Personal Injury

Published on: July 7, 2009

Atlanta Teens Injured in ATV Crash

Three 15-year-old girls were injured when they were ejected from the ATV they were operating. According to a recent article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the girls lost control of the four-wheeler ATV as they rounded a curve on the roadway and overturned. While the girls were rushed to Atlanta-area hospitals, police charges are pending, as none of the girls were licensed, they were not supposed to be on the roadway and no one was wearing a helmet.

While the girl’s injuries do not appear to be life-threatening, this serves as yet another reminder of the need for extreme caution when operating ATV’s and the need to wear helmets to avoid serious injury. Furthermore, it would be considered negligent for someone who owns and operates an ATV to allow children, other than their own, to operate an AVT without proper safety gear and supervision.

The elements of proving negligence are:

1. defendant has a duty to the plaintiff;

2. defendant breached that duty;

3. the breach proximately caused the injury; and

4. plaintiff’s damages.

In the present case, a prima facie case of negligence could be made if a homeowner allows young friends of his children to ride the ATV without the proper safety gear and without the proper supervision. This is so because the homeowner has a duty to the children to not subject them to an unsafe condition. This duty is breached by allowing them to ride the ATV without proper safety gear and supervision and the damages are the resulting injuries. Tragically, young children have been allowed to ride these ATV’s unsupervised and this has resulted in many serious and debilitating injuries–and even death.

Many such ATV related injuries were for sprains and cuts, but more severe injuries include spine and neck injuries, skull fractures and internal damage to organs. Often, injuries take months or even years of recovery and rehabilitation. Some children never fully recover. Dr. Justin Ramsey, a pediatric physiatrist at The Children’s Center in Bethany, said young children—especially those 12 and younger—are particularly at risk when driving ATVs because their decision-making and motor skills are still developing. “The most significant injuries are the traumatic brain injuries and spinal cord injuries,” he said. “They have a life-changing impact for the victim and their family when it comes to rehabilitation.”

Of the injuries treated in emergency rooms in 2011, the largest portion was arm injuries at 29 percent followed by head or neck injuries making up 28 percent of all injuries, according to the CPSC report.
Continue reading

Published on: July 6, 2009

FDA Warnings Regarding Reglan

by Robert J. Fleming

Reglan Side Effects
On January 26, 2009 the FDA issued an alert warning against chronic use of any medication containing metoclopramide, the most widely know being Reglan. Reglan can cause a serious and potentially life-threatening neurological disease known as tardive dyskinesia.

Tardive dyskinesia is more likely to occur if Reglan is used for longer than 3 months or when used in the elderly (especially elderly women). Tardive dyskinesia causes uncontrolled bodily movements of the face, mouth, tongue arms or legs. These uncontrolled movements can be permanent. You should seek medical attention immediately if you have been taking Reglan and are experiencing any uncontrolled bodily movements. There is no treatment for tardive dyskinesia, but in some cases symptoms may lessen or stop once use of the drug is stopped.

Especially at risk are patients who have been prescribed Reglan for acid reflux, pregnant woman who were prescribed Regland for morning sickness, breastfeeding mothers, elderly woman, and children who were prescribed Reglan for nausea caused by migraine headaches.

Metoclopramide is available in several forms including:

• Reglan Tablets • Reglan Oral Disintegrating Tablets • Metoclopramide Oral Solution • Reglan Injections Continue reading

Published on: April 17, 2009

Injured Bicyclist Settles with County for $3.5 Million

by Robert J. Fleming

Just prior to trial, an injured bicyclist and his wife settled their lawsuit for brain injuries he suffered when he was thrown from his bicycle. A former endurance athlete who now suffers from permanent brain injury, was thrown from his bike when he struck a survey marker in the road. The bicyclist was in a coma for seven months after the accident, then treated at a physical rehabilitation center and now lives in a group home. Fortunately, the settlement will provide for around-the-clock care which is now required as the result of this tragic bicycle wreck. Like many other similar cases, a large part of the plaintiff’s damages are made up of future medical and nursing care that will be incurred in the future and which was necessitated by the injury.

An interesting aspect of this case is that there was a sustantial recovery, even though it was a single vehicle accident. The legal theory under which the settlement was possible was that the bicyclist was traveling on a bike path and the County was liable for the fall because it promoted the road as a bike path but failed to maintain it in a safe condition. An important fact in the case was that the County allowed a hole around the paving marker to grow deeper with each road paving. This type of inactivity is considered to be, in legal terms, a nuisance. The nuisance surely played a substantial role in getting the case settled, as without the nuisance cause of action, there might not have been liability on the County’s part.

In Georgia, many municipalities are immune from certain types of negligence. One way around this bar to recovery due to negligence in maintaining roads is to show that the muncipality knew, or should have known, of a dangerous condition on the roadway (in this case the bike path) yet failed to do anything to correct the situation. This theory of liablity against a city, county, or state has been successfully used against the City of Atlanta, and other cities in pot hole cases, broken water meter cases, missing or broken storm grates, roadways which were not properly maintained and therefore would not drain, cases involving large trees that were dying and deemed to be a hazard, and many others.

Published on: April 2, 2009

Atlanta Independent Medical Exams Are Anything But “Independent”

by Robert J. Fleming

A recent New York Times article chronicles how doctors’ reports regarding injuries are not always free of bias. The examinations, often referred to by lawyers as “Independent Medical Examinations” or “IMEs” are anything but “independent.” The clear inference one takes from the article is: the doctor’s report is often slanted to further the interests of the entity paying for the report. Many such reports are requested by insurance companies in order to evaluate a claim. However, as the doctor who was heavily quoted in the article states, “If you did a pure report, you’d be out on your ears and the insurers wouldn’t pay for it. You have to give them what they want, or you’re in Florida. That’s the game, baby.” Really? Where is this doctor practicing and why does he still have a license to practice medicine?

Wow. What a farce. As an Atlanta personal injury lawyer who regularly relies on medical reports and medical narratives to document the injuries that my clients have suffered as a result of car wrecks, slip and falls on commercial premises, medical malpractice, dental malpractice, dog attacks and many other types of lawsuits, I find it reprehensible that any doctor would be less than truthful in his or her report. Doctors, after all, are professionals who are sworn to uphold the Hippocratic oath. First mandate: do no harm. Obviously, lying on a medical report to sway a jury or tip a case in the wrong direction is wrong and actionable agains the doctor on its own.

Unfortunately, for many seriously injured people in Atlanta and other parts of Georgia, this is no game. It is a sad reality that must be protected against at all costs. If you are seriously injured in a automobile accident, trucking accident, or on the job, if your injuries are serious enough to file a lawsuit, the insurance companies will probably ask for an “IME.” Then, most insurance companies insist that the IME be conducted by the doctor of their choice. Many times, the insurance company will simply send the medical records to one of the doctors on their payroll, who will review hundreds of cases every year for the insurance company. Not surprisingly, most, if not all, of the IME’s by these doctors conclude that the injured party is either (1) not injured; or (2) injured, but the injury was not caused by the negligent act upon which the lawsuit was filed. Because of this, we almost never voluntarily submit to such an IME.