Client Case Results

Please see our history of strong results for our clients. Click each case heading to read more.

Medical Malpractice Settlement

In May 2016 the firm confidentially settled a medical malpractice action for 97.5% of the physician’s available coverage.

The case involved a surgeons care and treatment of a small rectal carcinoid tumor approximately 9-10 cm from the anal verge which had been discovered during a routine screening colonoscopy for a 50 year-old African –American woman. The colonoscopist had biopsied the growth and the pathology report established that this was a 5mm rectal carcinoid with no dangerous or aggressive characteristics.

The medical literature established that a neuro-endocrine tumor of this nature and size with these characteristics should be examined preoperatively with an endo-rectal ultrasound to determine whether there had been any penetration beyond the submucosal layer or any spread into adjacent lymph nodes. In the absence of such pre-operative findings the literature established that simple excision local through an intra-anal procedure was the appropriate treatment.

Rather than proceeding in compliance with the well-established literature and discussing various alternatives with his patient, the surgeon advised the client that she had to have a low anterior resection.  The patient developed a problem with fecal urgency shortly after the surgery.  When she did not feel she was getting enough or adequate help with this problem she switched surgeons to get a second opinion. Her new surgeon found that she had developed a stricture only slightly above her rectum. After efforts to stretch the stricture failed the surgeon undertook an exploratory procedure to identify the underlying cause of the problem. The surgeon discovered that a leak had developed at the site of the first surgeon’s reconnection of the two ends of the intestine. The leak created extensive scar tissue which strictured around the bowel and impaired the patient’s ability to control her bowel movements. This stricture produced an almost constant number of small bowel movements each of which had a very loose or pudding-like consistency. The patient had to be in the bathroom almost every half hour to have a bowel movement. The new surgeon discovered that the leak had caused so much scar tissue that despite having adequate length of large bowel to attempt a reconnection, there was no viable opportunity to redo the connection because the adjacent scar tissue would prevent a long term recovery. The new surgeon had no choice but to create an ostomy bag for the patient.

Examination of the initially removed section by the pathologist had confirmed that the original tumor had not become invasive and no lymph nodes were involved. Our experts concluded that the original surgeon had violated the standard of care by proceeding with a low anterior resection instead of a local trans-anal excision. They noted that radical resection and reconnection in the rectal/anal area runs a recognized risk of multiple complications including a leak at the site of reconnection. That risk was unnecessary. One of our experts put it very succinctly when he  noted that using major surgery on this tumor was like curing an in-grown toenail by performing a below the knee amputation. It got the job done but was totally inappropriate and dramatically beyond what needed to be done.

Verdict- $875,000.00 for Permanent Injury during Lasik Surgery and Follow-up Care

On April 22, 2016, we obtained a verdict in the total amount of $875,000.00 for our clients in a case in the State Court of DeKalb County.

Our plaintiff had gone in for a routine Lasik procedure but there was an error during the surgical process. The ophthalmic surgeon failed to recognize that the prescription had been improperly input into the computer. The error was that the computer was told that the correct axis for treatment was 180 degrees rather than 80 degrees. Accordingly, the computer’s ablation pattern was on a horizontal track rather than the correct pattern which would have been almost vertical. Instead of removing the patient’s astigmatism, this error caused a doubling of her astigmatism.

The problems created by this error were compounded when her surgeon and her optometrist recommended that she undergo an immediate procedure the next day to try and correct the mistake. Plaintiff contended that she was not told in advance of this procedure that there had been a physician error during the initial procedure, but was only told she was having a normal reaction to Lasik surgery and she simply needed a small “trim” to resolve her problems. She testified that if she had been told there had been a physician error she would not have proceeded as she did but would have sought out a second opinion from another ophthalmic surgeon before allowing any further procedures. There was testimony that the standard of care requires allowing the eye to “settle” for a period of 4-6 months before any effort at retreatment occurs because it is impossible to determine what the “settled” shape of the eye is going to be after an initial Lasik procedure.

We contended this was not a minor “trim” but instead was a major effort at covering up the original physician error. Our experts established that this next-day surgery, which in fact had involved almost 4 times the ablation used in the initial procedure, caused permanent and uncorrectable injury because it caused irregular astigmatism which cannot be effectively treated. We established that as a result of her irregular astigmatism she had very serious problems with glare, bright lights, fluorescent lights, and bright sunshine and problems working with video screens. Since she was a comptroller her job required heavy computer use and she simply could not find a way to maintain her job performance given the limitations imposed on her by this results of her surgery.

