$47,000 Settlement for Neck & Back Injuries in Car Accident

by on May 17, 2013

We recently settled a case with MetLife Insurance for $47,000 for a man who hurt his neck and back in a car accident in Atlanta, Georgia.  Our client had a pre-existing condition – degeneration and arthritis of his neck and back – that was aggravated by the accident. This settlement is a good example of how personal injury law allows people to recover for pre-existing conditions that are aggravated or exacerbated by accidents.

Personal Injury Law & Pre-Existing Conditions

It is very common for people to develop degeneration and arthritis of their neck and back as they age.   The medical term for this is osteoarthritis.  This degeneration occurs when the spaces between the vertebrae of your spine narrow and bone spurs form on the vertebrae of your spine.  This can irritate and inflame your spine and the surrounding tissue.  Degenerative changes in the spine are part of the normal aging process and are not caused by accidents. It is also very common for people not to experience any problems from the degeneration and arthritis in their neck and back until they’re injured in an accident. However, these degenerative changes do make people more likely to suffer neck and back injuries and people typically take longer to recover from injuries.

In car wreck cases, insurance companies often argue that degenerative changes in the spine are a pre-existing condition and that they shouldn’t have to pay for any treatment for them.  While degenerative changes ARE a pre-existing condition, the real question is whether the accident aggravated the pre-existing condition, causing it to require medical treatment. If a person had degeneration and arthritis in their neck and back and the accident aggravates it, causing it to become painful and require treatment, personal injury law holds the person who caused the accident responsible for it.

Now let’s talk about our case.

The Accident

Mr. M was driving home on Georgia 400 and was stopped on an exit ramp waiting to turn onto Holcomb Bridge Road. All of a sudden a teenage driver who wasn’t paying attention plowed into the rear of his car:

P5170011

The Injuries

Mr. M initially didn’t think he was hurt in the accident and didn’t go to the hospital.  When he woke up the next day his neck and back were extremely sore and painful so he went to the emergency room, where doctors diagnosed him with strains and sprains of his neck and back.  They prescribed him pain medication and anti-inflammatories and told him to follow up if he didn’t get better.  Mr. continued to have neck and back pain and went back to the emergency room a week later.  He then saw an orthopedist, who again diagnosed him with strains and sprains of his neck and back and prescribed him six weeks of physical therapy.  When the physical therapy didn’t help, the doctor ordered MRIs of his cervical and lumbar spine.  The MRIs showed that Mr. M didn’t have any herniated discs or fractures but that he did have degenerative changes in his neck and back.  Mr. M’s doctor then sent him back to physical therapy and after several months of extensive treatment he finally recovered.

The Settlement

We knew the degeneration and arthritis in Mr. M’s back was going to be an issue in his case.  To deal with it, we got records from Mr M.’s primary care doctor for several years before the accident, which showed that he didn’t have any neck or back problems.  We sent these records along with Mr. M’s settlement demand to show that while Mr. M had degenerative changes in his neck and back, he was doing just fine and it wasn’t causing him any problems.  After several rounds of negotiations, we were able to settle his case for $47,000.

$6.5 Million Verdict in First Actos Bladder Cancer Trial

by on April 27, 2013

In the first of more than 3,000 Actos bladder cancer lawsuits to go trial, yesterday a jury returned a $6.5 million verdict against Takeda Pharmaceuticals in favor of a man who developed bladder cancer after being prescribed Actos for his diabetes.  The jury found that Takeda failed to adequately warn patients and doctors of the risks of Actos and that Actos was the cause of the man’s bladder cancer.  The jury awarded $5 million to the man and $1.5 million to his wife for loss of consortium.

The lawsuit was Cooper v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America Inc. and was filed in Los Angeles, California Superior Court.  Plaintiff Jack Cooper was prescribed Actos for his diabetes by his family physician and took it for over four years before developing bladder cancer in 2011.  The judge ordered that Cooper’s case be the first to go to trial after his doctors indicated that he is gravely ill and not likely to survive another year.  The trial began on February 19, 2013 and lasted nearly two months, with the jury deliberating for eight days before delivering its verdict.

During the trial, the jury heard evidence that Takeda knew of links between Actos and bladder cancer as early as 2004 but failed to disclose that risk to the FDA for seven years. The jury also saw internal emails from Takeda executives which showed that they were aware that Actos caused an increased risk of bladder cancer and yet chose to downplay those dangers to avoid hurting sales of Actos, which was Takeda’s most profitable product.  One executive wrote that “Actos is the most important product for Takeda and therefore we need to manage this issue very carefully and successfully not to cause any damage for this product globally.”

