Trial Attorney Blog

Recently an Atlanta eye surgeon told one of the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP that his group sees at least two new patients a month with serious eye injuries caused by grinding wheel accidents. Often times , the hazards of using a grinding wheel are overlooked. When using a grinder there are several potential hazards to of which you should be aware. They include: cuts and amputations; eye injuries from flying particles; punctures from work piece or debris; hearing loss from noise; and inhalation of toxic materials, including dust and silica.

Exploding grinding wheels pose a very serious risk to users. For instance, the United States Department of Labor published “A Partial List of Accidents Involving Grinders” for the period of 1990 through 1997. Out of 27 accidents, 7 of them resulted in death as a result of the victim being struck by pieces of a disintegrating grinding wheel.

In terms of grind wheel safety, there are several things to keep in mind.

The Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have handled many products liability cases involving dangerous drugs and consumer products. Last week the FDA announced the recall of Hydroxycut. Government officials warned dieter and body builders to immediately stop using Hydroxycut, a supplement which has been linked to serious liver damage and at least one death. According to an FDA official, the agency has received 23 reports of liver problems, including the death of a nineteen year old. It has been reported that other patients experienced symptoms ranging from jaundice, or yellowing of the skin, to liver failure.
If you are someone you know is currently using this product please consult with your physician immediately. If you have used this product and have been diagnosed with having liver damage call the product liability lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP.

Many Georgia parents employ child safety seats to protect the lives of their children without any reliable data as to the safety of the particular seat model. Now, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has announced that he will urge carmakers to crash-test child safety seats in their vehicles and recommend which child restraints are the safest in each auto.

If adopted, this new system would be a victory for parents who struggle to find the best car seats for their children. While federal regulators rate new cars for safety, they have no such system for child car seats. Making matters more difficult, a child restraint that performs well in one vehicle may perform poorly in another because it doesn’t fit snugly in that back seat.

Secretary LaHood’s action comes after the Chicago Tribune revealed that nearly half of all infant restraints failed catastrophically or exceeded injury limits when federal contractors strapped them into the back seats of model-2008 vehicles and crashed those cars and trucks into walls at 35 m.p.h.. NHTSA used those tests to rate the safety of the cars, not the child restraints in them.

Bus accidents (or motorcoach accidents) can multiply the loss of life and life-changing injuries. Our Bluffton University baseball team client will never be the same as a result of the bus accident in 2007 that left him permanently injured, and several of his teammates dead.

A bus accident in Utah in January 2008 that left nine dead likewise shows how bus safety has been a neglected issue. Today, the U.S. Department of Transportation finally took the step of ordering a “full review” of bus safety. The government’s announcement is below:

U.S. DOT Orders Full Review of Motorcoach Safety

In today’s economic times, we hear a lot of discussion about the problems that people are having financially. While many people are emotionally suffering due to rising unemployment and adverse economic conditions, those who suffer perhaps the most during these troubling times are innocent victims in personal injury cases. Our office just settled the case of one young lady, which is a classic example of what we address in this article. Simply stated, this young lady is a living profile in courage.

On the date in question, our client was struck by a vehicle traveling on the wrong side of the road. This could have been a fatality but miraculously the client lived. Even though the client had innumerable orthopaedic injuries and several surgeries to treat the same, and even though her medical expenses were in excess of $150,000.00, the client always remained resolute in the face of these problems. When told that the defendant that caused her injuries had less insurance coverage than the amount of her medical bills, she simply accepted it and recognized that there was little or nothing that she could do about it. We see the prayer “God grant me the courage to change those things that I can change and to accept what I cannot,” and here was a lady who “walked the walk and talked the talk.” She accepted her fate, she dealt with her problems and she was grateful for the gift of life since she had survived what could have been a fatal accident.

Not only did this client experience a very, very painful injury, she had to risk the loss of her job, she had to hang on to her home all while she was going through a failing marriage. Yes it is true that times are tough. Indeed, life itself can be tough. But for someone who is going through troubling times in a slowing economy and a bad marriage, to also have inflicted on them, through no fault of their own and suffer serious personal injuries, is obviously a tremendous burden to bear.