After 2 hours of deliberation the jury returned a verdict in the total amount of $875,000.00.

Wrongful Death at dialysis center where procedures were not properly followed

Our client was a 58 year old undergoing dialysis 3 times a week at a company facility. The evidence showed that on this particular occasion immediately prior to treatment the patient had a blood pressure of 174/66 with a pulse of 86 and that 5 minutes later after dialysis had been begun she had blood pressure of 108/35 with a pulse of 102. Despite recording these values only 5 minutes apart the technician in charge of this patient did not stop the treatment or call for nursing intervention. The patient was found 5 minutes later in full cardiac arrest and was not able to be resuscitated.

Our nursing experts was able to establish that it was a departure from the standard of care for the technician to have proceeded with dialysis I under these circumstances. The death was clearly produced by the failure to intervene in timely fashion. The company agreed to a confidential mid six figure settlement.

Product Liability- Mobile Forklift Lacked Safety Cage and Adequate warnings

Our client was a driver making construction site deliveries. His employer’s flat-bed truck carried a mobile forklift to allow him to unload materials and carry them into position around residential construction. The driver’s access to the seat for the forklift was through a large opening on the left side. There was no door or closure on that side. When the driver thought that the fork lift was about to tip over on uneven terrain he attempted to jump from the cab through that opening. Unfortunately he overestimated his ability to escape and his knee was crushed by the top of the roll bar/cage as the unit turned over. His recovery was complicated when he developed deep vein thrombosis which required surgical insertion of a permanent vena cava filter and long term use of anti-coagulants. Our client was unable to return to work as a delivery truck driver because of his injuries. We were able to establish that the failure to design a door/closure device on this side was a design defect which made the unit unreasonably dangerous to users. We also established that the warnings within the operator area were also defective because they did not convey the necessity of staying inside the operator safety cage area if the unit began to tip over on uneven ground. Because of the permanent injury and its economic injury we were able to obtain a confidential 7 figure settlement which allowed our client to protect his family and return to school for more education.

Nurse injured during laparoscopic gallbladder operation

Our client was a 52 year old nurse who had undergone a gallbladder operation. During the course of the operation the surgeon noted that when a trocar was removed, it had fecal matter on the tip of the trocar. That meant that the trocar had punctured the large intestine so the surgeons had to convert from a laparoscopic procedure to an open procedure so they could s find and fix the problem they had created. They located and fixed a hole on the top of the transverse large intestine. After checking for additional injury they concluded all problems had been fixed and ended the operation. Unfortunately they were wrong and she developed a large infection which shut down her kidney function. They went back in and discovered that there had been a hole on the back side of the intestine opposite the one they had found and repaired. This hole had allowed fecal matter to flow into the abdominal cavity setting up the profound infection she had. The infection was so severe that they had to temporarily give her a colostomy bag for 5 months while they resolved the infection issue. She developed a very serious problem with abdominal adhesions from the infection and was unable to return to her work as a nurse.

Our experts established that the failure to identify and fix this hole in the intestine when it was located directly behind the one which was found and repaired was negligence which had caused the severe infection she developed.

Misdiagnosis of Sarcoma-Loss of Chance to Survive for a 51 year old mother of 3

Our client was a 51 year-old breast cancer survivor who was a very active tennis player. She went to an orthopedic doctor when she developed a non-painful mass in her mid-thigh. She told her doctor that the mass had gradually appeared over a 4 month period. There was not any particular incident or injury which she could relate to the onset of the mass. She was concerned because while the condition was not painful but it was firm and seemed to her to be growing. The doctor ordered an MRI and after reviewing the films concluded that even though she was not reporting any pain nonetheless she had a muscle tear with some internal bleeding. He attempted to drain some blood from the mass but was unsuccessful. He told our client and her husband that if he had any concern at all that this could be a malignancy he would not have attempted to drain the mass. He told her that the mass would resolve itself over time and it could take up to 12 months for that to occur.

When it seemed to her that the mass was growing rather than shrinking she returned to the office only 8 weeks later. The doctor examined her but he disagreed with her assessment and told her the mass had not grown He again advised that it simply needed more time to resolve and that it was not anything of serious concern.