Takeda has issued a statement disagreeing with the jury’s verdict and continuing to deny that there is any link between Actos and bladder cancer.  Takeda also filed motions asking the judge to overturn the jury’s verdict and said that an appeal is likely if those motions are denied.

More than 3,000 lawsuits have been filed against Takeda by people who developed bladder cancer after taking Actos.  The lawsuits are pending in California, Illinois and in federal court in Louisiana, where more than 1,200 lawsuits have been consolidated into federal multidistrict litigation.

Our lawyers continue to review cases on behalf of people who developed bladder cancer after taking Actos.  We handle cases in Georgia and throughout the nation.  Call for a free consultation.

Granuflo Dialysis Lawsuits Consolidated into Multidistrict Litigation

by on April 21, 2013

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation recently ordered that lawsuits over dialysis drugs Granuflo and NaturaLyte should be consolidated into multidistrict litigation in federal court in Massachusetts.  The lawsuits, filed by dialysis patients and their families against the drugs’ manufacturer Fresenius, allege that Granuflo and NaturaLyte caused patients who received the drugs to suffer heart attacks and other cardiac injuries.

Multidistrict litigation is a procedure that allows the court system to handle hundreds or even thousands of similar cases in a quicker and more efficient manner.  Instead of having judges all across the country oversee each individual lawsuit, the cases are assigned to one federal judge.  The federal judge oversees the discovery and evidence gathering phase of the lawsuits, rules on motions filed by the parties and then sends the cases back to the court it was initially filed in for trial.

According to the Panel’s order, there are currently 130 federal lawsuits and over 70 lawsuits in Massachusetts state court against Fresenius.  The number of lawsuits filed in other state courts is currently unknown, but the total number of lawsuits is ultimately expected to number in the thousands.

Granuflo and Naturalyte are manufactured and distributed by Fresenius, which is the country’s largest operator of dialysis clinics and one of the largest manufacturers and distributers of dialysis products.  The FDA recalled Granuflo and NaturaLyte in March 2012 after a confidential internal Fresenius memo was leaked to the FDA.  The memo revealed that over 900 people had suffered heart attacks after receiving Granuflo and NaturaLyte and concluded that dialysis patients who received the drugs were six to eight times more likely to suffer a heart attack or cardiac arrest.

Our attorneys continue to review cases on behalf of dialysis patients who suffered heart attacks, heart problems or strokes after receiving Granuflo or NaturaLyte.  Our firm represents clients in Georgia and throughout the country.  Contact us for a free consultation.

Soft Tissue Injury Cases in Georgia

by on April 13, 2013

We recently settled a case against Travelers Insurance for $50,000 for a man who suffered soft tissue injuries to his neck in a car accident in Atlanta, Georgia.  This case is a good example of how insurance companies defend cases involving soft tissue injuries and how it’s often necessary to file a lawsuit before an insurance company will make a fair settlement offer.

What Are Soft Tissue Injuries?

Soft tissue injuries are injuries to muscle, tendons and ligaments and are the most common type of injuries from car accidents.  Any sort of strain or sprain to your neck and back is classified as a soft tissue injury.

How Do Insurance Companies Defend Car Accidents Involving Soft Tissue Injuries?

Insurance companies don’t consider cases involving soft tissue injuries serious cases because they don’t involve broken bones or herniated discs.  Insurance companies take an aggressive stance in defending soft tissue injury cases.  They’ll offer to settle for slightly more than your medical bills and sometimes won’t even offer to pay all your medical bills.

Insurance companies typically do this for two reasons.

First, most people who are hurt in car accidents don’t want the hassle of dealing with the insurance company and are reluctant to hire an attorney to handle their case and will just accept whatever settlement the insurance company offers.  Insurance companies take advantage of this by making low settlement offers, knowing that most people will accept whatever amount is offered.  Insurance companies also know that the longer they’re able to delay the case, the more likely a person is to get tired of waiting and settle the case for less than it’s worth.

Second, insurance companies often view soft tissue injury cases as “guilty until proven innocent.”  Insurance companies believe that many people with soft tissue injuries are trying to “game the system” and get a settlement when they were only slightly injured or not hurt at all.  While there are certainly unscrupulous people and lawyers who do this, the vast majority of people who suffer soft tissue injuries have suffered a real injury that causes them to incur medical bills, miss time from work and endure weeks or months of pain while they’re recovering.  As a result, insurance companies will typically not make a fair settlement offer until a lawsuit is filed and they’ve had a chance to investigate your case and make sure it is legitimate.  By doing this, insurance companies unnecessarily delay resolving cases that should be settled quickly and easily.

