Atlanta Injury Law Blog

Spinal cord injury can be utterly devastating. Researchers at Purdue University are working on an experimental drug that might restore the function of nerves damaged in spinal cord injuries by preventing short circuits caused when tiny "potassium channels" in the fibers are exposed.

The experimental compound, 4-aminopyridine-3-methyl hydroxide, has been shown to restore function to damaged axons, slender fibers that extend from nerve cells and transmit electrical impulses in the spinal cord.

This week I mailed letters to members of the State Bar of Georgia Board of Governors announcing my candidacy for president-elect of the State Bar of Georgia. On Friday, I enjoyed a lunch meeting with the Rome Bar Association.

Over the years, I have had the opportunity to see how things get done in the State Bar. And I have seen how good ideas can be thwarted despite years of hard work. 

To accomplish anything of lasting practical significance for the legal profession and the public, it is essential to prudently discern what is both worthwhile and feasible, focus on clear priorities, use limited time wisely, delegate effectively, and emphasize teamwork and continuity.  If granted a year at the helm, that is what I will seek to do.

Currently I serve as treasurer of the State Bar, a position that enables me to get a highly detailed view of the Bar's operations, in addition to serving on the Executive Committee. Previously I served as secretary, as a committee chair, section chair, and a decade on the Board of Governors.

Nominations will be made at the Board of Governors meeting on January 9, 2009, with the election in the spring. If elected, I will be president-elect from June 2010 to June 2011, and president from June 2011 to June 2012.

No other candidates have come forward at this point. However, until the nominations are closed I will continue to prepare for a another competitive statewide campaign, building upon lessons learned in the election as secretary of the State Bar two years ago.

As an Atlanta trial attorney representing people seriously injured in traffic crashes, I seldom advise procrastination in filing suit as cases seldom improve with age. However, there are exceptions.

Yesterday, the Georgia Supreme Court held that the two years statute of limitation for personal injury is ("tolled") until the traffic court case against the person at fault is concluded.

That means that the two year clock doesn't start running until the traffic charge arising from an auto accident is disposed of, one way or another, in court. I have seen cases where the traffic charges languished on court dockets for as much as four years. In those instances, the injury victim could have up to six years to file suit rather than only two.

And defendants who manage to stall resolution of their prosecutions for serious traffic offenses do so at the risk of extending the time in which they can be sued.

A Georgia statute, O.C.G.A. § 9-3-99, says the statute of limitations for any tort action a victim brings over an alleged crime is tolled from the date of the alleged crime until the prosecution of the crime becomes final or is terminated, as long as that time does not exceed six years.

The Supreme Court held that “the plain language of OCGA § 9-3-99 would encompass a violation of a Uniform Rule of the Road. To impose a more stringent definition of 'crime' within the context of the statute would render superfluous its language that the statute of limitation is tolled from the date of the alleged crime 'or the act giving rise to such action in tort' until the prosecution or other termination of such crime 'or act.'”

Chief Justice Hunstein wrote that the court had to reach the result it did notwithstanding the significant impact the decision will have. “If the Legislature had intended to limit the application of OCGA § 9-3-99 to tort actions arising from only certain types of crimes, e.g., felonies or specific intent crimes, it certainly could have done so. It did not, and any undesirable result is a matter properly addressed by the General Assembly rather than the courts.”

I would not generally advise such delay in filing suit or taking a case to trial. If a felony traffic charge is pending against the defendant, it can be a tactical advantage for the plaintiff if the defendant repeatedly invokes the fifth amendment right against self-incrimination in front of the jury in the civil trial, and the judge then instructs the jury that they may infer that a truthful answer would not have helped the defendant.

And delay can often result in loss of evidence and witnesses' loss of memory.

More and more, I'm inclined to file suit promptly when the injury is clearly catastrophic, and move aggressively to complete necessary investigation and discovery.

However, when people do wander in late, or where it is essential to compel answers to questions in disvoery, yesterday's court decision allows us one more arrow in the quiver.

Following is a copy of the Georgia Supreme Court unanimous decision

As a trial attorney handling catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases in Atlanta, I continue to see how jurors are able to separate the wheat from the chaff and do substantial justice in serious cases.  Frivolous and trivial cases, by contrast, don't carry much weight with jurors.

This week in the State Court of Fulton County, a jury returned a wrongful death verdict against a drunk driver who killed a young mother, in the amount of $5,830,000 ($5,115,000 for the value of life and $715,000 for her  suffering before death).

Since the nineteenth century, under Georgia law the measure of damages for wrongful death has been the full value of the life of the deceased. This is consistent with our prevailing respect for the sanctity of human life. 

The economic component of the value of the life includes a projection of lifetime income and benefits, with no deduction for living expenses or income taxes, value of services, etc.).   This figure is be reduced to present value under Georgia wrongful death law, often based on the testimony of an economist or accountant.

The intangible aspect of value of the life includes factors such as the enjoyment of the experience of living and relationships with loved ones. In the case of the death of a young parent, the jury may consider the value to the mother of being around to raise and nurture her children and to grow old with her husband.

