Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

A second corporation that manufacturers and distributes alcohol wipes that are supposed to prevent infection just issued a large recall because of possible bacterial contaminants. The company shared a mutual supplier with the same wipe maker in Wisconsin whose products have been blamed for deaths and illnesses.

Professional Disposables International Inc., or PDI, of New York, voluntarily recalled all lots of five types of non-sterile alcohol prep wipes because the company claimed low levels of a dangerous bacteria had been detected.

It is the same bacteria organism that resulted in massive international recalls, a company plant shutting down and multiple lawsuits against Triad Group and H&P Industries of Hartland, Wis.

People who used these alcohol wipes allege that they led to dangerous infections from products that should have been protecting the consumers.

The September 16th recall came right after federal agents from the FDA inspected the plant and tests showed the presence of dangerous bacteria. Nevertheless, the company claims the levels were low enough that products were still within regulatory levels. However, after speaking with the FDA they decided to voluntarily conduct the recall.

The law in Georgia protects consumers and establishes that Georgians have the legal right to safe products. No one should have to put their life and health at risk due to a defective product that can kill or injure.

To learn more about products liability laws in Georgia, Good Georgia Lawyer recommends you read some of the many articles we have written about defective products.

For more information or to schedule a consultation, contact Williams Oinonen LLC at 404-654-0288.

Williams Oinonen LLC (Good Georgia Lawyer) is a member of AAJ, the American Association for Justice. AAJ shares the same commitment as Williams Oinonen LLC, making certain people have a fair shot at obtaining justice through the legal system when they are injured by the wrongdoing or negligence of others. We believe this even when it means challenging big foreign corporations. The problem is that a recent ruling by the United States Supreme Court this past month makes it even harder to challenge foreign corporations and easier for companies outside the United States to get off the hook when they create a product that injures or kills an American consumer.

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro is the case that creates challenges and makes it much more difficult to hold foreign manufacturers accountable in the U.S. court system.

American Association for Justice Gibson Vance commented on this decision stating: "Simply put, foreign companies that market and sell their products in our country should not be able to evade accountability. . . In our global marketplace, this decision will allow foreign manufacturers to sell their products without adhering to our safety standards."

Legislation commenced in the last Congress - the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act - would insure that foreign manufacturing companies are held accountable to the same United States safety standards or be held subject to our civil justice system by requiring, as a condition of entering the markets, foreign corporations to have a registered agent to accept service (the papers which are "served" to a defendant subjecting him to a lawsuit) on behalf of foreign manufacturers. Doing so would mean that they automatically were subject to jurisdiction in U.S. courts, one challenge to holding foreign manufacturers to the same safety regulations as corporations in the United States.

"This decision not only hurts consumers, but also U.S. distributors and businesses that must adhere to safety laws and regulations that foreign manufacturers can avoid," said Vance. "Congress must act quickly to address legal jurisdiction in our global marketplace."

According to the AAJ, 83 percent (312) of the 377 recalls announced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in 2009 were from foreign corporations!

Big powerful lobbyists through an intense lobbying and media campaign effort have tried to convince Americans to think there are too many frivolous lawsuits out there. But the real truth is that these lawsuits are often the last defense and safety net against violations of our constitutional rights and against large corporations who violate American consumer rights without redress. Whether it is going after Chinese manufacturing companies that are pumping toys that contain poisonous lead into our market, or whether it is a violation against one's freedom of religion (First Amendment) or freedom to bear arms (Second Amendment), the Seventh amendment is the one recourse that provides Americans with a constitutional right to a civil jury system to insure that our rights are enforced and our liberties are protected.

Whether you are a Tea Partier, Republican, or Democrat, everyone who believes in protecting and preserving our United States Constitutional rights should be concerned about the insidious attack on our 7th amendment right to civil justice. Unfortunately, the recent United States Supreme Court's ruling has made it even more difficult for Americans to use their 7th amendment right when they require civil justice because of violations and wrongs done by a foreign corporation. Whether it is foreign imported baby milk that contains poison or a foreign made vehicle that explodes killing our loved one--we need to insure that foreign corporations are held to the same safety standards as American companies. And we need to insure that Americans have the same constitutional rights to seek legal redress for wrongs committed by foreign corporations just like they would have against a U.S. domestic corporation.

