Articles Posted in Uncategorized

The water contamination at Camp Lejeune has had far-reaching consequences, impacting the lives of thousands of service members and their families. If you believe you or your loved ones have been affected by this environmental hazard, it is essential to understand the process of making a claim for compensation or medical benefits. This comprehensive guide aims to walk you through the steps involved in pursuing a claim for water contamination at Camp Lejeune.

  1. Understand the History of Camp Lejeune Water Contamination:

Before initiating a claim, it is crucial to familiarize yourself with the history of the Camp Lejeune water contamination. From the 1950s to the 1980s, the base’s drinking water was contaminated with harmful chemicals, leading to severe health issues for those exposed. The toxic substances included volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and perchloroethylene (PCE) from leaking underground storage tanks and industrial waste disposal practices.

Camp Lejeune, a United States Marine Corps base located in North Carolina, has been the subject of considerable controversy and concern regarding environmental hazards and their impact on the health of military personnel and their families. From the 1950s to the 1980s, numerous water sources at the base were contaminated with toxic substances, leading to severe health issues for thousands of service members and their dependents. In this article, we will delve into the history of the Camp Lejeune water contamination, the resulting health effects, and the efforts to seek justice through Camp Lejeune claims.

  1. Background on Camp Lejeune and Water Contamination:

Camp Lejeune was established in 1941 and has served as a vital training facility for the United States Marine Corps. Unfortunately, it became a site of environmental disaster when the drinking water was contaminated with harmful chemicals such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and perchloroethylene (PCE) from leaking underground storage tanks and industrial waste disposal practices. Investigations later revealed that the contamination persisted for decades, exposing thousands of Marines, Navy personnel, and their families to toxic substances.


An image depicting a young adult student aiming a handgun at the camera and standing in front of a concrete wall, dark dramatic lighting spotlighting the weapon. His face is obscured by a hooded sweatshirt. Representing gun violence, gun control, and school shootings or universities, etc. Horizontal with copy space.

A claim of this type would require meticulously gathering of all relevant details about the incident, including witness statements, police reports, past crime data and any available video evidence. Then, I would examine the circumstances leading up to the shooting, the security measures in place, and any negligence or failure on the part of the property owner.

  1. Establishing Liability: To build a strong case, it would be crucial to determine who is legally responsible for the wrongful death. This could involve assessing the property owner’s duty of care to maintain a safe environment, any breaches of that duty, and whether they could have reasonably prevented the shooting. It is also important to determine if the premises was owned by individual(s) or a corporate entity.

Atlanta from North Avenue bridge

Premises liability is an area of law that holds property owners responsible for injuries that occur on their premises. In Georgia, premises liability cases can encompass a wide range of incidents, including instances of sexual assault or rape that occur on someone else’s property. As a Georgia lawyer specializing in personal injury law, I would like to examine the legal aspects and considerations surrounding premises liability in a rape claim in Georgia.

Understanding Premises Liability in Georgia:

Under Georgia law, property owners owe a duty of care to individuals who lawfully enter their premises. This duty requires property owners to maintain reasonably safe conditions, warn visitors of any known dangers, and take appropriate steps to rectify any hazards that could foreseeably cause harm. When these duties are breached, and a visitor sustains injuries, the property owner may be held liable for damages.

hammer-to-fall-1223606-300x199As a Georgia medical malpractice and wrongful death attorney, I understand the importance of gathering strong evidence to support a claim. Building a solid case requires comprehensive documentation and proof that negligence or wrongful actions led to harm or injury. Here are some important pieces of evidence that you should consider for your claim:

  1. Medical Records: Obtain and review all relevant medical records, including hospital charts, doctor’s notes, test results, and treatment plans. These records provide crucial information about the standard of care provided and any deviations from it
  2. Expert Opinions: Consult with qualified medical experts who can review the case and provide their professional opinion on the standard of care. Their expert testimony can help establish whether the healthcare provider’s actions or omissions fell below the accepted standard and directly caused the injury.