Our Case

So what happened in our case?

Mr. R is a sales representative for a local company and also in the U.S. Army Reserve.  He was driving his car on Roswell Road and was going through an intersection. A car driving the opposite direction didn’t see Mr. R coming and tried to make a left turn, crashing into his car.  He had severe pain in his neck and upper back and was taken by ambulance to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with strains and sprains of his cervical spine.  His neck pain continued over the next several days and he saw an orthopedist, who again diagnosed him with strains and sprains of his neck caused by the accident.  He required several months of physical therapy and treatment that included cortisone shots into his neck and also missed several weeks of work.

We sent a settlement demand to Travelers, which initially offered less than the amount of Mr. R’s medical bills.  We then filed a lawsuit and proceeded to litigate the case.  After Travelers investigated the case and realized that Mr. W was a solid citizen who’d never been injured before, had suffered a real injury and wasn’t trying to “game the system,” Travelers increased its settlement offer to $50,000, which Mr. R decided to accept.

Filing Lawsuits To Get A Fair Settlement Offer

This is a fairly common pattern in soft tissue injury cases.  Before a lawsuit is filed, an insurance company makes a low settlement offer.  We advise our clients not to accept it and to proceed with filing a lawsuit.  After suit is filed and after the insurance company has had the opportunity to investigate the case and make sure it’s legitimate they typically make a fair settlement offer.

By treating every soft tissue case as “guilty until proven innocent,” insurance companies unnecessarily force people to file lawsuits in cases that should be settled quickly and without having to go to court.

$46,000 Settlement for Georgia Man Hurt in Tractor-Trailer Accident

by on March 28, 2013

Our attorneys recently settled a case for $46,000 for a Georgia man who suffered strains and sprains of his neck and back in a tractor-trailer accident in Cherokee County, Georgia.  The settlement was with Carolina Casualty Insurance Company, which insured the tractor-trailer company and driver.

Mr. W was driving on Knox Bridge Road early one morning and was stopped behind several cars due to construction work up ahead.  Two tractor-trailers approaching Mr. W’s truck from the rear were driving too fast and not paying attention.  The first tractor-trailer slammed on his brakes but the driver realized he wasn’t going to be able to avoid hitting Mr. W’s truck so he swerved into the lane to Mr. W’s left and avoided hitting Mr. W.  The second tractor-trailer driver also slammed on his brakes but wasn’t able to stop in time and crashed into the rear of Mr. W’s truck.  The force of the wreck pushed Mr. W’s truck into a car in front of him and caused that car to hit a motorcycle in front of it, throwing the driver off the motorcycle and breaking his leg.

The accident bent the frame of Mr. W’s truck and did over $7,600 worth of damage to it.  His insurance company ruled that it was totaled.  Here’s a picture of his truck after the wreck:

DSC00139

 

Mr. W immediately felt pain in his neck and back after the wreck and was so dizzy he could barely stand up.  He was taken by ambulance to a local hospital.  Doctors at the hospital took CT scans of his head, cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine to rule out any fractures and diagnosed him with acute sprains and strains of his cervical and lumbar spines.  The doctors instructed him to follow up with an orthopedic surgeon if he continued to experience pain.

Unfortunately, Mr. W continued to have neck and back pain and went to see an orthopedic surgeon, who also diagnosed him with strains and sprains of his cervical and lumbar spine and prescribed him physical therapy for six weeks.  After completing physical therapy, Mr. W was experiencing very little pain and his doctor discharged him with orders to follow up as needed.

Mr. W’s medical bills totaled more than $10,000.  We sent a settlement demand to the tractor-trailer’s insurance company outlining the facts of the wreck and Mr. W’s injuries.  After several rounds of negotiation, the insurance company offered $46,000, which Mr. W accepted.

$8.3 Million Verdict in First DePuy Hip Replacement Lawsuit

by on March 9, 2013

The jury in the first DePuy hip replacement lawsuit to go to trial returned a $8.3 million verdict in favor of a Montana man for injuries caused by his DePuy ASR XL hip replacement.

The jury found that DePuy defectively designed the all-metal hip replacement and that the defective design caused the man’s injuries.  The verdict was $338,136 for the man’s medical expenses and $8 million for his physical and mental pain and suffering.  However, the jury rejected the man’s claim that DePuy failed to warn of the risks associated with the hip replacements and decided not to award punitive damages to punish DePuy.