There should not be a double standard. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander. If foreign corporations are allowed to do business here, they need to be willing to play by our rules. No one should have the right to injure or kill an American consumer by hiding behind a foreign veil of protection and evading the American civil justice system.

For more information on the 7th amendment Constitutional right to a civil justice system, we recommend reading our previous article here.

Good Georgia Lawyer's favorite consumer advocacy group Public Citizen is pushing the FDA to issue a recall for a vaginal mesh used for women dealing with incontinence and other health issues. The consumer group warned that this product carries a high risk of serious injury for women.

Public Citizen filed a petition with the Food and Drug Administration urging them to recall the mesh to prevent women being exposed to serious life altering injuries.
The Food and Drug Administration did state that women who have these mesh implants are at greater risk of bleeding, infection, and pain compared to a more traditional surgery.

FDA's chief scientist Dr. Williams Maisel stated:"The added benefit of using the mesh is not evident, but there certainly appears to be an added risk,"

Over half a million women each year have surgery for incontinence of pelvic organ collapse and have had this mesh inserted through the vagina.
Between 2008 and 2010 the FDA received more than 1,500 reports of complications involving this mesh for women dealing with pelvic organ collapse also known as "prolapse."

FDA scientists now admit that they were mistaken about this mesh and that it does carry risk. Nevertheless, despite the high rate of injury, the FDA will not recall the mesh because some patients still benefit. Nevertheless, patients that have suffered excruciating injury due to this mesh inserted into their vagina think otherwise. Various symptoms have included:

Infection
Urinary problems
Pelvic and Vaginal Pain
Vaginal Pain
Injury to organs
Difficulty with sex including vulvodynia (vaginal pain).

Good Georgia Lawyer has written extensively about defective products in other articles. We have explained that in Georgia, manufacturers are held strictly liable in products liability tort actions. Georgia law does this to protect the consumer buyer by shifting the burden of the loss to the wrongdoer who manufactured the defective product which resulted in injury. The essential elements are: first, the manufacture of the product; second, a defective product; third, an injury to a natural person proximately caused by the defect; fourth, a sale of the product as a new product; and fifth, the existence of the defect at the time the product left the manufacturer's control.

Because defective products pose such a danger to consumers, products liability actions benefit not only the plaintiff but thousands of others who use the same product.
Manufacturers have a duty to warn consumers about the dangers and risks of using a product. Unfortunately, as in the case of this mesh, this does not always happen even when a product is approved by the FDA.

It is our hope that Public Citizen continues its good work for consumers and is successful in this recent petition to the FDA.

This is a video clip that would be hilariously funny if it was not so true. This is a conversation between an injured person and an insurance company adjuster. The insurance company adjuster represents the drunk driver who caused the injured person's broken legs and brain injury.

Many people make the horrible mistake of trusting the insurance adjuster who represents the person that hurt them. No matter what type of injury case you are involved in, this is the worst thing you can do. The insurance adjuster is not on your side! Their only goal is to try and get you to settle for as low of an amount of money as possible.

No matter how nice they may seem, they are not your friend and they do not have your best interest at heart. Do not give them a statement. Do not sign any release forms. Do not talk to them or anyone else before talking to an attorney.

Sometimes we meet injured plaintiffs who thought they could "out smart" the insurance company and settle their case themselves. Unfortunately, they do not understand who and what they are going up against--and the result is very damaging.

As you can see from this video, the insurance company's standard defense will be to try and deny that their insured had anything to do with causing your injuries as well as to deny that you are really even injured. And if you are injured, they will scour your past medical records and argue that your injuries had something to do with a pre-existing condition.

Don't go it alone! If you are suffering any type of problem make sure you seek counsel to understand all your rights and to protect your legal interests.

Under Georgia law, can a home buyer sue a seller who is unhappy with the house? Unless the house seller is also the house builder, the answer is "Generally no."

