Published on:

By

Good Georgia Lawyer continues its multi-part series on SUV Rollovers:

The Auto Industry’s Refusal to Acknowledge The Need for Two Sided Rollover Testing was shown in the following:

The auto industry has consistently denied the need for an appropriate two sided test. The rollover tests selected by General Motors are “deliberately designed to avoid measuring roof crush. In one test, the vehicle is driven on a ramp, and then tips onto its side. This test can be used to evaluate the deployment of side curtain airbags, which General Motors has publicly announced it will be installing in all its vehicles by 2012, but fails to provide any information about roof crush.”

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Georgia Personal Injury Lawyers at Good Georgia Lawyer continue its multi-part series on SUV Rollovers:

Consumer Advocacy Recommendations as to how to solve the Rollover Problem and the Industry’s Response:

On June 4, 2008, former head of NHTSA and then President of Public Citizen Joan Claybrook testified before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. She recommended that after twenty years of pushing for a response for NHTSA to address rollover fatalities, the agency do the following:

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Thumbnail image for doctorinhandcuffs.jpgWhat should you do when you learn secret information that your employer is stealing from, lying to, and cheating the federal or state government? This is a question that many prospective clients encounter on the job. The best answer when faced with this question is that you should immediately seek confidential legal counsel from a whistleblower lawyer because your employer’s illegal behavior may very likely constitute a violation of the False Claims Act.

Examples of the False Claims Act can include:

1. Medicaid or Medicare fraud: This is when doctors, hospitals, or pharmacies seek and receive reimbursement for Medicare and Medicaid funds. Oftentimes they may be billing for services not rendered, or misrepresenting services or goods, or even providing defective goods or services.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Thumbnail image for SUV.jpgGood Georgia Personal Injury Lawyers Series on SUV Rollovers Continue:

NHTSA first addressed the problem of rollovers with the dynamic dolly rollover test in 1970. It was a voluntary standard, not mandated, and the auto industry used this to test vehicles for decades. In 1971, NHTSA “proposed a roof crush protection rule that would test both front corners of the roof on passenger vehicles.” To summarize: both sides of a roof get crushed during the rollover: (1) the “near side” which is the term for the side of the roof which hits the ground first and (2) the “far side,” which is the side of the ground that hits the ground last. During a rollover, both sides will end up very differently. The most serious injury to vehicle occupants occurs if they are sitting on the “far side” of the vehicle that makes contact with the ground last during the rollover. Thus, if you are under that “far side” of the roof during a rollover, you would likely end up suffering fatal injuries compared to if you were sitting on the “near side.” Consequently, performing testing that only crushes one side of the roof–the “near side” that hits the ground first– completely masks the true devastating results of the roof crush during a rollover.

Shockingly, however, General Motors Corporation (GM) and the Automobile Manufacturers Association (which later became the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers) have consistently and illogically argued that testing both sides of the roof was unnecessary because: ‘in most cases roof structure damage is distributed to only one side of the roof in an actual rollover and that, because the roof is symmetrical it makes no difference which side of the roof is selected for testing.'” While it is true that roof crush damage is unevenly distributed to one side of the roof, it is the “far side” of the roof that receives the most damage that contains these car companies have not even been testing. It is the author’s opinion that car companies sought to suppress the true results of a full and complete rollover test for fear that it would impact their bottom line in profits. Consequently, these auto manufacturers successfully pressured and lobbied for a one side roof crush test requirement, which NHTSA ended up adopting and which remains in effect today.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

fat boy.jpgOur law firm helps protect the rights of those injured or harm due to a wrong or injustice. Just a few of the many cases we do involve children who are victims of bullying. We are pleased that our firm was invited to attend the special showing of The Fat Boy Chronicles.

This is a movie about an overweight young teenage boy who is bullied about his physical appearance. The bullying of his classmates make going to school a difficult experience. Yet the young man still manages to overcome his goals to lose weight and win over the girl of his dreams.