Rule No. 12 of 12: The successful cross-examiner understands the risks of cross-examination.
As set forth above, if an attorney asks a question that he does not know the answer to or asks one question too many, he is inviting disaster. Cross-examination is risky, particularly if a witness is hostile and adverse. If leading questions that are designed to make the witness answer with either a yes or no are not asked or if counsel begins sparring with the witness, counsel has lost control of the witness. Sparring with the witness means allowing the witness to speak or to give speeches in front of the jury, which is never a good thing for a client’s case, particularly if the witness has been called by the opponent to do damage to your client’s case. Thus, before standing up to begin cross-examination, counsel has to understand that it is a risky enterprise. If it is not done correctly, more damage can be inflicted than was done on direct examination. If the Twelve Rules of Cross-Examination are not adhered to or the alternative purposes of cross-examination explored well in advance of the exercise, counsel may do more harm than good in attempting to cross-examine any witness. In short, experienced trial counsel know not to ask one question too many and to sit down when they are ahead after they have scored what points can be scored on cross-examination, if any. By preparing cross-examination well in advance of trial and by following the rules set forth above, the truth will emerge and justice achieved.

Over the years our Georgia medical malpractice lawyers have been involved in medical negligence lawsuits involving missing or improperly documented medical records. In an effort to avoid such problems the federal government is pressuring medical professionals and facilities to adopt electronic record keeping. While this has the potential to eliminate life threatening record keeping errors, there are also potential dangers associated with this system.

Electronic medical records allow healthcare professionals to easily document medical findings. With just a few keystrokes, a physician or PA can describe a full medical exam using predesigned templates. However, using boilerplate templates for every patient can have serious shortfalls. Reviewing pages of repetitive documentation can be time consuming and lead to increased chances of missing important findings. Overlooking important findings in records has in our experience been a leading cause of harm to patients.

The use of templates can also result in the wrong template being used for a particular condition or patient. It has been reported that a neurologist who had just converted to electronic medical records discovered that the template documented a finding of orientation to time, place, and person for a one year old. Children this young cannot be tested in this manner.

Rule No. 11 of 12: The successful cross-examiner has the ability to make what appears to be complex become simple.
In order to adhere to this rule, experienced trial counsel knows that they must use language that layman can understand. Using lawyerly language or expansive vocabulary is not the way to go. Counsel must boil down the issues to as few as are possible so that the jury can understand what the issues are and follow the testimony and the relevance of the examination. If counsel becomes too technical and fails to make sure that the testimony being offered can be understood by the average juror then cross-examination will be ineffective. Thus, it is important that trial attorneys use language that everyday people understand and that they use language in such a way as to communicate effectively and directly. If this is done, there is no reason an attorney cannot be a successful cross-examiner.

Rule No. 10 of 12: The successful cross-examiner knows how to force an evasive witness to give a responsive answer.
When a hostile or evasive witness refuses to answer a question, counsel must be firm and persistent in getting the answer desired. The first thing to do is to repeat the question. If the witness continues to evade, ask the witness what it is about the question that he or she does not understand. If necessary, have the court reporter read the question back to the witness. Finally, if all else fails, ask the Court to admonish and instruct the witness to answer the question.
Counsel must control the witness rather than allowing the witness to use counsel to aid his or her cause. Controlling a witness means insisting on an answer and getting the answer. If a witness has testimony in a deposition that is inconsistent with their prior testimony and they do not want to admit to it, they need to be confronted directly and then impeached. If the witness says that the car was blue and they take the stand and say the car is red, they must be shown their prior deposition testimony, they must be asked if they previously testified under oath to a different color, they must be asked to review their deposition, they must be shown their deposition and they must be repeatedly and persistently questioned until they admit the prior inconsistent testimony. Good trial lawyers can get answers to their questions if they are persistent.

Rule No. 9 of 12: The successful cross-examiner has a good beginning and good ending to the cross-examination of the witness.
If counsel is prepared through proper investigation and discovery, counsel can start off strong and end strong. A good beginning gets the cross-examination rolling and prepared ending gets counsel down if he needs to get down without being too badly damaged by the opponent’s witness. Again, this all goes back to another rule, which is to prepare cross-examination in advance of trial.
When one looks over their file materials, prior depositions, statements and other information in the file, one should be able to come up with an outline that starts off with a favorable point to be made for the client’s case and after discussing other pertinent matters within the witness’s purview, ends with another favorable point also helpful to the client’s case. It’s always detrimental if cross-examination ends on a low note where a blow is struck and the cross-examination is unsuccessful and the client’s case hurt. To avoid this, a good beginning and a good ending prepared in advance of trial will assist counsel in adhering to this rule.