Our client became increasingly concerned so she went for a second opinion. That doctor ordered an immediate needle biopsy of the mass which showed that the mass was not a hematoma but instead was a sarcoma- a malignant soft tissue tumor in her thigh. Our client immediately underwent chemotherapy to reduce the size of the tumor prior to surgery. She subsequently underwent surgery.

Our experts established that the orthopedic physician’s failure to investigate and confirm within 2-3 weeks of the initial visit that this non-painful mass was actually reducing in size as a bruise or hematoma would was a departure from the standard of care under the circumstances involved. They further established that advising her that it would take up to 12 months for this to resolve was also a departure from the standard of care. It was their opinion that proper investigation and diagnosis would have identified this as a malignancy several months earlier when the tumor was substantially smaller and would have been much more susceptible to successful surgical removal. It was their opinion that this doctor’s negligence deprived our client of the opportunity to treat and survive this cancer. A significant confidential settlement was negotiated with the patient and her husband several weeks before her death.

Policy Limit Settlement- Paraplegia following Back surgery results in settlement

Our client had degenerative disc disease and problems with shooting pains down both arms from pinched nerves in her neck. The defendant, an orthopedic surgeon recommended neck surgery to remove a ruptured disc and fuse two vertebrae in her neck to relieve the pressure on these nerve roots. While she walked into the hospital for her surgery when she woke up she had lost the ability to stand up and had a significant pain problem impacting both legs. Care investigation revealed that at the surgical site in her neck where bone grafts had been driven into position between the two vertebrae being fused, one of the bone plugs had been advanced too far and pushed into the spinal cord. The post-operative MRI and CT scans showed there was bleeding in the spinal cord immediately in front of the bone plug which confirmed that the plug had been pushed forward past the stops and into the spinal cord itself. The bruising and damage to the spinal cord impacted the muscle control and sensation in both lower legs which caused the permanent loss of strength and feeling which she had noticed when she woke up. While there was some residual improvement our client was unable to walk independently and was permanently disabled from returning to her work. Her home had to be modified to make it handicapped accessible and to accommodate her wheelchair. Once we were able to document the permanent injury and the extent of the economic and lifestyle loss, the surgeon’s liability insurance carrier recognized the need to settle the case and tendered the entire policy limit to avoid suit and the potential for an excess verdict.

Confidential Settlement-2 year–old scalded by hot water from incorrectly set water heater

A two year old child received severe burns to his feet and his scrotal area when he stepped into a tub of water being run for his bath by his 13 year old sister. She had not yet mixed in any cold water and the water coming from the apartment water heater was over 145 degrees Fahrenheit. Water at that temperature will cause third degree burns within seconds, destroying the skin and requiring extensive skin grafting.
During discovery we established that while the apartment management team had a policy of keeping the tenants from adjusting their water heaters management had no program to inspect or safely set water temperatures in the apartments even when replacement water heaters were installed. There was no effort from management to educate or protect tenants or their children from the severe harm which could arise. Moreover the plumbing system did not route the hot water through any valves which would automatically reduce the temperature before the water was discharged into the sink or the tub. When we learned through discovery that there had been no corporate appreciation of this danger and no plan to protect tenants even when the water heaters arrived with conspicuous warnings at the time of installation we amended our complaint to include claims for punitive damages arising from conscious indifference to the consequences of their inaction.

Expert testimony established that our 2 year-old client was going to require multiple surgeries to periodically replace the skin on his feet and to deal with the inevitable scar tissue on his feet and ankles which, if it was not regularly modified as he grew, would cause great problems for his mobility. The defense concluded that a substantial settlement was appropriate and we established a special needs trust to ensure that that our client would have the necessary funding for all of the appropriate reconstructive and plastic surgery as he grew up and moved into adulthood as well as funding to support his educational opportunities.

Auto collision- High-Low agreement protected driver with numerous pre-existing conditions

Plaintiff was a cardiac care ICU nurse working a full time schedule of three 12 hours shifts per week when this wreck occurred. He was stopped waiting to turn left into his own driveway when an inexperienced and inattentive teenage driver on her way to school ran into his vehicle at about 25 mph. He suffered neck and back injuries which disabled him. Because he suffered from heart disease he had been on anti-coagulation drugs. In an effort to get back to his work he agreed to epidural steroid injections which had been recommended. He had to go off his normal anti-coagulation medications to have the steroid injections. He developed positional headaches which suggested that he had a cerebral spinal fluid leak at the site of the epidural puncture. That required that he again go off his anti-coagulation medications to have a “blood patch” procedure. Before he was able to get fully back under the normal protection provided by his anti-coagulation medications he suffered a significant heart attack which severely damaged his heart muscle and precluded any ability to return to work as a cardiac ICU nurse.