The movie is based on Lang Buchanan’s latest novel, The Fat Boy Chronicles, which tells the story of an obese 9th grader struggling to find his way in our thin-obsessed society.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Thumbnail image for SUV.jpgGood Georgia Lawyer Continues its Series on SUV Rollover Deaths in Part Four:

The problem of rollover first made national news in 1980 when CBS’s 60 Minutes aired a report on the Jeep CJ, the model for many early SUVs. The report showed footage of an Insurance Institute of Highway Safety test in which the vehicle rolled over when conducting evasive maneuvers like a quick turn to avoid hitting something in the road. Despite the rollover risk, Americans flocked to the vehicle. Thus the auto industry began producing similar vehicles. Using the Jeep as a model, Ford introduced its first SUV, the Bronco II, which rolled out in March 1983 as an immediate hit. Throughout the 1980s, the company sold over 700,000 Bronco IIs — double their initial projections. Almost immediately, however, the Bronco II began to have rollover problems.

As deaths and horrific injuries mounted, Ford knew as early as 1981 that (1) its SUV’s were tipping onto two wheels at speeds as low as 20 miles per hour and that (2) it had considered shelving the Bronco II project during development. In the spring of 1982, Ford engineers recommended one important change: a 3 to 4 inch widening of the vehicle track, would produce a “major improvement” in “roll characteristics.” However, Ford ignored the safety and design recommendations of its own engineers and went into production after widening the SUV by just 4/10ths of an inch despite internal Ford cost projections that showed it would have cost just $83 per vehicle to widen the vehicle and lower the center of gravity to achieve a safe design. “Ford’s management — conscious of competition with GM’s Chevrolet Blazer” ignored their own engineers’ safety recommendations because it would have delayed “Job 1″ (the vehicle’s first date of production).” Thus, Ford “rushed to cash in on this rapidly expanding, high-profit market with little attention to the safety implications of their vehicle designs for SUV occupants and even less attention to the safety of motorists in other vehicles.”

However, Ford knew that problems would result from this decision. It would later be shown that in anticipation of rollover litigation, “realizing that the company’s own engineering documents showed that the Bronco II had a high propensity to roll over, injure and potentially kill a significant number of people who purchased it, Ford took the unprecedented step of gathering 113 specific documents critical to the defense in rollover litigation prior to the production of the first Bronco II.” Engineers were ordered to “sanitize” documents prior to collection: “over 50 of these documents disappeared, and none of these documents were disclosed to NHTSA during the 1988-1990 Bronco II investigation because Ford said it “didn’t notice” that the agency asked for these specific development documents.”

When litigation began to heat up, Ford paid a former company engineer, David Bickerstaff, $5,000,000 over eight years to lie in a series of 30 rollover cases. In June 1990, Bickerstaff sent Ford a letter in which he suggested $4,000 a day payment, to “assist you [Ford] in preparing me [Bickerstaff] to testify in Ford’s favor.” Before he was paid by Ford, Bickerstaff testified that as a Ford engineer, he was concerned about the Bronco II’s propensity to roll over. After being paid by Ford, Bickerstaff testified that while working for Ford, he was not concerned about the vehicle’s low stability index. Bickerstaff also helped Ford “rig a videotape designed to convince juries that the Bronco II was not likely to roll over, by loading a Bronco II with 900 lbs. of lead shot on the floorboards and seats in a manner that artificially lowered the center of gravity.”

Thus, in April 2001, a federal judge concluded that, as a matter of law, Ford and its witness Bickerstaff engaged in a conspiracy to commit fraud. In 2001, a federal judge in Goff v. Ford concluded that Ford had engaged in a conspiracy to commit fraud. In a 1999 decision, the Indiana Court of Appeals referred to Ford’s behavior in launching the “dangerous and defective” Bronco II as “highly reprehensible” and “the crassest form of corporate indifference to safety… of the consumer.”
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

SUV.jpgGood Georgia Personal Injury Lawyers play an important role in helping stop SUV rollovers from happening. This is Part Three of The Series Concerning SUV Rollovers which covers the history of SUV Rollovers and Regulatory Response from the very beginning:

In the 1960’s Ralph Nader published Unsafe at Any Speed, a book that criticized the rollover tendencies of General Motors’ Corvair sportscar. It was later learned that GM would hire private detectives to harass and disparage Nader. Later the president of GM was summoned before a Congressional subcommittee to explain the company’s actions and to apologize to Nader.

The GM scandal brought auto safety into the spotlight and contributed to the passage of two new auto safety laws: “the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and the Highway Safety Act of 1966, and the creation of the National Highway Safety Bureau. Under the Highway Safety Act of 1970, the bureau was renamed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).”