Some highlights of the evidence at trial:

  • An internal DePuy document estimated that nearly 40% of patients who received a hip replacement will need surgery to remove and replace it within five years;
  • Orthopedic surgeons who implanted the hip replacements told DePuy executives years before the recall that the design was flawed, that the hip replacements were failing at unusually high levels and that DePuy should stop selling them;
  • DePuy studied redesigning the hip replacements for three years but ultimately made no changes because of the cost of the redesign;
  • Months before the recall, DePuy’s president told orthopedic surgeons it was going to stop selling the hip replacements but did not tell the surgeons of the hip replacement’s high failure rate and the rising number of complaints about the replacements;
  • Months before the recall, DePuy sales representatives warned orthopedic surgeons of problems with the hip replacements and to stop using them.

This case was the first of more than 10,000 metal-on-metal hip replacement lawsuits against DePuy to go to trial and the verdict was a big step towards resolving these cases.  While it will likely take several more trials and verdicts like this for DePuy to decide to settle the lawsuits, this verdict shows DePuy that juries will find that these hip replacements never should have been on the market and and award large verdicts to compensate people for the pain and suffering they’ve endured.

Our attorneys continue to review cases of people who received the recalled DePuy hip replacements.  We represent people in Georgia and across the United States.  Call for a free consultation.

 

$64,775 Settlement for Woman Who Suffered Herniated Disc in Wreck

by on March 7, 2013

This week our Atlanta car accident attorneys settled a case for a Gwinnett County woman who suffered a herniated disc in her cervical spine when she was involved in a July 2011 car accident.  The settlement was for a total of $64,775, representing $50,000 from GEICO, the insurance company for the driver that caused the accident, and $14,775 from Liberty Mutual, our client’s uninsured motorist carrier.  Notably, the case was filed in Forsyth County, Georgia which is a conservative county not known for large jury verdicts or settlements.

Ms. J was driving on McEver Road in Gainesville, Georgia and was driving through its intersection with Browns Bridge Road.  A driver traveling the opposite direction didn’t see her coming and made a left turn in front of her, crashing into the front of her car.  Here’s what her car looked like after the accident:

2011-07-22_19-59-09_748

An ambulance took Ms. J to the emergency room where she was initially diagnosed with a strain and sprain of her neck and cervical spine.  She continued to experience neck and back pain and went to see an orthopedic surgeon, who ultimately diagnosed her with a cervical herniated disc at C6-7 caused by the wreck.  The herniated disc was causing spinal canal stenosis, which is where the herniated disc pushes into and compresses the spinal cord, resulting in severe neck pain that radiated down Ms. J’s arms.  After several months of treatment which included physical therapy and epidural injections in her cervical spine she thankfully made an excellent recovery.  Her medical bills were approximately $20,000.

The main challenge we faced in the case was that it was filed in Forsyth County.  Traditionally, Forsyth County is a very conservative county and juries there do not award large jury verdicts.  Insurance companies know this and their settlement offers in Forsyth County cases show it.  We expected a fight to get a fair settlement offer, and we got one.

Before filing suit, we sent GEICO a settlement demand for its $50,000 policy limits. GEICO rejected the demand and offered $35,000, citing the case being in Forsyth County as one of the reasons for rejecting the demand.  We then filed suit and began litigating the case.  After six months of litigation, GEICO finally agreed to pay its $50,000 policy limits.

We then sent a settlement demand to Liberty Mutual, Ms. J’s uninsured motorist carrier.  Liberty initially offered $2,000, then $5,000, then $12,000, all the while arguing that the case was in Forsyth County and that a jury was not going to award a large verdict in the case.

This week we had a pre-trial hearing in the case where the judge scheduled the case for trial and ruled, over Liberty’s objection, that we could present medical evidence that the wreck caused Ms. J’s herniated disc. After the hearing, Liberty made a final offer of $14,775, for a total settlement of $64,775.  We believed that this offer was getting close to the top range of jury verdicts that we could reasonably expect in the case and Ms. J decided to accept the offer.

Traffic Ticket Tolls Statute of Limitations In Georgia Car Wreck Cases

by on March 3, 2013

In Georgia, most personal injury lawsuits must be filed within two years of the accident.  This legal deadline is called the statute of limitations.  However, in car accident cases where the driver that caused the accident received a traffic ticket, the statute of limitations is “tolled,” meaning that it does not start running, until the ticket is resolved.  Our attorneys recently began working on a car accident case in Athens, Georgia that’s a good example of how this works.

