Georgia Trial Lawyer Blog

The Senior Care Center in Brunswick, Georgia has been cited for serious federal violations. The nursing home, which is owned by Southeast Georgia Health Systems, is one of the largest nursing homes in Brunswick.

Georgia Public Broadcasting has the story.

Georgia’s Department of Health and Human Services found that the Senior Care Center did not address pressure sores and failed to monitor bowel movements. Moreover, investigators found that the Center was managing patient funds without ever receiving permission to do so. The state agency has recommended a fine of $550 per day until the violations have been brought into compliance with federal law.

The 200-bed nursing home was originally shut down by the state in 2007 for safety reasons. Southeast Georgia Health System then bought the nursing home in 2008.

Our personal injury attorneys have been fighting on behalf of abused nursing home patients for years. Georgia law provides nursing home residents with a Bill of Rights that entitles every resident to adequate and appropriate treatment and care. Residents are also entitled to treatment and care that is in compliance with all laws and regulations. When a resident is injured, suffers or dies because a nursing home failed to provide adequate care, the resident or resident’s family may bring a civil suit against the home for damages. By filing a civil suit, an abused resident can often recover a significant sum of money as well as prevent the abuse of future residents.

A Bibb County jury has determined that a nurse negligently administered pain medication which resulted in the death of a Warner Robins patient. The jury returned a $1 million verdict in favor of the patient’s family after deliberating for four hours.

The Macon Telegraph has the story.

The patient, Mearlene Hall, had a surgically implanted pump designed to administer pain medication. The pump had been implanted after she suffered serious back injuries. In May of 2006, a nurse from Option Care of Middle Georgia was refilling the pump with pain medication when Mearlene complained of a tingling sensation in her fingers. Despite Mearlene’s complaints, the nurse continued the procedure. Mearlene eventually went unconscious and slipped into a coma. She died 25 days later.

The family’s personal injury lawyer, Tim Hall of Macon, was able to convince the jury that the nurse was negligent for continuing the procedure after Mearlene began to complain. Hall presented evidence that tingling of the fingers is a sign of a pain medication overdose. He also showed the jury that the pump was working properly.

Aside from the $1 million verdict, prejudgment interest was also awarded in the amount of $278,321.

For years, our personal injury attorneys have been helping injured patients and their families recover damages from negligent health care providers. In many of these cases, a nurse or physician does not recognize or simply overlooks obvious warning signs. Patients who have been negligently injured can recover damages for medical bills as well as pain and suffering. If a death results, a patient may be able to recover for wrongful death which is the full value of the patient’s life. As in this case, damages can be significant.

Graco Children’s Products has announced a recall of around 1.5 million strollers after five children had their fingertips cut off. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has stated that the main concern centers on the canopy hinge.

In addition to the five amputations, two other children received lacerations on their fingertips. The amputations and cuts occurred when the children placed their fingers in the canopy hinge while the canopy was being closed or opened.

Recalled strollers include various model numbers of the Spree, Alano, Passage, and Travel Systems models which were made between October 2004 and February 2008. The affected strollers were sold between October 2004 and December 2009 at retail stores across the country including Walmart, Target, Sears, Kmart and Toys R Us. Consumers can find manufacturing dates and model numbers above the back wheels on the rear frame.

Graco has released a statement telling consumers to stop using the potentially dangerous strollers and to contact Graco for free hinge covers. Consumers can also visit http://www.cpsc.gov to learn more. Graco is a division of Newell Rubbermaid, an Atlanta based company. A similar recall occurred last November which involved a million Maclaren strollers. Prior to that recall, twelve children received severed fingertips.

Our product liability attorneys represent children and their families who have been injured by dangerous and defective products. It is important for parents and families of children injured by defective products to know that they may be entitled to significant monetary damages. Damages may include medical bills as well as emotional and physical suffering. In order to receive such damages, an injured plaintiff must generally show that the product was defective and that the defect caused the child’s injury.

Georgia homeowners affected by recent storms have seen a rise in the number of legitimate insurance claims which have been denied. However, some homeowners have fought back by filing formal complaints with the state and taking legal action against the unscrupulous insurance companies. In the past two years alone, formal complaints filed against insurance companies by homeowners have quadrupled.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

The rise in denial of claims has been largely attributed to the number and severity of hail storms which have affected Georgia over the past couple of years. For instance, the first four months of 2009 saw at least 15 major storms. As insurance companies had to pay out more and more on storm claims, they began tightening their belts by adopting stricter standards. This left numerous homeowners with legitimate claims to fend for themselves. In some cases, homeowners were denied while their neighbors were approved for the same type of storm damage.

Yet, homeowners are not without recourse. Homeowners may file a formal complaint with the Georgia Department of Insurance which can often persuade an insurance company to pay a claim it originally denied. Prior to filing a complaint, a homeowner may also ask for a second adjuster or hire a private inspector.

There is also a powerful legal option which customers may utilize to punish the insurance company and attain significant monetary damages. If an insurance company refuses to pay a legitimate claim, the insured may have a legal action for bad faith. A bad faith action simply means the insurance company had no reason to deny a claim.

Our business fraud attorneys have won several cases in which our clients were victimized by insurance companies who simply refused to pay what they owed. In such cases, an insurance company may be liable for damages including significant punitive damages and attorney fees. However, it is important for every insurance customer who has been denied or been given the run-around to contact an attorney as soon as possible, since the statute of limitations can often sneak up on unwary victims of insurance bad faith.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon, Madison and Savannah. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

A Columbus, Georgia jury returned a $3.4 million verdict last Thursday for the wrongful death of Harris County resident Scott Matty. Matty was struck by a 17-year-old driver while bicycling on Georgia 315 in February of 2008.

The Ledger-Enquirer has the story.

Police say the driver, Rachael Nicole Griffin, was driving a Ford Explorer when she ran over Matty from behind. Griffin also seriously injured a second bicyclist during the incident. Matty’s wife and his estate brought suit against the driver, Rachael Nicole Griffin, and her parents in 2008 seeking damages for wrongful death and pain and suffering. Dustin Brown and Jason Crawford, of the Columbus firm Daughtery, Crawford, Fuller & Brown, represented Matty’s wife and estate at trial. The jury’s verdict came to a total of exactly $3,416,122.

Griffin still faces criminal charges for the death of Matty. A Harris County grand jury indicted her on four counts nearly a year ago. Those charges include second degree vehicular homicide, following too closely, improper passing of a vehicle and failure to maintain lane. All of the charges are misdemeanors under Georgia law.

In addition to his wife, Matty also left behind three daughters.

Our personal injury attorneys have won several car accident cases which resulted in serious injuries or deaths. In many car wreck cases that result in serious injuries, the amount of medical bills, lost wages and pain and suffering can be extreme. Under Georgia law, an innocent party, whether another driver or bystander, is generally entitled to recover these damages from the negligent driver. When a death occurs, the negligent driver may be liable for wrongful death which includes the full value of the decedent’s life. In many cases, this can lead to a substantial jury verdict or settlement as seen in this case.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon, Madison and Savannah. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

The Court of Appeals of Georgia recently determined that DeKalb County could be held liable for injuries that a motorist sustained during a high-speed police chase, since there were factual issues as to whether the pursuing officer recklessly disregarded policies of the DeKalb County Police Department.