Under the law, NHTSA’s mission is to “save lives, prevent injuries and reduce economic costs due to road traffic crashes, through education, research, safety standards and enforcement activity.”
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Immigration Image Depo.jpgWhen discussing deportation, most of the focus is on preventing wrongful deportation/removal because of a perceived error or oversight by the government, an Immigration Judge, and/or the Bureau of Immigration Appeals. However, in reality, thousands of immigrants are ordered to be deported every year in this county, wrongfully so or not. And what many fail to understand is that even after being ordered to be removed/deported, immigrants still have options and constitutionally protected rights. That’s why you need a good deportation lawyer advocating for you or someone you know who is facing deportation. Today we will discuss, briefly, what rights an immigrant has regarding the length of time the government is allowed to detain him or her, after ordering removal/deportation from the United States.

In general, when an immigrant is ordered to be removed/deported from the United States, the U.S. government (Attorney General) has ninety (90) days to remove that immigrant. If an immigrant has not left or has not been removed/deported within that 90 day period, then, the U.S. government should, generally, release the affected immigrant under supervision. Again, an immigrant released because the 90 day period has passed will be supervised. That means the following regulations/rules, amongst others, will most likely apply to a released, supervised immigrant:

1. The immigrant may need to appear before an immigration officer periodically for identification;

2. The immigrant may have to submit, if necessary, to a medical and psychiatric examination at the expense of the United States Government;

3. The immigrant may need to give information under oath about the alien’s nationality, circumstances, habits, associations, and activities, and other information the Attorney General considers appropriate; and
4. The immigrant will need to obey reasonable written restrictions on the alien’s conduct or activities that the Attorney General prescribes for the alien.

However, all immigrants must understand that he or she does not have an absolutely right to be released if he or she is not removed/deported within 90 days. There are exceptions to the law. For example, if the immigrant ordered to be removed/depoerted is (1) inadmissible under certain immigration laws or (2) determined to be a risk to the community or (3) unlikely to comply with the order of removal, that immigrant may be detained longer than the above-mentioned 90 day period.

The question for an immigrant detained longer than 90 days then becomes: how long can the government continue detaining me, without violating my constitutionally protected rights? In, Zadvydas v. Davis and Clark v. Marinez, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed that question. The answer: an immigrant who has been ordered removed may be detained for a length of time reasonably necessary to bring about the actual removal of that immigrant. The term reasonable length of time has been deemed to be six (6) months, presumptively. That means that after six (6) months, if there is no reasonably foreseeable date of removal, the detained immigrant may have a strong argument that he or she should be released under appropriate supervision. There are exceptions.

For example, even if there is no reasonably foreseeable date of removal, an immigrant ordered to be removed/deported my be detained “for additional periods of up to six months,” if the release of the immigrant will threaten the national security of the United States or the safety of the community or any person– Congress established this exception as a direct result of U.S. Supreme Court’s above-mentioned case, Zadvydas v. Davis.

As you can read, an immigrant continues to have certain protected rights (and options), even after he or she has been ordered to be removed/deported. This discussion briefly touched on only one of those rights. However, there are many other issues and rights that must be addressed. That’s why you need a good deportation lawyer to help you throughout the “entire” deportation process, from beginning to end.
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Thumbnail image for Immigration Image Depo.jpgFacing deportation is a tough, emotional experience. We write our deportation blog post with that in mind and also to encourage anyone who is facing deportation to contact a good deportation lawyer as soon as possible. A good deportation lawyer could mean the difference between you being deported or staying in the United States.

Today, I am going to discuss criteria # 4 of the new “hardship” standard established by the Ilegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which the U.S. Congress enacted in 1996. I discuss the other three criteria in separate blog posts.

After the U.S. Congress enacted the IIRIRA, a non-permanent resident must meet the following four (4) criteria in order to be eligible for cancellation of removal (deportation) under section 1229b(b)(1):

1. The non-permanent resident must have resided in the United States continuously for at least 10 years;

2. The non-permanent resident must be of good moral standing;

3. The non-permanent resident cannot have been convicted of certain, specific crimes; and
4. The non-permanent resident must be able to establish that removal (deportation) would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the non permanent resident’s spouse, parent, or child who is a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident.