Fortunately for sellers, the law in Georgia protects home owners who sell their house to people who later suffer from "buyers remorse" and want to sue them to rescind the sale. Unfortunately for buyers, unless the seller was also the home builder, there is not much you can do to rescind a sale agreement even if the home seller fraudulently misrepresented or hid a housing defect. Nevertheless, the law is very specific, so if you find yourself in this situation, time is of the essence and it is imperative you seek competent legal counsel right away to ascertain your rights.

In general, home sellers are protected from home buyers who later try to rescind the sales agreement by various Georgia doctrines. Today's article discusses the Doctrine of Caveat Emptor:

Doctrine of Caveat Emptor:

The rule in Georgia is Caveat Emptor (let the buyer beware). This is a common law doctrine which serves as the general rule regarding the purchase of realty. Cendant Mobility Financial Corp. v. Asuamah, 285 Ga. 818 (2009). If a home has mold, termites, a rotten roof, or any other defect---it is the buyer's responsibility to fully investigate this prior to buying the home. In general, the buyer is put on warning and notice that they are responsible to discover such defects and if they discover them after the real estate transaction, unfortunately it is a case of too little, too late.

Consequently, the doctrine of Caveat Emptor defends and protects home sellers and our housing market from being "vexed to economic death by lawsuits by every purchaser of a house who discovers a defect which he believes the previous homeowner should have discovered and revealed. . . [when there] is probably no such thing as a perfect house" and all purchasers know that an older house is almost certainly not perfect. Cendant Mobility Financial Corp. v. Asuamah, 285 Ga. 818, 821 (2009). Thus, this affirmative defense often soundly defeats a buyers claims in a lawsuit.

Thus the morale of the story is Buyer Beware! Regardless, if you are a home seller who is being threatened by a lawsuit, or if you are a home buyer contemplating a lawsuit against a seller---the laws are very specific to one's situation and it is absolutely important that you seek competent legal counsel as soon as possible in order to protect your rights.

Continue reading "Buyer Beware! Georgia Real Estate Law: Can A Home Buyer Sue A Seller For Housing Defects? Part One" »

Contaminated food can cause injury or even death to consumers and cause expensive, costly lawsuits to sellers, making it very important that food is produced and stored in sanitary conditions. Yesterday federal agents seized food products from a rat infested warehouse in East Point Georgia, owned by the United Food Service Company. Close to one million dollars of contaminated food was confiscated.

U.S. Attorneys issued a statement stating: "The insanitary conditions alleged to exist in this warehouse where food is stored are simply unacceptable," and that "This office has moved quickly to prevent the FDA-regulated products stored in this rodent-infested warehouse from being sold to unsuspecting consumers.

According to authorities, the Food and Drug Administration inspected the warehouse and documented an active and widespread rodent infestation, photographing and videotaping multiple live rats, dead rats, and rat nesting sites.

In Georgia, liability for knowingly or negligently selling unwholesome provisions has been imposed by statute since 1863. The seller has a duty to know the condition of the food that he sells, because contaminated food can seriously injure or even kill a consumer. And because the seller is in the best position to know the food, he is the one who will be held liable.

The plaintiff does have a duty to exercise ordinary care to avoid getting injured by consuming the bad food. The plaintiff must prove that the food was unwholesome and this is not established by the mere fact that the plaintiff became sick after eating it. However recovery is possible based on circumstantial evidence that rules out every other reasonable hypothesis that could be an explanation for his or her illness.

Continue reading "Good Georgia Lawyer Needed When Hospitalized Or Severely Injured By Bad Food" »

Injuries or deaths are caused each year by SUV rollovers, faulty airbags, bad brakes, and more. Just this past year Toyota has recalled over 10 million cars and trucks all over the world for a variety of problems that included floor mats that trapped accelerators, brake problems, and faulty gas pedals.

Unfortunately for Toyota consumers, the misfortune continues as they recently announced a new recall of 1.53 million Lexus, Avalon and other models, mostly in the United States and Japan for fuel pump and brake fluid problems.