In Rahmaan v. DeKalb, Rahmaan, the plaintiff, stated that she was stopped at a red light at a four-way intersection around 10:00pm in the summer of 2005. When the light turned green, she heard loud sirens and stayed where she was. She then saw a Cadillac moving at a high rate of speed with a police car behind it. Rahmaan claims the police car intentionally rammed the back side of the fleeing Cadillac which is known as a PIT maneuver. This caused the Cadillac to fishtail into her vehicle. Rahmaan says she heard the officer get out of his car and say “we got him.” She also claims that people were walking on the sidewalk and that children were playing nearby when the wreck occurred. The officer testified that he did not perform a PIT maneuver, but rather, he was trying to block the intersection so innocent motorists could not enter. At that point, the officer claims the suspect’s car bounced off the police cruiser and into Rahmaan’s vehicle.

Under Georgia law, a police officer’s pursuit of a fleeing suspect cannot be the proximate cause of any injuries unless the officer acted with reckless disregard for proper law enforcement procedures in the officer’s decision to initiate or continue the pursuit. The trial court granted summary judgment for DeKalb, since it believed there was no evidence that the officer acted in reckless disregard. Yet, DeKalb County has a policy that forbids physical contact between vehicles except as required at roadblocks, and that roadblocks cannot be used when innocent persons would be endangered. Under Rahmaan’s version, the officer intentionally struck the fleeing suspect’s vehicle under circumstances not allowed by the county. Thus, the court reversed summary judgment and allowed her suit for injuries to go forward.

Our personal injury attorneys have successfully represented several clients who have been injured by reckless police officers. It is an unfortunate reality that many innocent lives are taken every year by high speed chases in which officers simply disregard proper police procedure. When an injury or death does occur in a police chase, the person or family that was harmed may be entitled to significant monetary damages for injuries. However, it is important to be conscious of the fact that an ante-litem notice may need to be filed very soon after an accident involving a police chase occurs. If an injured party fails to promptly file such a notice, he or she may waive any right to sue for monetary damages.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

The manufacturer of the most common brand of electroshock gun, Taser International, issued a warning last week for officers to stop stunning people in the chest. The company warns that shooting someone in the chest may cause an “adverse cardiac event.”

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

The warning came in the form of a training bulletin to all law enforcement officers that carry the company’s stun guns. Instead of shooting someone in the chest, face or neck, Taser International recommends shocking a person in the back, abdomen or thigh. The warning comes after numerous law enforcement agencies have faced law suits due to the device’s ability to cause heart attacks.

Taser International’s product delivers 50,000 volts to a victim’s body for the purpose of incapacitation. Normally, such a shock will incapacitate a suspect for about five seconds without causing permanent injury. However, more than 400 people have died after being shocked with a Taser since 2001. Of those deaths, medical examiners have found that Tasers contributed to more than 30. It is unclear how many more deaths may have been caused by Tasers.

Three such deaths happened in the Gwinnett County jail after deputies shocked inmates that they say were combative. In two of those cases, the cause of death was ruled to be cardiac arrest, however, the cause of the heart attacks were not determined.

The latest warning has not deterred officers in the Atlanta area from carrying Tasers, but many police departments pledge to retrain their officers including Atlanta, Gwinnett and Clayton. Cobb County has already implemented the recommendations with its officers. Fulton County Police say they are currently reviewing the warnings, and the DeKalb County Sheriff’s Office has stated that it is aware of the recommendations.

Our personal injury attorneys have reviewed several Taser cases. While Tasers may represent a non-lethal way for officers to subdue a suspect, they are often used improperly, excessively or on persons with underlying medical conditions. As this story highlights, the resulting medical complications can lead to permanent damage and even death.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

On Monday, the Supreme Court of Georgia made it easier for insurance customers to sue their insurance companies when the company has acted in bad faith during settlement negotiations. The Court ruled that an insurer that offers the full amount of its policy in a settlement involving multiple insurers is not automatically immunized from a bad faith claim, because an insurer must still act reasonably in regards to any conditions it attaches to the offer.

A bad faith settlement claim essentially alleges that an insurance company has not fulfilled its duties to its customer, because it wrongfully exposed the customer to a verdict at trial which goes beyond policy coverage instead of settling the case before trial.

In the case before the Court, the plaintiff, Fortner, was injured by the defendant in an auto wreck. The defendant had two insurers: the first, Grange Mutual Casualty, with a policy of $50,000 and the second with a policy of $1,000,000. Fortner offered to settle the case with Grange for $50,000 if the second insurer paid $750,000. Grange responded by offering $50,000 if Fortner would sign a full release with indemnification language and dismiss his claim against the defendant with prejudice. No settlement occurred and Fortner won $7,000,000 at trial. After trial, the defendant assigned Fortner any cause of action he may have against Grange for bad faith in failing to settle.

Fortner sued Grange for bad faith but lost in a jury trial. The instructions the jury received basically stated that an insurer only needs to offer the maximum amount of its policy limits to fulfill its duty to its customer. Fortner’s attorney, Robert B. Turner of the Savannah firm Savage, Turner, Pinson & Karsman, argued the instructions were erroneous, since they didn’t say that Grange had to act reasonably. The Supreme Court agreed. Georgia law requires that an insurance company act reasonably. When a plaintiff makes an offer with a condition beyond the control of an insurer, an insurer can avoid bad faith liability by offering the portion of the demand over which it has control. Grange would have escaped liability if it had responded to Fortner’s offer by offering its policy limits. Instead, Grange put conditions on its offer by demanding that Fortner sign a full release of his claims with indemnification language and dismiss his suit against the defendant. Accepting such an offer would have prevented the $7,000,000 verdict against the defendant. The Court ruled that the settlement conditions were within Grange’s control, and as a result, the jury should be able to decide if the settlement conditions were reasonable.

Our personal injury attorneys have successfully represented clients that were the victims of an insurance company’s bad faith refusal to settle a claim. In our experience, bad faith practices by insurance companies are unfortunately common, and customers must be ever vigilant to ensure that they are not being taken advantage of. While this case highlights and corrects some of the abuses which occurred during settlement negotiations, it is important to understand that insurance customers may also have bad faith claims against their insurance companies for other unfair practices such as refusing to pay benefits that are owed or causing payments to be unreasonably delayed.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

DeKalb County, Georgia was facing a lawsuit by a homeless man who complained that a police officer kicked him out of the county and then beat him. The county settled the case last week for $165,000.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

The incident happened five years ago when Robert Williams was found sleeping behind a restaurant on Halloween by Officer Ronald Jones. Williams asked to be arrested in order to find warmth and food, but instead, the officer drove Williams to Rockdale County and ordered him out of the car. Williams refused and a fight ensued which left both men badly beaten. Williams was then arrested on false charges. Jones initially lied to authorities by saying that Williams had placed him in the trunk of the vehicle and drove him across county lines at gunpoint. Eventually, authorities learned the truth, and Jones was charged with kidnapping, aggravated assault and violating his oath of office.