The above-mentioned criteria # 4 etablishes the “hardship” standard that a person must show in an attempt to cancel his or her deportation. The new hardship standard is more stringent than the old standard. In fact, one court has stated that the circumstances surrounding the showing of hardship must be compelling, because “Congress intended to require an alien to provide evidence of harm to his spouse, parent, or child sub-stantially beyond that which ordinarily would be ex-pected to result from the alien’s deportation.”

So what does compelling mean in the context of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship? Courts have made it clear that compelling in this context does not mean the sadness or depression experienced by your spouse, parent or child once you’re deported.

However, an immigration Judge and/or the Bureau of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) will consider the age, health, and circumstances of your qualifying relative (spouse, parent, or child), when deciding whether or not you have shown compelling justification to cancel deportation. Relevantly, case law in this area has repeatedly demonstrated that the following factors will be considered:

1. The extent to which a lower standard of living or adverse country conditions in the country of return may affect a spouse, children, or parent(s);

2. If a person is deported and leaves children in the United States, would the deported person be able to work and support those children in the country of return;

3. Does the person who faces deportation have family or close relatives in the country of return;

4. Does the child or children of the person facing deportation speak the native language spoken in the county of return;

5. If the person facing deportation has children would those children be deprived of an opportunity to obtain an education in the country of return;

6. What are the assets of the person facing deportation. For example, does the potentially deported person have significant savings; own a home; or have a retirement fund. If yes, then the BIA may find that the person has the financial means to transition back to his or her country of origin without exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his or her spouse, parent or child; and
7. Does the child, spouse, or parent of the person facing deportation have a serious medical condition, which cannot be treated adequately in the country of return.

Those are just a few considerations. Ultimately, each case will depend on its own facts and its own merits. That’s why you definitely need a good lawyer who understands deportation law to assist you, especially if you are a non-permanent resident.
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Thumbnail image for Judge.jpgAnyone who has had a family member wrongfully deported knows that deportation usually has serious consequences not only for the person being deported but also for that person’s family and friends. Deportation is a harsh remedy in most cases. And with a change in the standard for deportation, due process rights of immigrants have taken a substantial set back. Today, we will discuss how the Illegal Immigration and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRAIRA”) has significantly changed immigration law, with one substantial change.

Before the IIRAIRA, immigrants facing deportation could ask for a suspension of deportation. Suspension of deportation required an immigrant applicant to prove that being deported would result in extreme hardship to him or her (the person being deported). That meant that the focus of hardship was placed on the immigrant.

However, with the IIRAIRA reform, “suspension of deportation” changed to cancellation of deportation. The name change was not the only difference, though. IIRAIRA reform erased the requirement of showing merely “hardship” to the person facing deportation.

Now, a person facing deportation must show that (1) being deported will result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship and that (2) being deported will result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the deported person’s spouse, parent, or child. That means the focus was taken off of the hardship that the potentially deported person would suffer and placed on the hardship that, basically, family members would suffer.

Specifically the BIA has stated: “in establishing eligibility for cancellation of removal [new standard of hardship] only hardship to qualifying relatives, not the applicant [person being deported] himself or herself, may be considered, and hardship factors relating to the applicant may be considered only insofar as they might affect the hardship to the qualifying relative.”

Significantly, each of the terms, spouse, child, and parent also has a specific definition in the IIRAIRA. That means, and as we have discussed on this blog, the IIRAIRA may define spouse, child, and parent in a manner completely different than what you feel or think.

Regarding the new “hardship” standard, The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) clarified its understanding of the difference between showing “hardship” and showing “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” in an appeal named Matter of Monreal.pdf. The BIA stated that the new standard for hardship (cancellation of removal) is higher than the old standard (suspension of removal). The BIA also said that although the new standard is higher (tougher) it is not unconscionable (outrageous).

Just because something in not unconscionable (outrageous) does not mean it’s fair. The new standard is even more reason why you need an effective attorney on your side. Although some of the law and approaches used by lawyers regarding the old standard for “hardship” still may apply, your attorney must understand the IIRAIRA, new law, and new approaches in order to effectively argue your case.
Continue reading →

Contact Information
3344 Peachtree Rd NE #800
Atlanta, GA 30326
Phone: (404) 654-0288
Fax: 404-592-6225
Email: julie@goodgeorgialawyer.com

Only the Managing Partner is authorized to enter Williams Oinonen LLC into binding contractual agreements.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2026, Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design