Mason Rountree
-
Content Count
784 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Mason Rountree
-
-
Johnny Atlanta:
The damages at issue in SB 3 are not punitive damages. Punitive damages are damages for intentional misconduct and are intended to punish the party who committed the wrong. BTW: punitive damages are already limited to $500,000.00, so if someone intentionally injures you, the most you could recover is $500,000.00.
As for quality of life damages a/k/a pain and suffering, which is the subject of SB 3, I don't believe the State should dictate what the value of someone's quality of life damages are. I trust the people of Paulding County to make that decision rather than the politicians in Atlanta.
Quality of life damages are actual damages, although they cannot be quantified like lost wages can. Quality of life damages compensate, as Arcaidy pointed in a previous post, for disfigurement, pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of consortium (love to and from others), etc. A child who can never walk again because of negligent medical treatment may be able to work again (ie no lost wages) with the possibility of limited future medical treatment (once your condition is stable, there expenses may be minimal). The real damage to a child is not being able to run, play soccer, walk through a park, go swimming, etc. According to the State Senate, this only worth $250,000.00 to a child (ie $10 per day). Would you accept $10.00 a day to never walk again because someone else negligently caused your injury? If not, then you should oppose SB 3.
-
jmd:
I'm not sure I understand your question. There are three basic types of damages an injured or deceased person may recover: damages for lost wages, damages for past and future medical expenses, and quality of life damages. There is no cap for lost wages or medical expenses under SB 3 (although a stay-at-home mom, the elderly/retired and children would have a very difficult time of showing lost wages, so effectively those damages are capped).
The issue in SB 3 (BTW: there are other parts to the bill unrelated to caps, some of which I support) is capping the quality of life damages. One way to look at these damages is how much money would you take to be a quadriplegic. Apparently, the State Senate believes the amount should be $250K. For a three year old child, that amounts to about $10.00 a day for such damages for their expected life (assuming a full life).
I hope that answers your question.
-
Arcaidy:
Thanks for your honesty. Can I suggest that the next time you take your son to the physician that you sign the following release relieving your physician of liability before he even treats you? If you want to voluntarily release your rights, then fine. I, for one, am unwilling to do so and don't want government to force me to do so.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERMANENT RELEASE OF MY CHILD'S RIGHTS
-READ CAREFULLY BEFORE SIGNING-
Dear Doctor________________________, (patient to fill-in doctor’s name)
My child,___________________, age_____, is in your medical office today.
(name)
You will perform the following medical procedure(s) on my child:
(check all that apply)
□ surgery
□ anesthesia
□ important medical exam
I am worried about the high cost of health care and have been told your malpractice insurance is too expensive for you to maintain your normal lifestyle and business profit.
Because of my concern for the profit margin of the medical profession and insurance industry, if you do any of the following:
(check all that apply)
□ break the rules all doctors should follow
□ kill my child by mistake or inattention
□ give the wrong medications resulting in injury or death
□ misdiagnose or mistreat a disease
□ accidentally burn my child over his/her body
□ mistakenly amputate an arm or a leg
I hereby give up my right and my child’s right to hold you responsible for my child’s injuries or death by agreeing to limit the compensation for my child’s lifetime of pain and suffering or death to only $250,000 of your insurance policy.
Example: My child is now 3 years old, so that would be about $3,300 a year for the rest of her life,
if she is rendered paralyzed by your mistake.
____________________________(Parent’s Signature) __________ (Date)
I now knowingly sign away my child's legal right to enforce competent medical care.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know there are folks out there that support the bill, like you; otherwise, it would not have been introduced. Glad you read the bill...most have not or fail to understand its impact on themselves and their children. Given your conservative tendancies, though, I am surprised about your willingness to allow the government to legislate the value of peoples' lives. I'm also surprised that, as a conservative, you would say it is OK to carve out a special exception from the laws for a special interest group...all in the name of "fairness". That's not the part of the Republican Party I signed up for.
-
Arcaidy:
SB 3 is crystal clear: if a child is rendered a quadriplegic because of the negligence of her physician, she can only recover $250,000.00 for the loss of her quality of life.
You are correct that if a physician and a medical facility are negligent, the most you could recover is $500,000. If there are three or more (say, 10) negligent parties, the most the child could ever recover would be $750,000.00. So now the child's quality of life as a quadriplegic is worth $20.00-$30.00 a day, according to this proposal.
You consider this fair? Do you have children???
BTW: I am a lawyer but I don't handle medical malpractice cases. I come from a medical family (father and brother are physicians and mother is a nurse). I have four children, though.
-
Today and this week, the Georgia Legislature is considering Senate Bill 3, which would significantly limit your child's rights to hold their physician legally responsible for negligent medical treatment if your child is seriously injured or killed. In effect, this Bill would force parents to sign a permanent release of their child's rights to hold their medical provider fully liable every time they went for a visit, surgery or treatment.
Would you sign a Permanent Release that gives up your child's right to hold their physician responsible for your child's injuries or death by agreeing to limit the compensation for your child's lifetime of pain and suffering or death to only $250,000.00 of the physician's insurance policy? (For example, if your 3-year old child is rendered paralyzed because of his/her physician's negligence, the State of Georgia proposes to limit the child's recovery to about $10.00 a day for the loss of their quality of life for the rest of their life.)
If you would not voluntarily sign such a release, then why should the State of Georgia force you to sign it? This is not a Republican family value, nor does it reduce the role of government in our lives.