According to some former officers, the practice of transporting a drunk or bothersome vagrant across county lines was an unofficial policy for years, since it was easier than executing an arrest. When an officer makes an arrest, he has to spend time booking the offender into jail, but because driving the offender across County lines saved time, many police supervisors simply turned a blind eye to the practice. In fact, Atlanta officials have accused DeKalb and other counties of dumping vagrants into the city for years. The practice went largely undetected until the fight between Williams and Jones occurred.

Williams and his attorney, Mike Puglise, argued that kicking Williams out of DeKalb County, beating him and filing false charges against him all violated his civil rights. DeKalb decided to settle the case before it proceeded to trial. The hope is that this case will shed light on the widespread problem and cause police supervisors to crack down on the practice.

Our victims’ rights attorneys have successfully represented several clients who have been abused and brutalized by police officers. Police abuse or brutality covers a wide range of actions including physical attacks, verbal threats, excessive use of force, false arrest, sexual abuse and intimidation. As seen in this case, some unofficial police policies or customs are often kept from public view. A good victims’ rights attorney will expose these practices by filing suit against the officer and department under various state and federal laws which are designed to help the victims of police abuse. Doing so will ensure that the illegal practices stop and that the victim receives the maximum amount of monetary damages allowed by law.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

The Georgia Supreme Court heard arguments this week about whether to uphold a Georgia law which requires a plaintiff to establish gross negligence in order to prove medical malpractice in emergency rooms.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

Georgia recently passed a wave of "tort reform" laws aimed at making it harder to sue doctors. One such law raised the level of culpability that an injured emergency room patient must prove to hold a doctor liable from negligence to gross negligence. Gross negligence is extremely difficult to prove. It has been described as being the conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury. For ordinary negligence, a plaintiff only has to prove that a doctor failed to exercise ordinary care.

On Tuesday, the Georgia Supreme Court heard both sides make their cases. Atlanta attorney Michael Terry argued that the law was made for medical corporations and insurance companies that had lobbied the state legislature for special benefits. He also argued that the law virtually eliminates all ER medical malpractice claims and gives hospitals an inequitable advantage. One of the attorneys for the other side, Wade Copeland, argued that the Legislature wanted to attract and keep the best doctors, and that this legislation accomplishes that goal.

The Court should issue its decision within a few months.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

A 33-year-old woman claims that a former nurse at The Medical Center of Central Georgia sexually assaulted her. The former nurse, James Melvin Purvis, was arrested on March 30 and indicted this week for sexual assault.

The Macon Telegraph has the story.

The victim was a patient at the hospital after she suffered injuries in a car accident. Purvis, 56, had previously cared for the victim; however, on the day of the assault, he was not scheduled to be her nurse. The victim stated that on that day Purvis came to see her and they started talking. As they conversed, Purvis allegedly rubbed her shoulder and fondled her. When the victim attempted to stop Purvis, he kissed her on the lips.

Police report that Purvis admitted to visiting the woman, rubbing her shoulders, and kissing her. Purvis faces a possible 10 to 20 years in prison if he is convicted of the sexual assault. According to the hospital, Purvis is no longer an employee, but it is unknown if the hospital fired him.

This criminal prosecution may also lead to a civil suit against the nurse and the hospital. A good crime victim lawyer can help a sex crime victim pursue her attacker in civil court and, in some cases, recover significant damages. The hospital's liability in a case like this will depend on its knowledge of this nurse's prior history, and whether this assault was foreseeable.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

A 10-year-old Clayton County girl has accused a cab driver of molesting her while driving her to school. The cab driver is now in jail on three sex crime charges.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

The cab driver, David Alvarado Perez, and another driver had been transporting the girl by herself to school for over a year. On the day of the incident, the mother believes the girl jumped out of the cab and ran to tell counselors at the school about the touching. Records indicate that Perez was arrested on September 16.

According to the owner of the cab company, company policy demands that all minors must be accompanied by a guardian. The owner also stated that she did not know the girl was being transported by herself.

Perez, 43, is currently sitting in a Clayton County jail on a $35,000 bond for child molestation, sexual battery against a child under the age of 16, and enticing a child for indecent purposes.

Our trial lawyers represent many victims of sexual and violent crimes throughout Georgia, including victims of child molestation. With most sex crimes, it is important for victims to understand that the law may afford them certain legal rights including restitution, compensation, notification of their attacker’s legal proceedings and the ability to attain a restraining order. A victim of a sex crime also has the right to bring a civil suit against the attacker and any other responsible parties for damages. While the attacker is almost always liable, businesses such as apartment complexes, hotels, restaurants, bars and general business offices may also be liable for negligence. A victims’ rights lawyer will work with police, investigators, and prosecutors to ensure that all parties responsible are held accountable for their actions.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

Gwen Dalley thought she was taking antibiotics she received from a Loganville CVS pharmacy. After being hospitalized for suffering nausea, headaches, and blurred vision, she discovered that she was really taking an antidepressant improperly dispensed to her by the pharmacy. Her story appears to be a growing trend in Georgia and around the country.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

Dalley’s attorney, Trent Speckhals, settled her case confidentially with CVS, and Dalley has also filed a complaint with the Georgia Board of Pharmacy. In another case, an Atlanta woman thought she was taking the allergy drug Allegra when she was actually taking the psychiatric drug Nefazodone. That case also settled.

It is unknown how many consumers are given the wrong prescription drug every year, but studies estimate that around 3 percent of prescriptions dispensed by pharmacies may have harmful errors. In Georgia, it is also unclear how many complaints are filed with the Georgia Board of Pharmacy, since the process is kept secret unless the board votes to publicly reprimand the pharmacist or pharmacy. Furthermore, most reprimands are private letters of concern that never see the public light. When the board does publicly reprimand a pharmacist, it is typically for substance abuse or dispensing narcotics without a valid prescription. However, there have been about 50 public reprimands since 2006 for mistakes in dispensing medication. In those cases, the pharmacist was usually fined $500 by the board.

The most common reason for mistakes is believed to be fatigue. Pharmacists often have to fill hundreds of prescriptions a day. This means that pharmacists often shift the work to their technicians and may not always check the technician’s work as is required. Sadly, the problem is only expected to grow as Georgians use more and more prescription drugs.

This story highlights the unfortunate reality that many pharmacies are not held accountable for prescription errors which cause serious complications such as heart attacks, strokes, disability and even death. Prescription errors can occur when the wrong dosage is given or when a patient receives the incorrect drug.