Attributed to Channel 2 News

A horrible news story came out today in Atlanta regarding a 5-month-old baby girl, Paige Bradley, who was killed in Forest Park, Georgia, by a German Shepherd dog. The back-story is that the dog had been around the baby for the baby’s entire short life.

The mother allowed the baby to go to a different home where a dog lived, ate, and slept. The male babysitter (and roommate to the mother) was asleep in a different room in the home at the time of the dog attack – the story does not indicate any details of barking, growling, noise or similar conduct at the time of the attack. The mother came to pick up the baby later that evening and noticed that the baby was not responsive – specific details of the particular attack were missing from the report.

I field a good number of calls every year from concerned parents regarding injuries to their children at school.  The injuries usually occur on the playground or from other students (bullies) in the classroom.  The parents are upset as they claim that the injuries could have been prevented by proper supervision by the teachers and/or administrators. Typically, I tell the parent that it is quite difficult to pin liability on the teacher and the school for these harms.  A recent court case on this very issue was published today by the Georgia Supreme Court and is instructive for future student injuries at school.

In Barnett v. Caldwell, S17G0641, a high school student, Antoine Williams, was engaging in horseplay with another student at Benjamin E. Mays High School, a school in Southwest Atlanta.  The attending teacher, Phyllis Caldwell, left her classroom unattended around 2:45 p.m., and asked another teacher to “listen out” for her class.  Ms. Caldwell did not instruct the hall monitor to watch her class.

Antoine and another student were horsing around and Antoine fell to the ground with the other student on top of him.  The incident caused Antoine to lacerate a major blood vessel by a dislocated collarbone.  EMT took Antoine to the hospital where he was pronounced dead.

The “Textalyzer” is a device that allows law enforcement officials to review an individual’s cell phone usage using a machine that was developed by forensic technology maker Cellebrite. When the Textalyzer is connected to a target’s cell phone, it reveals if and when a phone was active and lists the apps that were being viewed or used and the times at which the phone was active. The Textalyzer has not yet been deployed for use by law enforcement personnel, but proponents and opponents have raised justifiable concerns regarding how the technology will be used to reduce texting and driving while balancing Fourth Amendment privacy concerns.

The name Textalyzer is so-named because of the device’s similarity to the breathalyzer device as both are a means of subsequently collecting data following an accident or traffic stop. Thus, defense attorneys have raised concerns about the implications on regulating the effects of refusing to consent to a Textalyzer analysis. If an individual is pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving, he may refuse consent to a breathalyzer, but withholding consent will result in an automatic one-year suspension of the driver’s driving privileges. So, if a similar requirement is imposed upon individuals stopped on a suspicion of texting and driving, individuals may be forced to choose between relinquishing control of their cell phone over to law enforcement officials or lose driving privileges for a year. However, proponents of the Textalyzer argue that the design of the technology itself prevents the infringement of citizens’ Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The device only reveals if the phone was being used and how it was being used. It does not display the content of a text message or email. But, while the device in its current state does not appear to have the capability or option of displaying the content of texts or emails, it is only a matter of time until prosecutors begin to ask for an expansion of the technology to afford them the opportunity to view the content of those messages as a means of solving more serious crimes.

Right now, because the Textalyzer is not in use, drivers can only be charged with texting and driving if they are caught “red-handed” in the act of texting while operating a motor vehicle. Thus, the deterrent effect of the statute in its current form is minimal, as the burden on law enforcement officials is great and the risk of enforcement as to each individual driver is low. The opponents of the Textalyzer technology admit that texting while driving is indeed a problem necessitating some action as an attempt to minimize the frequency of texting and driving. To be sure, texting and driving includes not only sending a text message while operating a motor vehicle, but also prohibits the use of a cell phone generally while operating a motor vehicle. Before enacting a statute authorizing the widespread implementation of the Textalyzer as a means of combatting texting and driving, legislators must weigh the importance of combatting the use of cell phones while individuals operate motor vehicles with privacy concerns and individuals’ Fourth Amendment rights.

