personal injury lawyer

Published on: December 20, 2019

Filing Slip and Fall Claims Involving Seniors

As we age, we become more vulnerable to injuries, especially after an accident. Senior citizens have a higher risk of suffering falls due to a variety of reasons. Many of the reasons are caused by deteriorating health conditions, which in turn can result in serious injury after a fall accident.

As you get older, gait and balance may be affected and compromised, making it much more likely that you will lose your balance and suffer a fall. Muscular weakness is another common factor in slip and fall accidents. While bone health is a common focus of senior health, muscular weakness is often ignored. This is in spite of the fact that seniors may have a higher risk of muscular weakness as they age. Muscular strength is critical in helping to maintain proper gait and balance. If you’re suffering from weakened muscle strength, it becomes harder to maintain your balance and avoid a fall.

Worsening vision can also increase a senior’s risk of a trip and fall. Failing vision often contributes to falls. Ideally, a senior should have an eye exam every 6 months. If your loved one falls in this high-risk category, make sure that he takes regular eye exams. Regular physical exams are also very important.

Published on: September 1, 2018

Don’t Miss the Deadlines for your Personal Injury Claim

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

After someone has been injured in an accident, or due to someone else’s negligence, most people are focused on seeking medical treatment, recovering, and getting their life back on track. One of the last things on their minds it making sure that they file a lawsuit on time. However, filing your injury claim on time is one of the most important steps you can take to protect your rights after an accident.

In a recent case in Pennsylvania, a court denied a woman’s lawsuit for personal injuries sustained when a sponge was left inside her following a surgery. The judge in that case found that the woman waited too long, almost 11 years after her surgery, to file her lawsuit. Therefore, her case against the defendant doctors was dismissed.

Each state has different deadlines by which a personal injury lawsuit must be filed. The time period to file a lawsuit is referred to as the statute of limitations.

Published on: March 3, 2010

Trial Lawyers Keep Consumers Safe

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

The Wall Street Journal has published an opinion piece by a trial lawyer making the case for product liability trial attorneys who help keep manufacturers of defective products on their toes.

In the wake of the Toyota scandal, this much is clear. American consumers can expect little protection from agencies charged with the responsibility of keeping them safe. These agencies including the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Food And Drug Administration are supposed to monitor defective products, and pressure companies to pull them off the market as soon as manufacturers become aware of such defects.

All that is in theory. In reality, these agencies battle a wide range of problems that include funding shortages, staffing crunches, agency infighting and disagreement, allegations of corruption, conflict of interest and other symptoms of malaise that limit their abilities to protect the American consumer.

Published on: December 21, 2009

Settlement Mills vs. Atlanta Trial Lawyers

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

Stanford Law School professor Nora Freeman Angstrom has published an investigative report” Run of the Mill Justice” in the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics. She has scathing remarks for what she calls “settlement mills” – law firms that are involved in the mass resolution of claims. These firms base their business – it might be a stretch to call it “practice” of the law – on taking on high volumes of accident and injury cases and rushing to settle these with insurers, often for low amounts.There is minimal interaction with the client, and the principle is to rush though cases, with barely any of these cases ending up before a jury.

These mills get most of their clients from aggressive advertisements on billboards and television. Most importantly, a settlement mill is rarely interested intaking a case to trial, and getting a fair value for the client. The report makes very interesting reading, and Angstrom does not hold back as she names law firms, including one in Georgia, that she characterized as having low jury trial rates.

It’s not often we hear a law expert openly calling out these settlement mills by name, and as Atlanta personal injury trial lawyers who believe in fighting for justice for every individual client, we agree with what she says. Not every accident case will go to a trial. Very often, clients reach favorable settlements without having to go to court. However, if a case cannot be resolved during settlement negotiations, it’s important that your Atlanta personal injury attorney be equipped with the resources, skills, preparation and expertise to take your case to trial, and win.

Published on: October 16, 2007

Punitive Damages

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

October 16, 2007

When a drunk driver causes an accident and someone is injured, the drunk driver may be liable for more than just the plaintiff’s injuries and property damage. Georgia juries are allowed to “fine” the defendant by awarding punitive damages. Punitive damages not only punish the defendant for his or her egregious conduct, but they are also intended to discourage this type of behavior in the future.

Last year in Georgia over four hundred automobile accident fatalites were the result of drunk drivers. Drunk driving fatalities accounted for over twenty-seven percent of all the accident fatalities. Moreover, last year drunk driving fatalities increased over seven percent from the year 2005. In Georgia, a driver is considered to be driving under the influence of alcohol if his blood alcohol content (BAC) registers .08 or above.

Published on: October 2, 2007

Sovereign Immunity

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

This week the Georgia Court of Appeals threw out a 5.1 million dollar jury verdict against DeKalb County for the wrongful death of a twenty-one year old probationer when he fell off the back of a county garbage truck which he was assigned as part of his community service work. The reason the county prevailed as a matter of law is because of a doctrine known as “Sovereign Immunity” or as we used to call it in law school – “It’s Good to be the King.”

Sovereign immunity originated from English common law which ruled that since the King made the law, he could not be subject to the law. The practical reality that resulted from this was that the government cannot not be sued for negligence. This is not to say that the government was never negligent, but rather if you happened to be injured while struck by a passing fire truck, you could not sue the county that owned the fire truck.

Government lawyers often contend that the government provides services that no one else would risk doing – such as locking up prisoners, chasing criminals, putting out house fires, and stopping traffic. In exchange for these valuable civic duties, the government should not be subsequently liable if things go awry will carrying out these duties. Also, governments argue that they must protect limited government dollars that are collected from taxpayers.

Published on: May 20, 2007

ERISA Health Insurance Issues in Auto Accident Injury Matters

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

In 2001, auto accident injury victims received what was thought to be good news from the U.S. Supreme Court in Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204, 122 S.Ct. 708, 151 L.Ed.2d 635 (2002). In Knudson, the Plaintiff was injured in an auto accident. Her medical bills related to injuries sustained in the auto accident were paid by her ERISA health insurance plan. Upon settlement, the settlement proceeds were paid into a special needs trust. The Plaintiff’s ERISA plan attempted to obtain reimbursement directly from the Plaintiff for the medical bills the health insurance carrier paid for treatment related to the auto accident injuries. The Knudson Court ruled that the plan had no right to reimbursement since such payments would constitute enforcement of a legal remedy, something not allowed under ERISA.

However, through Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, 547 U.S. 1015, 126 S.Ct. 1869 (2006) and its progeny, the Supreme Court illuminated the fact that the Court will not interpret every plan as seeking a prohibited legal remedy. The Court will look to the plan language on a case by case basis to determine whether the plan creates an equitable remedy – specifically, whether a fund has been specifically identified by the plan language, and if so, to what part of the fund the plan will be entitled to recover reimbursement. The plan’s right to reimbursement will fail if the plan itself fails to create a lien by agreement, by “specifically identifyi[ng] a particular fund, distinct from [the plan beneficiaries’] general assets. . . and a particular share of that fund to which [the plan] was entitled.”