If a person is injured because they got the wrong prescription drug from their pharmacy, a personal injury attorney may be able to help. In a case like this, the lawyer should conduct a thorough investigation by obtaining and reviewing medical records, researching pharmacy protocol, and retaining medical experts in an effort to hold a pharmacy or pharmacist accountable for any damages the patient sustained.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

David Brasington suffered numerous broken bones and a lacerated liver when a tractor trailer pulled in front of his van last year. A Statesboro jury recently awarded him nearly $1.4 million for the incident after he refused to settle the case for $350,000.

The wreck occurred while Brasington was driving a commercial van towards an intersection in Douglas on October 17. Brasington’s attorneys, I. Gregory Hodges and William J. Hunter of Oliver Maner, argued that a Horizon Tank Lines truck suddenly pulled onto the roadway causing the crash. The defense argued that Brasington had moved over into a right-hand turn lane after the tractor trailer began to enter the roadway. A truck driver who witnessed the crash agreed that Brasington was in the right-hand turn lane. However, a police investigation concluded that Brasington was not in the turn lane.

The injuries Brasington sustained were significant and included a fractured femur, broken pelvis, broken ribs, fractured elbow and a lacerated liver. Moreover, he was out of work for more than half a year and may require additional surgeries. The jury also witnessed him having difficulty walking.

The trial took three days and deliberations lasted two hours. In total, the jury awarded Brasington $1,733,184 which included $1.16 million for pain and suffering. However, the jury also found that Brasington was 20% at fault for the crash thereby reducing his award to $1,386,548. Horizon’s attorney said that the case will not be appealed.

Our personal injury lawyers have also successfully handled serious truck accident cases. In most tractor trailer cases, it is important for an attorney to move quickly to preserve evidence that may otherwise be lost or destroyed by the trucking company. One of the ways evidence can be preserved is by sending the trucking company a detailed spoliation letter demanding that it maintain evidence related to a crash. This will help ensure that investigators and industry experts will be able to dissect and utilize critical pieces of evidence including the truck driver’s qualification file, maintenance records, crash data from onboard computers and numerous other pieces of evidence vital to winning tractor trailer cases.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

In 2005, Georgia passed sweeping tort reform laws including capping non-economic damage awards in medical malpractice cases. The Supreme Court of Georgia will now address the issue of whether such a cap is constitutional.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

Georgia capped non-economic damages, which includes pain and suffering, at $350,000 in medical malpractice cases. The imposition of caps in medical cases was largely due to the influence of healthcare and insurance companies. But that may soon change. In a case now pending before Georgia’s high court, a woman by the name of Betty Nestlehutt received a facelift which led to open wounds and permanent disfigurement weeks after her procedure. She sued Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery for medical expenses and non-economic damages to recover for her injuries. The jury sided with her and awarded her $1.15 million including $900,000 for her pain and suffering.

That $900,000 award Betty received should have been reduced to $350,000, but Fulton State Court Judge Diane Bessen ruled that the cap was unconstitutional. Judge Bessen wrote that the $350,000 cap violates a plaintiff’s constitutional right to a trial by jury, separation of powers and equal protection.

A lawyer for the medical practice argued that the tort reform was passed in 2005 to prevent doctors from leaving the state due to high premiums. Nestlehutt’s lawyer argued that the law favors doctors who do the most harm while punishing patients. The Supreme Court of Georgia will now decide whether to uphold Judge Bessen’s ruling.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

A federal racketeering suit has been filed against Toyota for concealing and destroying evidence in hundreds of rollover cases in what has been called a “ruthless conspiracy.” Perhaps most shocking is that the person bringing suit is the former managing counsel for Toyota Motor Sales.

CBS News has the story.

As an attorney for Toyota, Dimitrios Biller defended rollover lawsuits from 2003 to 2007 which involved instability and weak roofs in Toyota’s SUVs and pickups. Biller claims he consistently complained to supervisors about Toyota’s legal misconduct in those cases, and that he was ultimately pushed out the door for voicing his objections.

Biller filed suit in July in federal court in Los Angeles. In the suit, he claims that the motor company withheld evidence of its vehicles’ structural shortcomings. Specifically, he states that the company did not produce emails and electronic information to plaintiffs as is required by law. The lawsuit alleges that in one case a court ordered Toyota to disclose electronic data but that Toyota defied the order. Biller claims he attempted to save the information which included design and test data; however, Toyota destroyed the documents. The destroyed information should have been sent to plaintiffs in over 300 rollover cases.

The suit further alleges that Toyota withheld testing records of its vehicles’ roofs. For instance, Biller claims Toyota failed to produce documents which showed that its internal standard for roof strength was more durable than is required by federal regulations.

Toyota counters that the allegations are “inaccurate and misleading.” It further argues that Biller has violated his ethical obligations to Toyota by violating the attorney-client privilege. A hearing has been set for September 14 to determine if the complaint should be sealed due to privileged and confidential information.

The charges in Biller’s suit are echoed by many product liability lawyers who have dealt with Toyota in the past. If the charges prove to be true, it is possible that hundreds of seriously injured or killed plaintiffs were denied justice.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

The Court of Appeals of Georgia recently had to determine whether Coweta County was immune from a lawsuit in which an inmate died from an exploding tractor tire. The court ruled that the county is not immune from suit, since the county had purchased the type of insurance which waived sovereign immunity under the applicable statute.

In McDuffie v. Coweta County, the estate of prisoner Terry Rhoades sued the county for wrongful death. Rhoades had been assigned to work as an auto mechanic in the Coweta County Correctional Institute. On August 11, 2003, a tractor tire came into the shop which needed a new tube. Rhoades replaced the tube and then placed the tire back onto the tractor. During this time, Rhoades was being supervised by a prison guard; however, the guard left to use the restroom after Rhoades put the tire back onto the tractor. While the guard was away, Rhoades was getting a hose to put air into the tire. The guard then heard a loud explosion and returned to find Rhoades dead on the ground. Rhoades’ estate sued for negligent supervision by the guard.

Generally, counties are immune from suit unless the state legislature waives immunity. The version of the applicable statute in this case waives immunity if the county purchases the type of insurance defined by the statute and if the claim falls within that type of coverage. The statute states that the county must have purchased “insurance to cover liability for damages on account of bodily injury or death resulting from bodily injury to any person or for damage to property of any person, or for both arising by reason of ownership, maintenance, operation, or use of any motor vehicle.” Furthermore, the policy must provide “liability coverage for the negligence of any duly authorized . . . employee in the performance of his or her official duty.”

The appellate court found that the county did have such an insurance policy. The county’s policy covered “bodily injury. . . that results from ownership, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of a covered auto.” The policy only excluded injuries which were “intentional or expected.” The court found that negligence was included within the term “accident”, and that the term “auto” falls within the statute’s requirement of “motor vehicle.” The court then determined that a tractor does fall under “motor vehicle” for purposes of the statute. As a result, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment for the county.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

In February 2008, an Imperial Sugar Co. refinery exploded in Port Wentworth which resulted in 14 deaths. The director of human resources for Imperial has testified that the CEO instructed her shortly after the explosion to downplay the role she played in safety procedures.