The Accident

Mr. A was rear-ended in a car accident in Athens in December 2010.  He began having lower back pain and sciatica after the accident and was diagnosed with a herniated disc at L5-S1, which required discectomy surgery to remove the herniated disc.  Mr. A lives in North Carolina, which has a three year statute of limitations on personal injury cases.  He didn’t know that Georgia’s statute of limitations was only two years.  The driver that caused the wreck had insurance with Progressive. In January 2013, a little over two years after the accident, Mr. A reached out to Progressive about settling his case.  Progressive told him that statute of limitations on his case had expired and refused to discuss settlement with him.  That’s when Mr. A gave us a call.

Initially, it looked like Mr. A was out of luck as the statute of limitations had expired over a month ago.  However, the police had ticketed the other driver for following too closely.  We called the court to see what had happened with the other driver’s ticket.  We found out that the other driver never appeared for his court date, that an arrest warrant was issued for him for failure to appear and that his traffic ticket was still active.

Georgia Law Extends Deadline to File Suit Until Traffic Ticket Resolved

Georgia law O.C.G.A. § 9-3-99 states that “[t]he running of the period of limitations with respect to any cause of action in tort that may be brought by the victim of an alleged crime which arises out of the facts and circumstances relating to the commission of such alleged crime committed in this state shall be tolled from the date of the commission of the alleged crime or the act giving rise to such action in tort until the prosecution of such crime or act has become final or otherwise terminated, provided that such time does not exceed six years.”  In the Georgia Supreme Court case of Beneke v. Parker, the court held that this law applies to traffic tickets and that the statute of limitations on personal injury cases does not begin running until the prosecution of the traffic ticket “has become final or otherwise terminated.”

Because Other Driver Never Paid Ticket, Still Time To File Suit

Since the other driver had never appeared for his court date and his traffic ticket was still active, the statute of limitations on Mr. A’s case was tolled.  This means that even though Mr. A waited until after Georgia’s two year statute of limitations, he still has time to file a lawsuit.  In fact, since the other driver never appeared for his traffic ticket, the statute of limitations on Mr. A’s case hasn’t even started yet. Mr. A has two years from the date the other driver’s traffic ticket is resolved to file a lawsuit up to a total of six years after the accident.

While we don’t advise anyone to wait this long to contact a lawyer after being involved in a car accident, sometimes this Georgia law can provide extra time to pursue your claim.

Insurance Companies Refusing To Pay Medical Bills From Car Accidents

by on February 24, 2013

We’ve recently noticed a trend in Georgia car accident cases where insurance companies dispute the cost of a person’s medical bills and the need for diagnostic tests like MRIs and CT scans.  While there are certainly cases where insurance companies rightfully do so, we’re seeing this happen more and more often in cases where there’s no argument that the insurance company should pay the injured person’s medical bills.

Two cases our Atlanta car accident attorneys are working on are good examples of this.

Insurance Company Refuses To Pay Emergency Room Bill

In the first case, we represent a man was hurt in a car accident in Roswell, Georgia and taken by ambulance to the emergency room at North Fulton Hospital.  The man complained of neck and back pain and due to the severity of the accident the emergency room doctors ordered MRIs to determine the extent of his injuries.  He was kept overnight and discharged the next day.  His medical bills from the emergency room visit alone were over $10,000.

The driver that caused the wreck had insurance with Progressive.  When we sent a settlement demand to Progressive, it refused to pay the full amount of the hospital bill, instead offering about 80% of the bill.  Progressive provided no justification for its offer other than “the bill is too high.”  We’ve filed a lawsuit against the driver and unless Progressive changes its tune the case should go to trial sometime this year.

Insurance Company Refuses To Pay For MRI

In the second case, we represented a woman was rear-ended in a car accident in Duluth, Georgia.  She went to the emergency room, which treated her and instructed her to follow up with an orthopedic surgeon.  Due to numbness and tingling that the woman was having in her hands, the orthopedic surgeon ordered an MRI of her cervical spine to check for fractures and herniated discs, which thankfully came back negative (meaning no fractures or herniated discs).

The driver that caused the accident had insurance with Safeco.  When we sent a settlement demand to Safeco, it refused to pay for the MRI, arguing that because it was negative it was unnecessary and that the doctor should have tried other treatment methods before ordering an MRI.  We filed suit against the driver that caused the accident and went to trial, during which Safeco’s lawyer continued to argue that the MRI wasn’t necessary.  The court awarded the full cost of our client’s medical treatment, MRI included, plus pain and suffering.