Georgia law recognizes the concept of an “eggshell” plaintiff- and requires that those who injure anyone must take them as they find them. Under Georgia law a defendant cannot assert as a defense that the injury would not have been as serious or significant in someone less vulnerable. Georgia also recognizes that when a person injures another the party who caused the harm is responsible for the care and treatment necessary to restore the injured person to their pre-injury condition and that obligation includes dealing with any complications that arise in the course of necessary treatment.

The danger in a case like this is that some jurors will not follow those instructions because they feel that the injured person brought many of the problems on themselves through their failure to take good care of themselves for years so they won’t award damages relating to the pre-existing conditions that make a plaintiff so vulnerable.

Because we recognized this potential danger we negotiated a confidential hi-lo agreement prior to trial. The agreement assured the defense that there would not be a verdict in excess of the available coverage and assured our clients that there would be a guaranteed recovery awarding some portion of the damages which had arisen from the complicated course of his recovery. Your attorney needs to have the experience to recognize that compromise can be an effective and important tool in protecting your interests even when you are going to a jury trial.

Medical Malpractice-Failure to Properly Investigate Rectal Bleeding Allows Cancer to Progress-$800,000.00 verdict Fulton County

Plaintiff was a 53 year old African American who had recently had an annual physical. The physical had not involved any screening test for colon cancer. Several weeks after the annual physical the patient began experiencing rectal bleeding with his bowel movements. Because he was concerned he went back to his physician to discuss the problem. Without performing any examination his physician told him that this was probably simply due to hemorrhoids and that the bleeding should stop in a few days. The bleeding stopped after about two weeks. The patient did not have any further problems for two and a half years. Then suddenly while he was at work he developed severe abdominal cramping and an urge to have a bowel movement which was not productive. He went to a gastroenterologist who performed a colonoscopy and discovered a very large tumor in the large intestine on the left side. The tumor was so large that it almost completely blocked the passage of bowel content.

Surgery was performed to remove the tumor. The surgery showed that the tumor had grown through the bowel wall and into the adjacent organs including the patient’s lungs and liver. The cancer was a stage IV bowel cancer. Despite surgery and chemotherapy the patient could not be saved and he ultimately passed away two years after the trial of his lawsuit.

At trial we established that the standard of care required that when he came back with the first complaint of bleeding his doctor was obligated to undertake investigation to locate the cause and origin of the rectal bleeding. The standard of care does not allow a physician in these circumstances to assume this bleeding problem was coming from a benign explanation like hemorrhoids. We were able to establish that because of the nature of colon cancer if an appropriate investigation had been performed when he complained then the cancer would have been much less advanced and more likely than not would not have spread. The jury rejected the defense effort to blame the patient for failing to ask for cancer screening when he had his 50th birthday.

Verdict: $7,500,000 – Negligent Failure to Diagnose Metabolic Disorder

A one-week-old infant was life-flighted to a children’s hospital because he was not eating normally, his body temperature was dropping and he was becoming increasingly lethargic. The infant was placed in the ICU. He continued to have severe feeding problems.

Initial work-ups ruled out infection, congenital hypothyroidism, left-sided heart disease and intestinal obstruction. One of the consultant physicians noted that the child’s presentation suggested a metabolic disorder. Despite a continued deterioration in the child’s neurological tone and knowledge that untreated metabolic disorders can quickly cause profound and irreversible brain injury, the neonatologist failed to consult with metabolic and neurologic experts in a timely fashion and failed to pursue appropriate testing on an emergency basis.

The infant developed severe brain swelling, which produced profound and irreversible brain damage that could have been avoided if investigation and treatment had been pursued in timely fashion.

The jury found the neonatologist was 40 percent at fault and awarded damages to help care for the child over his projected life span.

Verdict: $1,250,000 – Severed Sciatic Nerve During Hip Repair Surgery

An automobile accident shattered the plaintiff’s pelvis when a head-on impact pushed the upper end of the right thigh back through the pelvis. Despite this injury, the patient was neurologically intact and had normal motor and sensory functions in the leg before an operation was performed to repair the fracture.