The Savannah Morning News has the story.

Deborah Haban, Imperial’s director of human resources, testified in a federal investigation that shortly after the explosion she told the company’s CEO, John Sheptor, that OSHA was likely to interview her. Haban was concerned, because she had been given the task of coordinating safety programs before the explosion but lacked experience in the field of manufacturing safety. According to Haban, Sheptor told her to minimize the role she had played in safety programs to only an administrative role. Haban stated that Sheptor told her this meant “nothing more than an administrator to . . . administer the paperwork.”

When Haban was hired in 2003, she believed her job description entailed training and development. Haban testified that the company’s senior Vice President of human resources, Kay Hastings, soon informed her that her duties would expand to include safety. At that time, Imperial had shifted safety management from operations to human resources. Hastings also told Haban that she did not need to be a safety expert, but that she had to give the corporate safety director guidance and “hold him accountable to the paperwork process of creating action plans and following through.” Other sworn statements reveal that Haban participated in safety meetings with top officials and supervised the corporate safety director.

Hastings confirmed much of the testimony that Haban offered regarding her job duties. Hastings noted that Haban would deal with plant managers on safety issues and that the corporate safety director answered directly to Haban. Hastings also reaffirmed the fact that Haban had no experience or expertise in the safety field.

Since the explosions and fires, numerous lawsuits have been filed against Imperial by the victims and their families. In addition, OSHA has not decided whether to seek criminal charges against Sheptor or any other actors; however, it has sought an $8.8 million fine against Imperial for safety violations.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

Chatham County State Court Judge Hermann Coolidge has scheduled hearings for September 10 in two lawsuits filed against Imperial Sugar.

The Savannah Morning News has the story.

The suits stem from a February 2008 fire at Imperial’s Port Wentworth plant which left fourteen dead and many more injured. Around 40 lawsuits have been filed against Imperial due to the fire.

The cases of Paul Seckinger and Shelathia Harvey are expected to test the waters of litigation before the other suits go forward. Judge Coolidge has scheduled trials to begin May 10 if they are needed.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

There are allegations that U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss attempted to discredit a whistleblower at a Senate hearing last year, and that he did so at the urging of the company the whistleblower was trying to expose.

The Savannah Morning News has the story.

In February 2008, a fire at Imperial Sugar’s Port Wentworth refinery killed 14 people. The United States Senate held a hearing in July of that year which focused on the cause of the fire. At the hearing, the company’s former executive, Graham Graham, testified that the company prevented him from making refineries safer. During Graham’s statements, Senator Chambliss frequently interrupted and challenged Graham’s veracity on more than one occasion. Chambliss does not sit on the subcommittee which questioned Graham, but he was invited by the committee’s ranking Republican, Senator Johnny Isakson, to partake in the hearing.

Before the hearing, Imperial Sugar lobbyist George Baker sent a memo and five documents to Chambliss which detailed a phone conversation that had taken place the day before between Chambliss, the company’s CEO, and Baker. The memo stated that Imperial disagreed with what Graham was going to say at the hearing and provided Chambliss with questions to ask Graham during the hearing. Chambliss did in fact ask questions which were similar to those the company provided.

In addition, one of the documents sent to Chambliss was written by a former OSHA inspector. The document stated that OSHA never trained him on the hazards of combustible dust which is believed to be one reason for the fire, and that OSHA lacked clear standards on combustible dust. The inspector wrote and signed the document the same day as the Barker memo at Imperial’s request.

Chambliss’ office claims that the Senator was only advocating for the victims of the fire by asking tough questions. His office also says that Chambliss did not respond to the memo.

Lawyers for Graham and the victims say this shows that Imperial and Chambliss worked together to discredit Graham. One attorney representing some of the victims also claims that Chambliss attempted to talk his clients out of suing Imperial.

In the past, Chambliss has received over $130,000 from sugar interests. This includes money from Imperial’s lobbyists and political committee. In fact, five weeks before the hearing Baker made a $1,000 donation to Chambliss’ campaign.

Imperial is now facing an $8.8 million fine from OSHA for safety violations at its refineries as well as lawsuits from the Port Wentworth fire.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

On Thursday morning, an 18-wheeler struck an ice cream truck on Camp Creek Parkway which resulted in serious injuries. The driver of the 18-wheeler, Patrick Starpone, has been charged with failure to yield.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

Police say the 18-wheeler was traveling eastbound when it attempted to make a left turn at a green light. However, the light did not have a left-turn arrow. An ice cream truck traveling westbound then collided with the 18-wheeler.

The driver of the ice cream truck, Stephen Linsey, sustained serious injuries and was life-flighted to Atlanta Medical Center. Linsey was reported to be in serious condition.

A Fulton County public works vehicle with four passengers was also involved the crash, but no other serious injuries were reported.

Our firm has helped people injured in truck accidents like this one. There are special circumstances about tractor trailer accidents that set them apart from a typical auto "fender bender" or even a more serious auto-only accident. A familiarity with trucking regulations, common operating procedures and manuals, as well as the preservation of evidence, are all necessary to help establish liability, even when the driver is clearly at fault.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

In 2005, a Cumming man shopping at a Marietta Home Depot was injured in a forklift accident. On Wednesday, a Cobb County jury awarded the man and his wife $1.5 million for injuries.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

The complaint alleged that Larry Reece, 58, was at the Marietta store when a stack of plywood fell from a forklift. The wood fell from more than 20 feet and crashed down onto a barricade. The barricade then hit Reece, and Reece found himself buried under a pile of wood. As a result, Reece sustained neck and spine injuries including herniated discs.

Aside from the sheer pain and medical bills, Reece also lost his livelihood. He had been a construction worker all his life, but due to the permanent injuries he received, he was unable to return to work.

After a two-day trial, the jury’s award was issued. Of the $1.5 million verdict, the jury awarded $30,000 to Reece’s wife for loss of marital relations and $120,000 in medical expenses. The jury did not address punitive damages, since Reece had settled that issue with Home Depot.

Similar suits have been filed against Home Depot in the past.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

Bausch & Lomb has settled nearly 600 lawsuits in connection with the contact lens cleaner ReNu with MoistureLoc. Experts believe the cleaner exposed many users to a potentially blinding fungal infection.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

Bausch & Lomb has already paid out $250 million in settlements and has dozens of more claims that have yet to be settled. Financial analysts believe the lens cleaner could end up costing the company $500 million. In some of the cases, the damage was irreversible. Seven people had to have an eye removed, and at least 60 people needed corneal transplants.

The infection, known as Fusarium keratitis, first appeared in Hong Kong in early 2005. It was not removed from shelves in the United States until April 2006. In May 2006, the company issued a worldwide recall. Many doctors had never seen the infection before and prescribed antibiotics and steroids which ultimately made the condition even worse. Victims say the infection began with a feeling of irritation which then turned into searing pain. How the infection occurred is still not entirely clear.