Toyota announced today that it would call back 740,000 cars in the U.S. alone. Just two months ago, Toyota recalled 1.33 million Corolla and Matrixs, bringing the total around 10 million. hatchbacks in the U.S. and Canada

In Georgia, automobile manufacturers like Ford, Toyota, or Lexus would be held strictly liable in products liability torts action. The Georgia legislature drafted these laws in order to protect consumers by shifting the burden of the loss or injury to the wrongdoer, i.e. the manufacturer of the product defect that caused the harm. The basic elements of this legal claim are: first, the manufacture of the product (Toyota manufactured the cars); second, a defective product (the vehicles are in fact defective hence the recalls); third, an injury to a natural person proximately caused by the defect (multiple automobile owners have suffered harms due to defects); fourth, a sale of the product as a new product (Toyota dealers sold these new vehicles off their dealership lots); and fifth, the existence of the defect at the time the product left the manufacturer's control (the defect was present when Toyota sold the car to consumers.)

Continue reading "Good Georgia Lawyer for Car Crash, Automobile Accident Defects Warns Consumers Of More Toyota Recalls " »

Two million strollers from the Atlanta-based Graco Children's Products Inc. are being recalled because of strangulation and entrapment risks.

The recall comes after four strangulation deaths have resulted from the strollers. Children also have become trapped in the strollers and injured with cuts and bruises. Infants who have not been harnessed have slipped through the opening between the seat's bottom and tray, and the infant's neck has become entrapped and strangled.

The recall includes older versions of Graco's Quattro Tour and MetroLite Strollers and travel systems sold between November 2000 and December 2007.

The strollers were sold all across the country at stores including: Kmart, Walmart, Target, Sears, Babies 'R' Us, Burlington Coat Factory, Meijers and Sears.

For more information about the recall and to find out the specific models visit: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11015.html

To avoid stroller injuries, make sure that you do not use recalled strollers and always make sure your child is strapped in properly. If babies aren't strapped into the strollers carefully, they can slip through the opening between the stroller tray and bottom of the seat -- where they can get stuck and be strangled.

Continue reading "Dangerous Strollers Recalled Due To Child Deaths, Strangulation" »

Toyota lawsuits and Toyota lawyers seem to have been the constant theme of the past year in Toyota news. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem Toyota consumers can catch a break. After a wave of Toyota acceleration problems leading to injuries and lawsuits, the latest news is that Toyota is having a new recall for engine defects in their Toyota Corolla sedans and Matrix hatchbacks.

Toyota recalled 1.33 million of these vehicles in the U.S. and Canada yesterday because their engines may stall, the latest problems at the Japanese auto manufacturer.The recall covers 2005-2008 years sold in Canada and the U.S. Toyota has now recalled more than 10 million vehicles worldwide for problems that run from floor mats, faulty gas pedals, and more. Separately, General Motors Co. also conducting a recall on 200,000 Pontiac Vibes due to a similar problem.

Fortunately, both automakers will replace the problem parts at no charge and will mail notifications to owners in mid September. This same problem was caused by a possible defect in an engine control module manufactured by Delphi Corp, a auto parts supplier in Michigan.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been investigating the possibility of engine stalling in the Corolla and Matrix vehicles since last year and now with this latest news of recalls, reported that it has stepped up its investigation. If you or a loved one has been seriously injured due to a Toyota or other auto defect or malfunction, Georgia law entitles you to compensation for your injuries.

In Georgia, Toyota manufacturers would be held strictly liable in products liability torts action. Georgia lawmakers did this in order to protect the consumer by shifting the burden of the loss to the wrongdoer, i.e. the manufacturer of the defective product that caused the injuries. The essential elements of this tort action are: first, the manufacture of the product (Toyota manufactured the cars); second, a defective product (the vehicles are in fact defective hence the recalls); third, an injury to a natural person proximately caused by the defect (multiple Toyota owners suffered injuries due to this defect); fourth, a sale of the product as a new product (Toyota dealers sold these new vehicles off their dealership lots); and fifth, the existence of the defect at the time the product left the manufacturer's control (the defect was present when Toyota sold the car to consumers.)

Continue reading "Toyota Lawsuits, Toyota Acceleration, Toyota Injuries, Toyota Wrongful Deaths.... Now More Toyota Recalls!" »

Heart attack due to Avandia? The latest news about Avandia: several FDA reviewers are now publicly stating that they believe Avandia should be pulled from stores due to "serious" risk of cardiovascular failure the diabetes drug causes.