Several days after the car wreck, two orthopedic surgeons operated to reconstruct the pelvis. During the course of the operation, they cut through the sciatic nerve. At this level, the sciatic nerve has a large diameter somewhat thicker than a pencil. Severing this nerve caused a permanent change in the sensation in the leg and destroyed the patient’s ability to push down or lift up the front of the foot.

As a result, walking and driving became extremely difficult. The patient lost his ability to work as a trim carpenter who worked outside on residential construction, where the ground was usually uneven. The severance also caused a severe intractable pain problem that could not be easily controlled.

This was the first seven-figure malpractice verdict in Cobb County, a traditionally conservative jurisdiction.

Confidential Settlement – Aspiration Due to Negligence Resulting in Brain Damage

A 64-year-old patient in the early stages of Parkinson’s Disease developed an apparent small bowel obstruction. In an effort to determine whether there was a mechanical blockage in the stomach or small intestine, a surgeon obtained permission to perform an EGD procedure. This procedure passes a fiber-optic scope down the throat into the stomach and then the small intestine to allow visual inspection of those areas.

The surgeon found that the stomach was full of gastric fluid. Instead of delaying the procedure until the fluid could be removed by a naso-gastric tube, the surgeon decided to use the suction function on the scope to remove the fluid so he could proceed rather than delaying the procedure to another day.

During this process of suctioning out more than two quarts of gastric content, the patient aspirated some of the liquid into his lungs. The reaction of his lung tissue to the acidic gastric content impaired his ability to breath. The patient suffered a stroke as well as an anoxic brain injury. These injuries severely impacted his health and permanently impaired his ability to deal with his Parkinson’s Disease.

Expert witnesses testified that, since there had been no emergency requiring an immediate inspection of the stomach, the surgeon should not have proceeded when he encountered this large volume of gastric fluids.

Confidential Settlement – Negligent Failure of Nurse to Supervise Known Fall-risk

A spry 86-year-old who was living alone and enjoyed walking, gardening and driving to her own activities had a total knee replacement so she could continue her active lifestyle. After successful surgery, she was placed in a step-down unit at her local hospital for physical rehabilitation to rebuild her strength before she returned home. Because the surgery had been on her knee, she was noted to be at risk for falling and placed under restrictions that required that she be accompanied by a nurse or aide at all times when she was out of bed.

On the evening before she was to be discharged, she was in the bathroom using a washcloth to clean up. The nursing assistant who was supposed to be with her at all times wandered off. The patient attempted to stand up but slipped on water which she had spilled on the floor. Her foot slid into the wall, causing a break so severe that the lower leg bone punctured through the skin.

She needed to have surgery with plates and screws to hold the leg into proper position. She required several months of additional rehabilitation and the lengthy bed rest. Inactivity created disabilities that kept her from walking without a walker or returning to driving her own vehicle.

Although she attempted to return to living alone, the limitations on her mobility caused by this fall were simply too great to allow her to safely continue living alone. She had to move into an assisted living facility.

Despite an initial effort to blame the patient, the hospital was forced to acknowledge that its nursing assistant had violated the hospital’s internal policies and procedures designed for the protection of all patients identified as fall risks. As a result, the hospital negotiated a confidential settlement of the case.

Confidential Settlement – Negligent Failure to Maintain Airway resulting in Brain Death

A 34-year-old mother of three was admitted into the ICU after being brought to the hospital with seizures following a fall at her employment. She was placed on a ventilator with an endotracheal tube down her throat. When she did not promptly improve, doctors determined that her long-term care and recovery would go better if they replaced the tube in her throat with a tracheostomy. A tracheostomy was performed, and the ventilator was attached to regulate her breathing.

On the evening after the tracheostomy was performed, when the incision and the tracheostomy tube had been in place for less than 24 hours, two ICU nurses were working to clean her after a bowel movement had soiled the sheets. The two ICU nurses proceeded to roll her onto her side without taking adequate steps to protect the tracheostomy tube. The tube dislodged, and the ICU nurses were unable to reinsert the tube to open an airway.

The ICU nurses did not summon appropriate assistance from the ER or from the house staff for more than 15 minutes. As a result of this lengthy period without adequate air exchange, the patient suffered an anoxic injury which left her brain dead. The family decided to disconnect life support when it became apparent that there could be no recovery.

Confidential Settlement – Negligent Failure to Establish Airway resulting in Brain Damage

A 17-year-old high school senior arranged to have her tonsils removed during out-patient surgery at a free-standing surgical center during the Christmas school holiday. A certified nurse anesthesist under the direct supervision of an anesthesiologist mistakenly inserted the endotracheal tube into the patient’s stomach instead of her lungs. Despite use of a carbon dioxide sensor, which should have identified this error before it could cause any injury, no alarms went off.