The impact has hit Bausch’s profits hard. MositureLoc had produced $100 million in annual sales. In October 2007, Bausch was acquired by the private equity firm Warburg Pincus in an attempt to get out of the public eye. Since the recall, Bausch has had to sell their older product ReNu MultiPlus which already has retailer-chain labels, and sales have dropped from $522 million in 2005 to $450 million in 2008.

Bausch is challenging another 500 lawsuits linking MoistureLoc to bacterial, viral, and parasitic conditions. A New York court is set to decide this week if there is a reliable scientific basis for establishing a link.

This is the second epidemic in the past few years stemming from a lens cleaner. In 2007, a popular formula made by Advanced Medical Optics was linked to a difficult parasitic infection. More than 170 people sued over that incident.

The FDA has stated that it is set to lay out more stringent testing requirements for lens solutions.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

On Wednesday, a DeKalb County jury awarded Jessica Mundy $40 million dollars after being paralyzed when her Ford Explorer shifted out of park and ran her over.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

Specifically, the jury awarded $30 million in punitive damages, $9 million in compensatory damages, and $1 million for her husband. The suit was against Ford Motor Company and Legacy Ford in McDonough where Mundy purchased the Explorer in 2004.

Mundy claimed that a design defect in some Ford Explorers causes the vehicles to unexpectedly go in reverse after the driver puts the vehicle in park. In particular, Mundy claims that she put her Explorer into park and got out to mail a package in McDonough. The Explorer then apparently shifted into reverse and ran over Mundy which fractured her spine and paralyzed her.

Mundy’s attorneys showed the jury three depositions of people who had similar situations in which Explorers would suddenly shift out of park. In addition, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has begun an investigation into consumer complaints that 2002 to 2005 Explorers unexpectedly come out of park. Ford maintains that it was Mundy’s operation of the vehicle that led to her injuries and not a defect in the vehicle.

Since the accident, Mundy has been unable to return to her job as an accountant for the state. However, she says that the verdict has given her some peace of mind.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

A Henry County woman was awarded $1.05 million in a medical malpractice suit against a Fayetteville surgeon for a botched surgery.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

Cynthia Bennett, who is a Henry County nurse, claimed that she almost died when her surgeon injured her bowel during surgery. Bennett and her attorney also argued that the surgeon failed to diagnose and properly treat the injury.

The jury verdict of $1.05 million was against the Fayetteville surgeon JuDonn Adams and New Millennium Obstetrics and Gynecology LLC. Bennett had originally filed the suit back in December 2003. One of Bennett's attorneys was Brandon Hornsby, an Atlanta trial lawyer.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently determined that a plaintiff’s failure to originally identify the correct governmental agencies in a personal injury suit against the state does not necessarily constitute grounds for dismissing the suit. The court held that the correct standard is to determine if the plaintiffs adequately investigated their claims or if the state had suffered prejudice.

In Young v. Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources, the plaintiff, Young, was injured at the Georgia National Fairgrounds in Perry, Georgia. Young brought suit for negligence and filed ante-litem notices with the Department of Administrative Services and the Georgia National Fairground. This ante-litem notice is a necessary step in suing the state for a tort. Upon realizing these were not the correct agencies sometime later, Young filed suit against the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Georgia Agricultural Exposition Authority (GAEA) which were the correct agencies.

The DNR and GAEA asked for the case to be dismissed, since Young had failed to identify the DNR and GAEA as the target agencies as required by the anti-litem statute. The trial court granted the motion by reasoning that a plaintiff must strictly comply with the anti-litem statute which waives the state’s sovereign immunity. The court further explained that the failure to include the DNR and GAEA rendered the original anti-litem notices invalid, and the plaintiff could not remedy the problem by later attaching the correct agencies.

The Court of Appeals disagreed. It held that the trial court should have conducted an inquiry into whether Young adequately investigated his claim or whether the state had suffered prejudice as a result of originally naming the wrong agencies. In doing so, the judgment was overturned and sent back to the trial court for the correct analysis to be conducted.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

The Georgia Court of Appeals was asked to decide if a homeowner’s insurance policy covered injuries stemming from intentional acts when the language only covered accidental occurrences. The court ruled that summary judgment for the insurance company was proper, since such language does not cover injuries arising from intentional actions.

In Perry v. State Farm, State Farm filed a declaratory judgment asking the trial court to find that one of their policies did not cover a personal injury claim. The policy holder, Blackwell, allegedly had sexual intercourse with a house guest, Perry, after she fell asleep on his couch while fully clothed. Perry also claims that Blackwell took photographs after Perry had been undressed. Perry claims that the actions were without her consent. As a result, Perry sued for battery, invasion of property, loss of consortium, negligence, and punitive damages.

After the complaint was filed, State Farm began to investigate and defend the lawsuit. When Blackwell was deposed, he stated that he woke in the middle of the night while sleeping with his wife and went to find Perry. Upon finding Perry, he began having oral and vaginal sex, but he stopped when he realized he did not have a condom. Blackwell stated that the two did not speak, but he believed that she was an active participant. Blackwell also admitted to being intoxicated. State Farm then sought the trial court to rule that it had no duty to indemnify him against Perry’s claims. The trial court agreed with State Farm. Blackwell argued on appeal that State Farm was required to indemnify him against Perry’s negligence claim.

The court of appeals noted that the policy protected against bodily injury caused by an “occurrence.” An occurrence was defined as “an accident” in the policy. The court determined that accident must mean an event that is an unexpected happening. The court further noted that the policy did not protect against an “accidental injury” which can arise from a conscious voluntary act. Here, any injuries were the result of Blackwell’s intentional actions. The court concluded that the policy covered an accidental occurrence but not an accidental injury. Thus, the policy did not require State farm to provide coverage for Blackwell’s intentional actions which included Perry’s claim for negligence.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

The Georgia Supreme Court recently had to determine if the state is immune from liability when a police officer negligently strikes a vehicle while performing official duties. A divided Court ruled that the state was not immune to such a suit.

In Georgia Dept. of Public Safety v. Davis, the plaintiff, Davis, was injured by a police vehicle while driving her mail carrier pick-up truck. The state trooper was traveling behind Davis’ truck while running radar on vehicles approaching from the other lane. It is a technique known as blocking. Davis stopped in order to make a left turn; however, the trooper was not able to stop in time and collided with Davis’ truck. Davis was injured as a result of the accident, and she brought a suit for damages against the Department of Public Safety. The Department moved to dismiss the suit arguing that the state legislature did not intend to waive sovereign immunity for this type of incident. The trial court and the Court of Appeals disagreed, and the case was then appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court.