(photo attributed to Wikipedia)

The Boston Scientific Corporation manufactured a transvaginal mesh prescription medical device that was designed to prevent the pelvic organs from falling through the vagina. The mesh sheet is made from a type of plastic and is implanted surgically into the patient. The plaintiff, Amal Eghnayem, had the sheet implanted in February of 2008 to treat her pelvic organ prolapse, but began to experience severe negative reactions in the following months. Amal experienced bleeding and pain during intercourse, incontinence and pelvic pain and pressure, and during an examination it was revealed that she had exposed mesh that was causing her severe symptoms. After an unsuccessful attempt to alleviate her pain, Amal visited a second doctor who found another mesh exposure and performed a second mesh-removal surgery. Following the second surgery, Amal’s pain subsided but by that time she had lost vaginal sensitivity. Amal subsequently filed suit seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on claims for negligent design defect, negligent failure to warn, strict-liability design defect and strict-liability failure to warn. Additionally, three other plaintiffs filed lawsuits and the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia consolidated the suits.

At trial, the jury found for each of the plaintiffs on all four claims and awarded more than six million dollars to each plaintiff. The Boston Scientific Corporation appealed from the judgment on two separate grounds. First, the Boston Scientific Corporation argued that the district court abused its discretion by consolidating the plaintiff’s four suits and trying them together.  Second, the Corporation argued that the district court abused its discretion by excluding all evidence relating to the Food and Drug administration’s clearance of the mesh for sale through the FDA’s “substantial equivalence” process. The trial court excluded the evidence under two different Federal Rules of Evidence. The first, Rule 402, provides that irrelevant evidence is not admissible, and the second, Rule 403, provides that relevant evidence may be excluded, “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or wasting time.”

Generally, a court must have proper jurisdiction over a case or controversy before that case may be heard in a given county or state. Proper jurisdiction requires that a court have both personal and subject matter jurisdiction over a case or controversy. As to personal jurisdiction, courts have recognized two categories: general and specific. Proper general jurisdiction depends on the nature of the party to the suit and that party’s geographic location, as general jurisdiction over an individual rests only in a defendant’s domiciled state or county, and general jurisdiction over a corporation rests in a place “in which the corporation is fairly regarded as home.” Conversely, specific jurisdiction requires the suit to “arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.” The primary concern of an appellate court in assessing a grant of jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is the burden on the defendant and the accompanying Due Process Clause concerns where a defendant is forced to submit to the “coercive power of a State that may have little legitimate interest in the claims in question.”

This case, which arose from allegations that Plavix had damaged the plaintiffs’ health, was heard by the California Court of Appeals where the Court found that California courts lacked general jurisdiction, but had specific jurisdiction over the claims brought by the nonresident plaintiffs. The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling based on a “sliding scale approach” to specific jurisdiction. The California Supreme Court’s “sliding scale approach” conclusion was based on Bristol Myers Squibb’s “wide ranging contacts” with the State because the nonresident’s claims were similar enough with California resident’s claims and because Bristol Myers was engaged in other activities in the State. However, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected California’s “sliding scale approach” as it was unable to square the “loose and spurious form of general jurisdiction” with the U.S. Supreme Court’s existing precedents.

On June 19, 2017, Justice Alito, with whom seven other justices joined, delivered the opinion of the Court, requiring a narrow interpretation of specific jurisdiction. According to the holding in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, Et al., specific jurisdiction requires the existence of an “affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, an activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum state.” So, when no connection exists, specific jurisdiction is lacking regardless of the extent of a defendant’s activities within the State unconnected to the nonresident plaintiffs. The holding further asserted that the mere fact that other plaintiffs were prescribed Plavix in California was insufficient to assert specific jurisdiction over the nonresidents’ claims.  Moreover, even the fact that Bristol Myers conducted research in California unrelated to Plavix was insufficient to support a grant of specific jurisdiction. Thus, a grant of specific jurisdiction must rest on a connection between the forum and the specific claim at issue. Attenuated links or connections, without more, are insufficient to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements.

Contact Information