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict in favor of Bruce Stanfield who filed suit against Mulligan’s Bar & Grill and the owner of the bar after being injured on the premises. A fight between two other patrons of the bar ended with Mr. Stanfield receiving severe facial injuries due to a beer bottle striking his face. The brawling patrons had given the staff at Mulligan’s trouble before the fight, and employees were aware that the fight between the two men had been brewing for hours. One employee stated that the men had been removed from the bar on several different occasions. Other employees believed that a fight would eventually break out between the two patrons on the night Mr. Stanfield’s injuries occurred. The owner even admitted that one of the patron’s should not have been there since he had been banned.

Other patrons could not understand why the bar did not resolve the problem before the fight, since they had seen the two men fight at Mulligan’s on prior occasions. In addition, evidence showed that the bar’s security officer had told the owner that security was inadequate.

As a result of the fight, Mr. Stanfield received two surgeries and other medical treatment that amounted to approximately $40,000. A jury sided with Mr. Stanfield and found Mulligan’s liable in the amount of $192,100 for knowingly providing an inadequately secured premises. The bar’s owner argued that Mr. Stanfield’s suit was barred by the Georgia Dram Shop Act which concerns a bar’s liability for serving alcohol. However, the court ruled that this case was about premises liability and not liquor liability, since even a bar has a duty to exercise ordinary care in keeping its premises safe.

To be found liable, Georgia law required that a prior incident be sufficient enough to attract the owner’s attention to the dangerous condition that resulted in Mr. Stanfield’s injuries. The court found that there was ample evidence to find that Mr. Stanfield’s injuries were foreseeable due to the prior behavior of the brawling patrons.

Bars are like any other business - they have a duty of reasonable care and adequate security. Our firm represents crime victims and people injured as a result of dangerous conditions and inadequate security. We hope this case will re-affirm the long-standing Georgia rule that holds businesses liable for failing to insure the security of their patrons.

Of course, it's always a good idea to avoid bar fights, and the bars where they occur.

Georgia personal injury lawyers are encouraged by a recent decision of the state Supreme Court in a medical malpractice action.

In Moreland v. Austin, the Supreme Court of Georgia ruled that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) prevents a defendant’s attorney from informally interviewing a plaintiff’s prior treating physician in medical malpractice cases. The case which sparked this decision involved the wife of a deceased patient who filed suit against her husband’s physician. The plaintiff produced her husband’s written medical records including the records kept by three doctors that treated her husband prior to the defendant. The plaintiff’s attorneys then orally contacted the three prior treating physicians to gain insight into the cardiovascular condition and prognosis of the deceased. The plaintiff argued that oral communication with prior physicians was improper under federal law. The question became whether Georgia law or the federal law known as HIPPA should be used in deciding if this method of contact was proper.

The Court first determined that HIPAA trumps Georgia law, since HIPAA grants patients more control over the disclosure of their medical information. The Court then reasoned that HIPAA requires a patient’s express consent or court order before a prior treating physician can orally communicate medical information to a defendant’s attorney. The exception is if the patient is given reasonable notice and an opportunity to object to a defendant’s request to contact the prior treating physicians. The Court found that the plaintiff did not consent to the communications when she failed to object to the defendant’s request for medical documents. The reason is that those requests were for written documents and not the oral contact. Thus, the defendant’s attorneys had violated HIPAA. The Court went on to decide that the sanction for violating HIPAA is generally within the trial court’s discretion.

This is good news for patients and their right to privacy. Our firm represents people who have suffered serious injuries through medical malpractice and negligence. We hope this decision will help protect our clients and insure fairness in these difficult cases.

The Georgia Court of Appeals has decided a case involving specific performance of a shareholder agreement that may be important to small and closely held corporations in Georgia.

In Clausen v. Intercat, the Court of Appeals agreed with a trial court order which granted summary judgment to Intercat Inc. for specific performance of a shareholder agreement against three former employees. When the employees were hired, they entered into a contract which required them to sell back any shares they had acquired in Intercat upon termination of their employment. According to the agreement, the price of the shares would be decided as of the date of the close of the quarter prior to the date of termination. In addition, the agreement required the price of the shares to be based on the total “going concern” value of Intercat. The formula used to find this value took into account the book value of the company and the capitalized after tax income. Finally, the value of a share could not be less than $25 for purposes of the agreement.

Intercat faced tough financial times and filed for bankruptcy in 1999. The three employees were terminated between 1999 and 2002; however, none of the employees offered to sell their shares back to Intercat. In 2004, Intercat demanded that the former employees sell their shares back. Intercat determined that the company had a negative value during the dates when the value of the shares were to be calculated, and thus, each employee was offered $25 for each share. Upon the employee’s refusal, Intercat filed suit. Intercat offered the court an affidavit by a partner in a business investigation services firm which concluded that the “going concern” value for deciding the price of a share was in fact negative. The employees failed to submit any evidence to the contrary.

The employees argued that Georgia law allows a court to refuse to order specific performance of a contract if facts can be shown to demonstrate that a contract is unfair or unjust. The employees contended that the court should have taken into account the fair market value of the shares in assessing fairness of the contract. Yet, the employees failed to offer the court any evidence of the fair market value of the stock, and as a result, they did not show that the contract price of $25 per share was unfair or unjust. The court also held that there was nothing unfair or unjust about the buy-sell clause the employees agreed to when they were hired. Consequently, specific performance was proper in this case.

This decision may help companies enforce employment contracts for key employees, especially in tough economic times. Our firm represents both small business, and closely held corporations in employment contract disputes. If your firm has a dispute involving the specific performance of an employment contract, our lawyers may be able to help.

A recent recall notice for Mylicon infant drops was reported in the Atlanta Journal Constitution this week. Drug giant Johnson & Johnson-Merck Consumer Pharmaceuticals Co. issued the recall.

No word on whether any children were injured, or how the metal was discovered. The recall affects lot numbers SMF0007 and SMF008, distributed to pharmacies after October 5, 2008.

If you purchased this product, you can contact the manufacturer for a refund and more information. If you think your child may have been injured by this product, you should make sure your child is treated by a physician and that any remaining product is not used and kept for testing.

Our firm represents children and their families who have been injured by defective and dangerous products, including altered drugs and medicines. If you think your child may have been injured by this or any other product, you may contact us or another product liability lawyer for assistance.