September 2009

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.

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.

The tort reform legislation that passed the Georgia legislature in 2005 involved an unfortunate clash between the medical and legal professions. Then just a rank and file attorney handling catastrophic personal injury and wrongful death cases in metro Atlanta, and a back row member of the State Bar Board of Governors, I had no real leverage to do anything but join in futile protest. Some of my conservative friends in the legislature said they didn’t like the bill either, but were unable to do anything but go along with party discipline.

But I felt at the time that there could have been consensus legislation, on which both sides could have signed off, if the right things could have been done a year or two earlier.  Friends on the other side of the divide expressed the same sentiment. Unfortunately, we had a political train wreck in which the bill that passed was loaded with some provisions that were contradictory or unconstitutional.

One of the provisions is to cap "noneconomic damages" (pain, suffering, loss of quality of life, etc.) at $350,000 in medical malpractice cases. The economic reality is that people who suffer catastrophic noneconomic damages, but without large economic loss, generally cannot hire a lawyer capable of competently handling their case. This is because it takes $50,000 to $100,000 of out of pocket expense, mostly for expert testimony and dealing with the other side’s experts, to properly prepare a medical malpractice case for trial. Because few victims of malpractice can fund that kind of expense, lawyers typically have to front the expense. It is not a sane business decision to risk $100,000 of one’s own money on a case where the maximum recovery is $350,000, as for the death of a homemaker or retiree due to malpractice.  A 40% contingent fee in a $350,000 recovery would be $140,000. The statistical probability of success at trial in even the most meritorious medical malpractice case is maybe 20%.  Even if a lawyer were willing to take that risk, and were successful, the net benefit to the hypothetical client would be only $110,000 out of $350,000, hardly an attractive proposition for lawyer or client.

Thus, the $350,000 cap on noneconomic damages effectively denies access to justice in cases where a person’s life is destroyed or devastated, but the provable economic loss is relatively small.  If the legislature intended to deny justice to victims of catastrophic injury due to medical malpractice who are of modest means, there could have been more straightforward ways to do it. 

Yesterday the Georgia Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Nestlehutt v. Alanta Oculoplastic Surgery, PC,  in which a trial court judge had held the cap unconstitutional.  Mrs. Nestlehutt was a real estate agent who found she was losing business to younger competitors, so she consulted a plastic surgeon about removing bags under her eyes and age lines around her mouth. The surgeon recommended simultaneous CO2 resurfacing and a full facelift. This was particularly risky in a patient of her age and complexion. To make a long story short, her face essentially fell off, leaving her with horrible permanent disfigurement such that she could hardly leave the house. The jury awarded $900,000 for the devastation of her quality of life.

Fulton State Court Judge Diane Bessen held that the $350,000 cap is unconstitutional because it violates right to trial by jury, equal protection of laws, and separation of powers.

At the Supreme Court, attorney Michael Terry argued for Mrs. Nestlehutt that the most egregious aspect of the cap is that it hurts the people who are injured the most. “No frivolous cases are affected by the cap,” said Terry. “This makes no sense. It is not rational.”

Defense attorney argued that, “The Legislature found there was a crisis” that justified the caps, Peters added, referring to lawmakers’ findings that limits on medical malpractice awards were needed to help health care providers secure affordable malpractice insurance coverage."

Questions from the members of the Supreme Court gave little clue how they may be leaning, according to Alyson Palmer of the Fulton County Daily Report.

Perhaps the best outcome would be if the court unanimously held the damages cap  unconstitutional, and sent everyone back to the drawing board to come up with a different form of medical liability compensation system involving a genuine tradeoff between the legitimate concerns of doctors and patients.