On July 13 and 14 a group of experts in medicine will recommend whether Avandia should be pulled from the market altogether. While the FDA does not have to follow these recommendations of advising committees, it usually does. And, it will be the second time a panel to advise was assigned the job to guide the FDA on what to decide about Avandia. In 2007, experts ruled that Avandia increased congestive heart failure, cardiovascular risk, but stated the benefits outweighed the risks. FDA reviewers condemned the rationale in the decision stating no benefits were ever clarified.

Further more, FDA reviewers criticize the drug maker, GlaxoSmithKline of manipulating data, and reported their "extreme mishandling of events" claiming their trial was "unethical and exploitative,"

A spokesperson for the drug company GlaxoSmithKline said the company stands behind the safety and efficacy of Avandia.

The important thing to know about the law is that if a person is injured due to a drug, the drug manufacturer could still be liable despite having been approved for use with the FDA. This is thanks in part to the 2008 United States Supreme Court groundbreaking case, Wyeth v. Levine, and held that Federal regulatory approval of a medication does not shield the manufacturer from liability under state law. Wyeth v. Levine 129 S. Ct. 1187 (2008).

Under Georgia State law, a drug manufacture like GlaxoSmithKline may be liable reasonably foreseeable dangers in the use of the drug Avandia.

Continue reading "Heart Attack Due To Avandia? Lawsuit, Good Avandia Lawyer Needed" »

Patients prescribed Reglan or its generic version, Metoclopramide can develop a serious condition known as Tardive Dyskinesia. Reglan is often prescribed for acid reflux disease, for pregant women with morning sickness, for those who become nauseous with migraines, and for breastfeeding mothers and children.

The FDA has issued an alert warning against chronic use of this type of drug and issued a boxed warning. The side effects of tardive dyskinesia are characterized by generally irreversible symptoms that include random movements in the mouth and face, arms, legs, fingers and toes along with swaying body movements.

In order to determine if you have a case against a drug manufacturer due to the use of Reglan or Metoclopramide, you need to have met the following three conditions:

1. You took Reglan or Metoclopramide longer than 90 days.

2. You have been diagnosed with Tardive Dyskinesia or other movement disorder.

3. You have been off the drug for longer than 90 days.

Conservative estimates state that more than two million people use products containing metoclopramide in the U.S. alone. The FDA has reported that use of drug products such as Reglan or those containing metoclopramide is the most common cause of these induced movement disorders. If you are one of the many Americans who have been injured from use of this drug, it is important that you seek legal advice to protect your rights.

Continue reading "Reglan Metoclopramide Drug Causing Tardive Dyskinesia? Need Good Reglan Lawyer in Georgia " »

If you have been diagnosed with a liver transplant or liver failure due to taking Tylenol, it is absolutely essential that you meet with an attorney to discuss your legal rights. Here are some of the most important conditions:

1. You have been actually diagnosed with liver failure or a liver transplant.

2. You had been taking either Tylenol or Acetaminophen (generic version of Tylenol) which caused the liver problem.

3. It can help your case if you still have the bottle, receipt, or remember the store you bought it from.

4. It can also help if you are able to tell your lawyer whether it was prescription or nonprescription.

If you took Tylenol or another pharmaceutical drug and it injured you instead of helping you get better, you may be able to bring a product liability claim. Drug companies have been notorious about putting profits over patient lives and unfortunately, the FDA, whose job is to regulate unsafe foods and drugs often finds the problem too late.

We represent real people who have been injured as a result of a variety of unsafe drugs, including but not limited to:

Tylenol
Reglan
Avandia
Yazmin
Paxil
Drugs that cause Stevens Johnson Syndrome

Defective drugs come in all types of packages and can cause serious injury including death. Products liability cases are filed by a person or person's family member who has suffered injury or death due to the negligence of a pharmaceutical company manufacturing or designing a dangerous drug. This is why strong consumer safety laws are so essential so that the public is protected from harm.