What To Do When An Insurance Company Refuses To Pay For Medical Treatment And Medical Bills

When this happens, your choices are to accept the insurance company’s settlement offer or retain a personal injury attorney to handle the case for you.

When a lawyer gets involved, insurance companies will sometimes change their tune and offer to pay the full amount of your medical bills.  If they don’t, your only option is to file a lawsuit.  In cases like this, it’s important to remember that these arguments by the insurance company usually don’t work at trial.  Juries will typically award someone the cost of their medical bills when they’re obviously caused by the accident and will award someone the medical bill for a diagnostic test like an MRI or CT scan if a doctor thought it was necessary and ordered it.  Insurance companies know these tactics don’t work at trial and will often drop these defenses before the case goes to court.

Why Insurance Companies Refuse To Pay For Medical Treatment And Medical Bills

Why do insurance companies do this?  Because it makes them money.

Most people will decide it’s not worth the hassle of fighting the insurance company and getting a lawyer involved and will just give up and accept the insurance company’s settlement offer. Even some lawyers, particularly TV lawyers who don’t litigate and try cases, will decide they don’t want to fight the insurance company and will encourage their clients to accept the insurance company’s settlement offer.  Every time an insurance company is able to avoid paying the full cost of someone’s medical bills, it saves them money that should go to compensate the injured person.

It May Not Be Too Late To File DePuy Hip Replacement Lawsuits

by on February 18, 2013

Our law firm was recently contacted by several people who were injured by the recalled metal-on-metal DePuy hip replacements and wanted to know if it was too late to file a lawsuit against DePuy.  Depending on the facts of your case, there may still be time to do so.  Let’s take a look at how Georgia law and the law of other states applies in this situation.

Statute of Limitations For DePuy Hip Replacement Lawsuits

The first question is your state’s legal deadline to file a lawsuit, which is called the statute of limitations.

In Georgia, the statute of limitations for a personal injury case is two years.  That means if you were injured on January 1, 2010, you had until January 1, 2012 to file a lawsuit.  A chart of every state’s statute of limitations is here.

When Does the Statute of Limitations on DePuy Cases Begin Running

The next question is when does the statute of limitations start to run, meaning when does the clock start ticking on the deadline to file your case.

Typically, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date you were injured. If you’re hurt in a car accident or slip and fall, you obviously know right away that you were injured and the statute of limitations begins running immediately.

However, in DePuy hip replacement cases this can be a tricky question because the date of your injury is not so cut and dry.  Does the statute of limitations begin to run when you first began experiencing problems with the hip replacement?  Or did it begin to run when you had surgery to remove and replace the defective hip replacement?  What if you have one of the recalled hips and don’t currently any symptoms but your hip replacement fails six months from now?

Cases like these provide good arguments that the statute of limitations didn’t begin to run until you suffered an injury – the date you began having problems with the hip replacement or when you had it replaced.  After all, why should you know your hip replacement was defective until you began having problems with it?  Were you supposed to have it removed even though it seemed to be working perfectly fine?

Discovery Rule May Provide Extra Time to File DePuy Hip Replacement Lawsuits

Georgia and many other states have a law known as the “discovery rule.”  In Georgia, the discovery rule is that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until you knew or reasonably should have known that your injury was caused by someone else’s negligence. In DePuy cases, the discovery rule arguably tolls the statute of limitations until 1) you suffered an injury and 2) you learned that the problems with your hip replacement were caused by the hip replacement’s defective design.

DePuy recalled the hip replacements in August 2010.  While DePuy is arguing that the statute of limitations began to run then, meaning that people had until August 2012 to file lawsuits, the discovery rule provides a potential way around this defense.  If you didn’t begin experiencing problems with your hip replacement until after the recall or you had revision surgery to remove and replace the hip replacement after the recall, the statute of limitations arguably did not begin running until then due to the discovery rule.  If that’s the case, it may not be too late for you to make a claim against DePuy.

Free Consultation with DePuy Hip Replacement Lawyers

If you received one of the recalled DePuy hip replacements and have any questions about whether it’s too late to file a claim or lawsuit against DePuy, call our attorneys for a free consultation.  We are still reviewing cases of people who received the recalled hip replacements for potential lawsuits and represent people in Georgia and across the United States.

 

← Previous Entries