Atlanta Injury Lawyer Blog

Another Innocent Death in Metropolitan Atlanta in Police Chase

May 20, 2007 | Robin Frazer Clark

I was shocked to see that this week another totally innocent Georgia citizen died needlessly in another police chase on Metropolitan Atlanta streets. It all started simply on the basis of a report of a “suspicious vehicle” in front of a home in Cobb County. Cobb County, Georgia officers spotted the vehicle, a Chevrolet station wagon, on Barrett Parkway and tried to pull over the driver. The officers failed at an attempt to “box it in” and pursued the car in a high speed chase. During the chase a big screen tv fell out of the station wagon. The officers continued their high speed chase up I-575, a highly traveled road between Cobb and Cherokee Counties in Georgia. The station wagon sped up I-575 until it crossed over the grass median near Bells Ferry Road, striking a four-door Buick that was southbound on the interstate. The female driver of the Buick was killed and several of her passengers were severely injured. To read the news article on this, click here.

I think part of the real crime here is that an innocent Georgia citizen died, apparently, because some vehicle had a big screen tv in it. To compound that crime, the innocent Georgia citizen’s family will, most likely, never see any justice for her needless death. This is because Georgia courts, and even the United States Supreme Court has said that these types of high speed police chases, essentially, are acceptable and that police departments can not be held responsible for the loss of innocent life as a result of these chases, even where such a chase my have violated the police department’s own policies and procedures. In a recent Georgia Court of Appeals case, in which fellow GTLA member Dennis Cathey represented the plaintiffs, the Court held the police department had immunity from a lawsuit by the family of an innocent victim of a police high speed chase. More recently, the United States Supreme Court held in a case that occurred here in Georgia, in which the Plaintiff was represented by fellow GTLA member Craig Jones, such high speed chases are allowable, even though they may violate department policies and procedures.

The result of all this is that the families of these innocent victims will never be able to realize any justice from their senseless deaths and streets in Metropolitan Atlanta will only get less and less safe for the law-abiding Georgia citizens. And all for a big screen tv.

Georgia Supreme Court Rules Medical Authorization Requirement Unconstitutional

May 16, 2007 | Robin Frazer Clark

Put another one in the “win” column for the good guys. As Immediate Past President of Georgia Trial Lawyers Association (“GTLA”), I am proud to announce that GTLA’s Constitutional Challenge Committee, chaired by Lyle Warshauer and Matt Nasrallah, won another round in the ongoing effort to restore Georgian’s rights by eliminating the horrible law now infamously known as “SB3.” The particular provision that the Georgia Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional this time is 9-11-9.2, which required a plaintiff to file an all-encompassing medical authorization with the plaintiff’s complaint in any medical malpractice action. the Supreme Court held O.C.G.A. § 9-11-9.2 is preempted by the federal privacy provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA. To read the full article, click here.

Zachary H. Thomas of Savage, Turner, Pinson & Karsman in Savannah, another proud GTLA member, represented the winning appellees. GLTA filed an Amicus Brief in the Supreme Court arguing in favor of holding the provision unconstitutional, not only on the basis of Federal Preemption, but also because it was a roadblock to any plaintiff’s ability to file a medical malpractice action.

I congratulate the GTLA Constitutional Challenge Committee and Zach Thomas for this wonderful win on behalf of Georgia citizens. We are slowly but steadily dismantling the horrendous SB3 and restoring the rights to due process to Georgia citizens, and I am proud of it.

Trucks Only Lanes Not a Bad Idea in Atlanta, Georgia

May 10, 2007 | Robin Frazer Clark

In my plaintiff’s personal injury practice, I have learned that tractor-trailers traveling through Atlanta can do a lot of damage in a motor vehicle accident, including catastrophic injury, such as paralysis, or death. Georgia trucking accidents would be reduced if the Georgia Legislature passed a law creating trucks only lanes. After handling so many of these cases in my practice, I have made it my personal preference and habit to stay out of the way of all tractor-trailers, including not traveling in the same lanes as tractor-trailers, if at all possible. A small passenger vehicle stands little chance if hit by a tractor-trailer.

Yet I concede that tractor-trailers are the backbone of American commerce, and a necessary way for goods to be moved across Georgia and across the United States. This does not take away the fact, however, that they can be extremely dangerous on Georgia roads to the motoring public of Georgia.

The Georgia Department of Transportation is considering building “trucks-only” lanes on the state’s interstate highways and major roads. The Georgia DOT says it is studying putting in new lanes, not taking over existing lanes on the Interstates. DOT estimates that 940 million tons of freight was moved across Georgia highways in 2004, but in less than 30 years that number is expected to double. Interestingly, truckers questioned about the proposal think it might help them with their work by eliminating passenger vehicles in their lanes. I think it would be beneficial from a safety standpoint to Georgia citizens. Others in Georgia agree.

U.S. Hospitals Discriminate Against the Uninsured

May 9, 2007 | Robin Frazer Clark

I have had several occasions to observe personally that U.S. hospitals, including those right here in Fulton County, Georgia, charge uninsured patients more than insured patients, and, therefore, are discriminating against the uninsured every day. This has become obvious to me simply by comparing my case files in which my client is insured with health insurance versus my case files in which my client is not insured. The contrast is stark and leads me to conclude that U.S. hospitals discriminate against the uninsured by charging them more for the exact same medical services and products than they do insured patients.
Now there is absolute proof of this. Amazingly, it comes from one of their own, Gerard Anderson, Director of the Center for Hospital Finance and Management at Johns Hopkins University’s school of public health, the author of the study which was published May-June issue of the journal Health Affairs. The study showed that in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, hospital patients without health insurance and others who pay for medical care out of their own pockets were charged an average 2.57 times more than those with health insurance. Hospitals in the United States have come under fire from patient groups and lawmakers for marking up prices for those lacking the negotiating clout of a health insurer. But the price discrepancies are steadily worsening despite some reform efforts, the article said.

“The mark-up on hospital care for these individuals, especially for those who can afford it least, is unjustifiable,” said Anderson. More than 60 class-action lawsuits have been filed against U.S. hospitals over the issue. Anderson has been an adviser on some of them. About a year ago, the American Hospital Association enacted a voluntary policy for poor and uninsured patients.

But that policy has yet to show an impact and it is unclear how many hospitals are abiding by the price suggestions, Anderson said.

Anderson recommends pursing the ongoing class-action lawsuits and having the government set a maximum amount that hospitals can charge as prescriptions to remedy the problem.

Should text messaging while driving be illegal in Georgia?

May 8, 2007 | Robin Frazer Clark

In my motor vehicle accident cases, more and more frequently I am seeing cases in which the at fault driver was careless and inattentive because he or she was either talking on the cell phone or text messaging using the cellphone at the time of the accident. As a mother of two and as a personal injury trial lawyer who handles alot of car wreck cases, this increasingly gives me cause for concern.

I saw today where the City of Lynn, Massachusetts wants to make it illegal for teens to drive and text message at the same time. The measure was put together by a city councilor after a run-in with a distracted teenager. The ban would apply to both talking and texting while driving, except in an emergency.

As adults become increasingly more attached to their Blackberries and Treos, I think such a law might not be such a bad idea for adults, too. Car manufacturers can help, too. Car manufacturers have technology available now, for example, that will not allow a car to operate unless the driver is deemed sober after blowing through a tube attached to the seatbelt.