Georgia Trial Lawyer Blog

On Friday, the Georgia Bureau of investigation filed a report with the Chatham County District Attorney’s Office concerning the tasing of an autistic teenager. The report’s findings may determine whether the officers involved face criminal charges for using Taser against the teen.

WTOC has the story.

Clifford Grevemberg and his brother went to order food at the Rock House Bar and Grill after attending Tybee Island’s Beach Bum Parade on May 21. Clifford, who is 18 years old, suffers from autism. Because Clifford was under 21, he was forced to wait outside the grill while his brother ordered food inside. Tybee officers say they approached Clifford while he was waiting outside and asked to see his ID. At some point during the encounter, Clifford was forced to the ground and tased. According to police reports, officers believed that Clifford was intoxicated although his family denies that claim.

Jason Buelterman, Tybee Island’s mayor, asked the GBI to investigate the matter to determine if police violated the law. Since the tasing, Police Chief James Price and a supervisor have been suspended. In addition, three officers who were involved in the altercation have resigned.

The Chatham County District Attorney’s Office must now decide whether it will bring criminal charges against the officers for using excessive force. It is currently unclear as to when the DA’s Office will announce its decision.

In response to the incident, Clifford’s family has filed suit against the city and the officers involved in the tasing.

While Tasers can be a useful and non-lethal tool for law enforcement, they are all too often used excessively, improperly or on persons with sensitive medical conditions. Victims of such police abuse can file suit against the police department and individual officers in an effort to hold the police accountable and to recoup any damages that were sustained from psychological or physical injuries.

A nurse at the Satilla Regional Medical Center in Waycross, Georgia filed a qui tam action against the hospital in 2007 for allegedly defrauding Medicare and Medicaid. Recently, the Department of Justice announced that it will be taking over the case.

Georgia Public Broadcasting has the story.

A qui tam law suit is when an individual sues a business for defrauding the government by filing a false claim. Qui tam law suits are most commonly filed in connection with health care fraud although virtually any type of company may be sued. To succeed in such a law suit, a whistle blower needs independent and direct knowledge that a business has defrauded the government. Whistleblowers are typically employees of the business being sued, since generally only employees are privy to such information.

If a qui tam suit is successful, a whistle blower can expect to be awarded 25 to 30 percent of the amount that is recovered. However, in some cases, the government will decide to take over the case. In those situations, a whistle blower can expect to earn 15 to 25 percent. It is not uncommon for whistle blowers to recover millions of dollars especially if the fraud was pervasive or if the law suit concerns a large corporation.

In the recent Waycross hospital case, the nurse filed suit after she saw a doctor puncture an artery of a patient during surgery and then abandon the patient. That patient later died. U.S. District Attorney Ed Tarver announced that his office was taking over the case after discovering that the hospital’s actions may have been profit-driven. According to Tarver, the hospital knew the doctor in question was not credentialed to conduct that type of surgery but allowed the doctor to do so anyway. The DOJ also believes that Medicaid and Medicare paid for treatments that were unnecessary.

Aside from unnecessary treatments, a qui tam action may be proper anytime an employer over charges, bills for something that never existed, produces inferior goods, or uses false or stolen identities in order to defraud the government out of money.

Our whistle blower lawyers are able to help employees and individuals file suit against companies that defraud the government. We understand that many employees are hesitant to speak out against their employer; however, it is important for employees to know that federal law protects whistle blowers from retaliation by their employers.

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.

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.

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 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.