The Department leaned on a statute which reads: “The state shall have no liability for losses resulting from. . . the failure to provide, or the method of providing, law enforcement, police, or fire protection. . .” The Court adopted a test from Texas and West Virginia which asks if the losses resulted from the making or implementation of a policy decision. Thus, the state is immune if the injury is caused during the implementation of a policy that is defective. However, the state is not immune where its employee implements a non-defective policy in a negligent manner.

The Court reasoned that it is the policy of the Department of Public Safety to apprehend speeders. However, it is not policy for an officer to negligently strike a vehicle while apprehending speeders. Furthermore, a review board found that the trooper did not operate his car in a manner consistent with policy and training. Since the trooper’s negligence was not a part of any policy, the state can be held liable for injuries caused by the negligence.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims and people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Our firm is also listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers by Martindale-Hubbell.

A Georgia boy whose penis was severed during a negligent circumcision has been awarded $1.8 million by a Fulton County jury. The boy’s mother was also awarded an additional $500,000. No punitive damages were awarded.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

In 2004, a doctor at South Fulton Medical Center performed a circumcision while a pediatrician looked on. The mother of the child filed suit two years later arguing that the doctor removed an excessive amount of tissue. It was also alleged that the pediatrician did not respond when a nurse became alarmed over the amount of bleeding. Additional evidence was introduced which showed that the tip of the penis could have been reattached for eight hours after the procedure, but doctors failed to do so.

The jury found both the doctor who performed the circumcision and the pediatrician to be negligent; however, the hospital itself was not found liable. The jury’s award will go towards medical and psychiatric treatments for the boy and his family. The lawyers for the doctors may appeal the case.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims and people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Our firm is also listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers by Martindale-Hubbell.

A lawsuit has been filed against the staff and owners of Great Expectations Child Development Center in Kennesaw, Georgia for locking a 4 year old girl in a bathroom and sitting on her.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

The lawsuit specifically alleges that a teacher locked the girl in a bathroom over a toilet accident, and that the girl was hit in the head with the bathroom door when she tried to exit the bathroom. According to the lawsuit, the same teacher and the center’s director also sat on the girl several times in order to keep the girl on her sleeping mat. On a separate occasion, the girl was allegedly taken to a mop room where she was stripped of her clothes and sprayed with a hose.

A 5 year old boy was also allegedly chocked and locked in a bathroom by the same teacher.

The teacher named in the lawsuit, Monica Hollins, was arrested in December by Kennesaw police and was charged with reckless conduct and simple battery.

The parents of the girl are seeking at least $2.5 million for medical and psychological treatment.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims and people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Our firm is also listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers by Martindale-Hubbell.

Recently, the Court of Appeals had to determine whether the plaintiff’s failure to originally identify the correct governmental agencies in a personal injury suit against the state constituted grounds for dismissal. The court held that the correct standard is to determine if the plaintiffs adequately investigated their claims or if the state had suffered prejudice. In doing so, it vacated the trial court’s ruling which simply dismissed the claims for not strictly complying with the statute which waives state sovereign immunity.

In Young v. Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources, the plaintiff, Young, was injured at the Georgia National Fairgrounds in Perry, Georgia. Young brought suit for negligence and filed ante-litem notices with the Department of Administrative Services and the Georgia National Fairground which is a necessary step in suing the state for a tort. Upon realizing these were not the correct agencies sometime later, Young filed suit against the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Georgia Agricultural Exposition Authority (GAEA) which were the correct agencies. The DNR and GAEA moved for dismissal, since Young had failed to identify the DNR and GAEA as the target agencies as required by statute. The trial court granted the motion by reasoning that a plaintiff must strictly comply with the statute which waives the state’s sovereign immunity. The court further explained that the failure to include the DNR and GAEA rendered the original anti-litem notices invalid, and the plaintiff could not remedy the problem by later attaching the correct agencies.

The Court of Appeals disagreed. It held that the trial court should have conducted an inquiry into whether Young adequately investigated his claim or whether the state had suffered prejudice as a result of originally naming the wrong agencies. In doing so, the judgment was vacated and sent back to the trial court for the correct analysis to be utilized.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims and people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Our firm is also listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers by Martindale-Hubbell.

A lawsuit was recently filed against WellStar Kennestone Hospital in Marietta alleging that the hospital failed to properly hire, train and supervise certain employees that may have sexually assaulted patients at the hospital.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

The lawsuit alleges that three employees of the hospital sexually assaulted at least 6 patients and one visitor to the hospital. Apparently, other victims have come forward since the lawsuit was filed.

Our crime victim advocates and trial attorneys have assisted sex crime victims recover significant monetary damages that they could not have recovered if they just relied on the criminal justice system.

As this lawsuit claims, employers may be liable for the criminal acts of their employees if they have been negligent in their hiring, training or supervision of their employees. There may also be liability when the crime occurs within the scope of the employee's job.

It is important to remember that crime victims have rights that extend beyond the criminal justice system. An experienced attorney can often help crime victims recover at least a little of what they lost.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims and people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Our firm is also listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers by Martindale-Hubbell.

In Nguyen v. US, the 11th Circuit recently held that a doctor who was unlawfully arrested could sue the federal government for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

The facts of the case are interesting. Dr. Nguyen was born in Vietnam and served in the South Vietnamese army as a combat physician during the Vietnam War. He was imprisoned and forced to do hard labor for a year after the Communists took control. Upon his release, he attempted to escape the country multiple times which resulted in additional arrests. Eventually, he made his way to America after spending months in a refugee camp in Thailand. He attained an American medical license, and in 1984, he bought a practice in Trenton, Florida. He was the only physician for the small town of 1,500 residents. Dr. Nguyen then became a US citizen in 1986.

In 2000, Dr. Nguyen was arrested for the delivery of a controlled substance that was not prescribed in good faith. Specifically, he was said to have given Valium and Lortab to a patient that was a confidential informant without first conducting a medical exam. But two months later the charges were dropped due to insufficient evidence.

The negative publicity and harm done to Dr. Nguyen’s practice was tremendous. Many health insurance companies canceled their contracts with him causing his practice to lose a crippling amount of patients. It also took months for Dr. Nguyen to reestablish his prescription privileges. The damage done to his practice was the same as if he had been found guilty of the charges.

The record clearly revealed that no crime existed. All evidence showed that a medical examination was conducted each time the confidential informant went to Dr. Nguyen for treatment. The evidence consisted in part of videotapes which actually captured each examination. The sheriff’s deputy who made the arrest made it clear that he relied on the statements from the DEA agent in charge of the case when typing the arrest affidavit. It was based on these false statements that an arrest warrant was issued.

Dr. Nguyen brought suit against the sheriff’s deputy, the sheriff, and the United States; however, the trial judge dismissed the claim against the U.S. based on sovereign immunity. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Nguyen for over $1.8 million against the other defendants. Dr. Nguyen then appealed arguing the US should not have been dismissed, because the US had waived its sovereign immunity in the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The 11th Circuit agreed.