The error was not identified for several minutes until the anesthesist noticed a change in the resistance of the ambu-bag she was compressing to send air into the patient’s lungs. At about the same time, nurses noticed that the patient was beginning to look somewhat “blue.”

She was reintubated, and a proper airway was restored. However, the loss of oxygen before that happened caused her heart to stop. CPR was performed. After a period of time, her heart function came back. The loss of blood pressure and low oxygen during the time when her heartbeat had been lost caused tissue death in several regions of the brain, producing both motor and cognitive deficits.

While the patient was able to return to school after rehabilitation, she had continued motor deficits and issues with development of executive functioning skills that normally develop during young adulthood.

While the defendants steadfastly denied liability throughout preparation of the case, our expert witnesses used the available imaging studies to build a very persuasive case that the only reasonable explanation for her injuries was that the defendants had not paid the proper attention during the intubation of the plaintiff.

Verdicts totalling $1.8 Million – Tractor Trailer Collision due to Failure to Yield when Turning (Driver & Passenger)

Verdict for Driver: $1,000,000

Verdict for Passenger: $800,000

A Missouri tractor-trailer operator was making a delivery in a suburban Atlanta office park. He was unfamiliar with the warehouse for this delivery. Instead of stopping to obtain directions, he proceeded without paying adequate attention to traffic conditions. He made an improper right-hand turn and pulled into the path of a large panel truck carrying two mechanics on their way to repair a garbage packing compressor.

The impact caused the repair truck to roll over several times. The passenger was partially ejected during the rollover with serious back injuries. The driver suffered closed head injuries and neck injuries. Both the driver and the passenger were disabled by their injuries.

In two separate trials in Gwinnett County, we obtained verdicts for these injured workers. Despite the fact that the defendant company only had a $1 million liability policy to answer for this injury, we had reviewed the company’s financial statements and concluded the company had more than sufficient assets to  pay both judgments in full.

When we threatened to have the Sheriff seize and sell the next unit attempting to make another delivery in Gwinnett County, the company decided to pay the judgments in full.

Verdict: $250,000 – Negligently Administered Radiation Treatment Damages Salivary Glands

The plaintiff was a 53-year-old teacher who had a cancerous parotid gland removed from the right side of her jaw. Normal treatment is to radiate the site where the tumor was removed to prevent recurrence. A patient is placed in a face mask to hold the patient’s head in a fixed position, and the radiation source then moves around to direct focused radiation to the correct location.

During her treatment, the patient became concerned that, while her tumor had been on her right side, the radiation source seemed to be spending a considerable period of time on the left side of her head. When she asked the radiation oncologist how it worked this way, he immediately took the file and disappeared. When he came back several minutes later, he acknowledged that the program instructions had been miswritten, the error had not been caught prior to treatment and she had been receiving radiation treatment on the wrong side.

While the treatment was rewritten, the amount of radiation already administered on the left side was sufficient to permanently damage the ability of her remaining salivary glands to produce saliva. The patient had a permanent dry mouth condition, which made eating difficult and damaged her oral health.

The defendant contested whether the radiation delivered had been enough to  permanently damage her salivary output.

Confidential Settlement – Negligently Designed Forklift and Failure to Warn of Rollover Risk

A 45-year-old driver for a concrete block and building material company was delivering block and rebar to a home construction site, using a portable all-terrain forklift. The forklift, which had a three-wheeled design, had an inadequate safety cage to protect the driver.

When the unit started to tip over on uneven ground, the driver panicked and attempted to jump free of the unit instead of staying inside the protective cage. The cage did not have any door or protection on the driver’s side, creating the illusion that a driver could jump out on that side. Unfortunately, the driver misestimated his ability to jump and ended up in the path of the top roll bar, which crushed his right leg.

He had permanent injuries to his knee and was unable to return to his work. His medical condition was complicated by the development of deep vein thrombosis at the site of the knee injury, which was so severe that it required permanent anticoagulation.

We were able to establish that the design of the driver protective cage was negligent, and the instructions and warnings given to drivers through the labeling on the unit were inadequate. The defendant concluded that a confidential settlement was warranted.

Do I Have a Case?

Talk to an experienced attorney today.

*Required Fields