The full value of the life is determined only by the enlightened conscience of an impartial jury based on the evidence presented. Under Georgia law, there is no arbitrary formula or cap on the value of a human life. 

The decedent's husband, parents, siblings, etc., testified about various aspects of the value of her wonderful life. My colleagues Charles McAleer and Nelson Tyrone did a fine job of putting it all together.

As a trucking safety trial attorney in Atlanta, Georgia, I've worked with quite a number of spinal cord injury survivors, and have had some good results. But not as good as the verdict a Chicago jury awarded last week.

In the Cook County case of Chraca v. Miles, an Illinois DOT vehicle collided with another vehicle in an intersection. Both drivers claimed that the other ran the red light, and the local police reconstruction was inconclusive. The private citizen, who was rendered an  incomplete paraplegic unable to walk without leg braces and the use of canes or a walker, was represented by Chicago lawyer Martin Healy, Jr. Last week a jury returned a verdict of $25 million.

Paraplegia is a horrific injury. Most people have little idea of the complications that accompany it, including  muscle spasticity, pressure sores and  autonomic dysreflexia.

This paraplegic's tragedy would have been compounded if the crash had been in Georgia. In a similar case based on the negligence of a Georgia DOT employee in the course of his employment, recovery would have been limited to one million dollars under our State Tort Claims Act, which limits payments to $1 million per person and $3 million per accident. We would have been forced to search for other sources of compensation as the recovery from GA DOT would have been grossly inadequate.

A few days ago the Georgia Supreme Court heard oral arguments on constitutionality of the $350,000 cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases. Both trial attorneys and members of the medical profession are waiting with bated breath for the court's ruling.

Watch the video of the oral argument and tell me how you think the court will rule.

As an Atlanta attorney focused on serious personal injury cases, and as an early adopter of internet technology, I have been fascinated by the growing interaction between law, technology and new media.

Robert Ambrogi at IMS Expert Services blog has posted 10 examples of bad things that can happen in court as a result of imprudent online activity.

• Prolific blogging when claiming an overuse injury due to excessive use of a keyboard at work.
• Texting between attorney and client under the table during a deposition which, upon revelation, leads to discovery of all those text messages.
• Judge twittering from the bench, which led to judge's resignation.
• Twittering juror led to motion for new trial. Judge in that case denied the motion, but another judge would grant it.
• Lawyer asking for continuance due to death in family, while at same time bragging on Facebook about partying.
• Facebook "friending" between attorney and judge hearing case led to impermissible ex parte communication, a problem for lawyer and judge alike.
• Lawyer on jury duty, without disclosing he was a lawyer, blogging about the trial. This led to new trial for defendant and bar suspension for the lawyer.
• Defendant doctor blogging about progress of his malpractice trial, including unflattering comments about jurors, etc. Plaintiff found the blog and used it on cross examination. The case settled before this went far.
• Myspace revelations about sex life contracting allegation in lawsuit claiming sexual abuse as a minor.
• Remember in the age of ubiquitous video cameras and Youtube, anything you say in public anywhere may wind up on the Internet, so be circumspect.

We had not dreamed of any of these technologies when I started practicing law in 1977, but the principles involved are far from new.

As an injury lawyer in Atlanta, I have dealt with probably thousands of cases of back injuries involving ruptured or bulging intervertebral discs pressing on nerves and causing pain in the back as well as pain, numbness and tingling radiating down arms and legs. This is probably the single most common injury we see resulting from motor vehicle collisions.

Now an Australian biotech company has announced successful preclinical trial results of its adult stem cells in the treatment of degenerative intervertebral disc disease, the leading cause of low back pain. Note that they are using adult stem cells, not the controversial embryonic stem cells.

It's a long road from preclinical trials in Australia to FDA approval in the US.  But if this turns out to be a practical treatment for damaged discs, it could be a major breakthrough for treatment of millions of people with injured and/or degenerative disc problems.

My personal injury litigation law practice in Atlanta has included a number of serious defective product cases. Among them have been tire defect cases.

Last week, a Texas jury returned a verdict of nearly $12 million against a tire maker after determining that a defective tire caused a wreck that killed six people and left a 12-year-old boy paralyzed.

The jury found that a manufacturing flaw in a Goodrich tire made by  Michelin North America contributed to the New Year's Eve 2006 crash outside Matamoros, Mexico. A tire on a pickup truck separated from its tread, causing the vehicle to swerve into oncoming traffic, where it collided with another vehicle killing all six passengers inside the SUV.

One of our cases here in Georgia involves a tread separation of a tire from another manufacturer. Our experts concluded that the layers of the tire never properly adhered due to a defect in the manufacturing process. The tread separated on a college van loaded with a dozen cheerleaders, causing three deaths and one serious brain injury, as well as several lesser injuries. Our team of lawyers representing all the cheerleaders ultimately resolved the case for a total of $9.3 million before trial.