We did not represent Dr. Nguyen, but our civil trial lawyers have assisted other clients who were falsely arrested and prosecuted for something they did not do. It is difficult to bring malicious prosecutions and false arrest cases because the amount of proof needed to win such a case is high. But, once the case gets to a jury, the verdict can be very large. Juries seems to understand that law enforcement should be certain that someone has committed a crime before they arrest that person and put them through the humiliation of a criminal prosecution. Dr. Nguyen's jury understood that.

A Georgia personal injury attorney recently won a $1.25 million verdict in a nursing home neglect case in Dekalb County, Georgia. The allegations involved improper care and treatment by the nursing home, including the failure to properly monitor the patient to avoid the occurrence of painful bed sores.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

Nursing home neglect and abuse cases can be tragic. We generally expect these facilities to operate within the standard of care and to honestly care about the patients in their facilities. Unfortunately, as this case shows, that doesn't always happen.

Perhaps the size of this verdict will send a message to nursing homes to be more vigilant in patient care.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta recently held that a police officer is not entitled to qualified immunity for using significant force after making an arrest in which there was no danger.

In Galvez v. Bruce, the Eleventh Circuit held that a sheriff’s deputy who allegedly used excessive force after making an arrest was not entitled to qualified immunity. The decision stems from an incident that occurred at medical doctor Adolfo Galvez’s walk-in clinic in Florida. A teenage girl had pulled into Galvez’s parking lot with an overheated car and asked to use a water spigot to fill the vehicle’s radiator. In exchange, Galvez requested the girl’s driver’s license to copy in case the car was not removed. The girl gave Galvez the license, but a dispute then broke out in which Galvez refused to return the license.

Sheriff’s deputy Henry Bruce was dispatched to the scene. Bruce demanded Galvez to hand over the license, but Galvez refused. Bruce then grabbed Galvez’s right hand in an attempt to arrest him. Galvez resisted Bruce’s advancement while trying to retrieve the license from above a printer. Bruce pushed Galvez away from the printer and grabbed the license along with confidential patient information. Galvez then grabbed the license and confidential papers and placed the license in his pants pocket. At this point, Galvez was placed under arrest.

Galvez testified that after he was arrested Bruce dragged him outside. Bruce then slammed Galvez’s chest into the edge of the clinic’s car port several times. Galvez claims that his body was pinned between Bruce and the concrete wall while the slamming occurred. Finally, Bruce retrieved the license from Galvez’s pocket. Galvez was charged with petit theft and resisting arrest which were both later dropped. Galvez sustained two broken ribs and a leaking aneurysm from the incident. As a result, Galvez sued Bruce for violating his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free of excessive force by state police officers.

The trial court granted Bruce’s motion for summary judgment by determining that he was entitled to qualified immunity. For qualified immunity to exist, the officer must have been acting within his discretionary authority, and his actions must not have violated a statutory or constitutional right. Finally, if there was a violation of a right, qualified immunity exists if that right was not clearly established by the law. The trial court found that the law did not provide Bruce with clear notice that his conduct was unlawful, and thus, he was entitled to qualified immunity.

However, the appeals court disagreed with the trial court’s reasoning. First, the appeals court determined that that a jury could find that Galvez’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force during arrest was violated, since the use of force could be found to be disproportionate to the amount necessary for arrest. The court reasoned that the low severity of the crimes, the lack of danger to the officer, and the low risk of flight all led to this conclusion. Second, the court found that two prior cases should have put Bruce on notice that his actions were not legal. Prior cases demonstrate that qualified immunity does not exist for officers who use significant force after an arrest has taken place in which the arrestee has been secured and poses no danger to the officer. As a result, the trial court’s summary judgment was thrown out.

Our constitutional rights attorneys have assisted people in several false arrest and excessive force cases involving law enforcement officers. Although these cases can be incredibly difficult to win, we have been successful when we can show that the officer's actions violated clearly established law. This case will likely help us protect the constitutional rights of citizens when police officers get too far out of line.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has issued new guidelines relating to the safety of public pools and spas. These guidelines are an attempt to address the well-known problem of children being entrapped in drains and suffering serious injuries or death.

The guideline can be found on the CPSC's website.

Public pools can be a great summertime diversion for kids and families. That's why it is so important to insure that these facilities are safe and in compliance with federal guidelines. Now that these guidelines are in place, pool operators and owners will likely be held liable if a child becomes entrapped in an unsafe drain at their pool.

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.

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.

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.

Congress recently passed legislation to revamp the Consumer Product Safety Commission and help injured consumers recover damages for defective products.

The Washington Business Journal has the story. The legislation is called the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (H.R. 4040).

Apparently, the law will allow private lawyers and state attorneys general to sue manufacturers who have produced defective and unsafe products. The law also protects whistle blowers who report manufacturing safety violations. An online consumer complaint database will also be set up so consumers will know what products have been reported as altered, defective or unsafe.

This legislation appears to be a good step towards protecting consumers from dangerous products. Recent news reports of defective, altered and unsafe products clearly demonstrate the need for consumer lawyers to have better access to the civil justice system to hold unscrupulous or negligent manufacturers and business liable for their defective products.

Our firm helps people who have been injured by defective or unsafe products and we look forward to using this new law to help our clients recover damages and enforce safety regulations. If you have a product liability claim for a defective product, you may benefit from this new law. If you have any questions, you may contact our firm to discuss the case with one of our trial attorneys.

On Monday, the Georgia Supreme Court issued an important ruling in a vaccine injury case brought by the parents of Stefan Ferrri. The Georgia Supreme Court held that the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act does not preempt all state law tort claims for injuries that may have been caused by vaccines that were negligently designed.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

This decision means that the lawsuit can proceed and, hopefully, the parents' claims will be heard by a Georgia jury. Published reports of a link between vaccines and autism make this decision vitally important to the thousands of Georgia children who received these vaccines.

We are closely following this case and hope it will open the door for other families to recover damages for vaccine injuries that have long been contested by the manufacturers. We think it's time for vaccine manufacturers and big drug companies to stop hiding behind the laws their lobbyists helped pass.

An Atlanta lawyer has filed a lawsuit against the Colorado-based maker of the popular Crocs shoes. The lawsuit alleges that a child was injured while wearing the shoes on an airport escalator.

According to the complaint, the shoes got caught up in the escalator because of their design. Damages for the child's injuries are alleged to be $2 million. Interestingly, the child's mother is the producer for Neal Boortz, a conservative talk radio show host.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

Other injury lawyers have filed lawsuits against Crocs alleging similar defects and injuries that occur when these shoes get caught in escalators. Some of these lawsuits allege that the manufacturer knew of this problem before it started marketing the shoes to children.

Our firm accepts injury cases like the lawsuit filed against Crocs, and we can understand why parents would be concerned about the safety of the shoes their children wear.

We hope that the manufacturer will act responsibly and insure that any injured children are properly compensated for their injuries. So far, the manufacturer of Crocs has been blaming the kids and the escalators for the injuries. We'll soon see if juries feel the same way.