Continue reading "Tylenol Caused Liver Transplant, Liver Failure? Need Good Lawyer for Tylenol Injuries in Georgia" »

Unfortunately, recent studies and an FDA alert have shown that high flow intra-articular (post-operative) pain pumps may be the likely cause of sever cartilage damage and joint pain in the shoulder, and possible other joints too. The pain in the shoulder is medically known as postarthroscopic glenohumeral chrondrolysis (PAGCL), which is a debilitating condition that requires constant medical attention and, many times, surgery.

The FDA has spoken on this issue, mandating that pain pump manufactures warn patients and physicians about the potential debilitating effects of these pain pumps. In fact, the FDA sent notice to manufactures stating that "the FDA did not clear pain pump infusion devices using the anesthetics for "intra-articular" or joint surgery. The pumps are approved to be used after abdominal and other surgeries, such as hysterectomies."

If you are using a pain pump to regulate pain, due to surgery on your shoulder, back, knee or hip, you should consult your doctor immediately, especially if you are experiencing the following symptoms:

1. Decreased range of motion in your shoulder;
2. Popping in your shoulder;
3. Weakness in your shoulder; or
4. Continual pain in the shoulder area.

A manufacture's failure to warn about a foreseeable or reasonably foreseeable, negative effect may give rise to a legal claim against that manufacture. Product liability claims are complicated and typically, very protracted. You will need a very effective attorney, who knows how to maximize your position at the negotiating table and in the court room.

If you or someone you know has been injured by an intra-articular pain pump, or have been diagnosed with postarthroscopic glenohumeral chrondrolysis (PAGCL), call Williams Oinonen because you may have a claim against the pain pump's manufacture. We give a free initial consultation.

Continue reading "Pain Pumps: Cartilage And Joint Damage May Be Likely Associated With The Use Of Pain Pumps" »

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

A California Highway Patrol police officer helped rescue a runaway Toyota Prius speeding out of control at 94 miles per hour to a safe stop after the car's accelerator went out of control nearly killing the driver.

The driver explained that he wasn't doing anything but the car kept speeding up and that he could smell brakes burning because he pressed the pedal so hard.

The CHP police car pulled alongside the Prius and officers told the Toyota driver over a loudspeaker to push the brake pedal to the floor and turn on the emergency brake. Additionally, the police got the car on a steep upgrade to slow it down.

After the car decelerated to 50 miles per hour, the driver shut off the engine and coasted to a halt. The police then maneuvered his car in front of the Prius as a precaution.

Toyota dispatched a field technical specialist to San Diego to investigate.
Toyota has recalled 8.5 million vehicles worldwide -- more than 6 million in the United States -- because of acceleration problems in multiple models and braking issues in the Prius.

Toyota owners have complained of their vehicles speeding out of control despite efforts to slow down, sometimes resulting in deadly crashes. The government has received complaints of 34 deaths linked to sudden acceleration of Toyota vehicles since 2000.
One of the crashes killed a California police officer last year with his wife, brother in law, and the couples daughter after his Lexus accelerator got stuck,slammed into another vehicle at about 100 mph, careened off the freeway, hit an embankment, overturned and burst into flames.

Continue reading "Toyota Acceleration Problems Lead to Deadly Crashes" »

Hundreds of patients who have taken Avandia, a drug for diabetes, needlessly suffer heart attacks and heart failure every month, determined by confidential government reports recommending the drug be taken off the market.

Dr. David Graham and Dr. Kate Gelperin of the Food and Drug Administration and authors of these reports, recommended that Avandia be withdrawn. The battle has been brewing for years but has been brought to a head by disagreement over a new clinical trial and a Senate investigation that concluded that GlaxoSmithKline should have warned patients earlier of the drug's potential risks.

In 2008, the United States Supreme Court heard the groundbreaking case, Wyeth v. Levine, and held that Federal regulatory approval of a medication does not shield the manufacturer from liability under state law. Wyeth v. Levine 129 S. Ct. 1187 (2008).

Under Georgia State law, a drug manufacture like GlaxoSmithKline may be liable for a failure to warn adequately of known or reasonably foreseeable dangers in the use of the drug.

Continue reading "Wrongful Death, Heart Attack, and Heart Failure Due to Avandia" »