Please contact your legislator immediately and tell them to VOTE NO to Senate Bill 3, VOTE NO to engrossment of Senate Bill 3 (scheduled for a vote today), and vote no to any other similar bill which limits your child's rights of recovery. The Paulding legislators' names/numbers are listed below.
Sen. Bill Hamrick - 404/656-0036
Sen. Bill Heath - 404/463-1361
Rep. Glenn Richardson - 404/656-5020
Rep. Howard Maxwell - 404/656-3904
-
Thank you for your suggestions. I'll avoid Whiteburg and call the others.
Lady Raider: I'm not sure which I need (bored or drilled) and, frankly, don't know the difference. Do you have a suggestion? I know our property is very wet, so I hope we don't have to go far. I'm on city water now, but I want a well for the barn/horses/yard. It also would be nice as a back up or supplement. My bill yesterday was $175.00 for one month!?!
-
Does anyone have a recommendation for a local business which installs water wells?
Thanks.
-
DieHard and ray98:
I would disagree with you somewhat. Under Georgia law, an officer cannot perform a pat-down search unless there is an objective and reasonably articulable suspicion to warrant the intrusion. In other words, a pat-down search based solely on a suspect's nervousness and long hair seems highly questionable. Moreover, an officer cannot pat down every suspect. The officer must reasonably believe his safety is threatened. Finally, requesting to search a vehicle, even if the owner consented to it, is not always proper. Just because a person, who is not a threat to the officer's safety, runs a stop sign does not mean that an officer can seek his consent to search a vehicle.
In State v. Hanson, 243 Ga. App. 532 (2000), the Georgia Court of Appeals held that a police officer cannot search an automobile even with the driver's permission if the reason for the search was not related in scope to the circumstances which justified the traffic stop.
And in State v. Banks, 223 Ga. App. 838 (1996), the Georgia Court of Appeals held that "even a particularized and objective basis for suspecting a person is engaged in criminal activity is not sufficient to authorize a pat-down of the suspect for weapons. [such a pat-down is only authorized] if the officer has a reasonable belief preparatory to an intended pat-down that the suspect is armed and presents a danger to the officer or others." (emphasis added)
In the Banks case, the Court ruled that a nervous black man in a known drug area with his hands in his pockets and who was suspected of loitering did not, in itself, justify a pat-down search for weapons. To make such a Terry stop valid, the officer must have specific and articulable facts which warrant the search, which was not present in this case.
*edited for clarity and to correct typo
-
Good post, CW. Acting nervous, under Georgia law, does not give an officer the right to conduct a pat-down search. Moreover, the officer may only conduct a pat-down if he feels that his safety is threatened. I wouldn't think that rolling through a stop sign should make him feel threatened, but, to a large extent, that is in the eyes of the officer. It cannot be a pretextual reason to conduct such a search, though.
As for the search of the vehicle, it is highly questionable even with consent of the driver. What was the purpose for the search? If the officer suspected a crime, based on probable cause, he could have obtained a search warrant. Conducting a warrantless seach after an arrest is permissible, but a minor traffic ticket does not give the officer carte blanch authority to search a vehicle. The officer was probably profiling the individuals based on drugs. To be fair, I have found in my practice that the officers are often correct in their profiling. The problem is, like here, where they are incorrect.
-
Thanks, Meandada and dancingranny. I was not going to dignify wolfgang and csmithy with a response, but...what the heck.
Frankly, I find their attempts to insult me amusingly weak. Just for the record, though, I was born and raised in Georgia and have had my law firm in Dallas since January 1999. My father was born and raised in Georgia, as was my grandfather. I've never been west of the Mississippi and the last time I was up North was for the inauguration of George Bush in 2000. I did go on my honeymoon in Tennessee, though, if that's what they mean. And I also rooted for the Red Sox in the World Series this year. Sorry to disappoint them.
-
Annie:
What type of appraiser and for what purpose?
-
I am pleased to announce that JLT Enterprises has withdrawn its application for a special use permit to allow a transfer station in the City of Dallas. I have confirmed the withdrawal with the City Manager, Ken Elsberry.
Because JLT has withdrawn its application, the application is off of the Planning Commission's agenda on December 2nd and the City Council's agenda on December 6th. As a result, your attendance at the meetings will not be necessary.
Thank you for your support, and please telephone me if you have any questions.
Mason Rountree
Rountree Law Firm
770/443-6060
-
Friends:
The latest update is that JLT has WITHDRAWN its application for the special use permit. I just spoke with the City Manager, Ken Elsberry, and he has confirmed the withdrawal. Accordingly, it will NOT be on the agenda for December 2nd or December 6th.
Thank you to all of you who helped with defeating the application. If you have any questions, please telephone me.
- Mason Rountree
Rountree Law Firm
770/443-6060
-
popspj:
Please PM me or call me at 770/443-6060 regarding help in opposing the Dump. The Dallas Planning Commission will consider the rezoning request this THURSDAY, DECEMBER 2nd at 7:00 PM in the City Hall of Dallas (located on the Square). The Commission will accept public input at that time. Your attendance at this meeting would be appreciated. You can also call Starla Magnicheri at 7780/874-0622 regarding how you can help.
FreeBird:
I agree that dumping our garbage somewhere is an issue that needs to be addressed, but with careful consideration of the effect on the surrounding area. The proposed rezoning in the City of Dallas is not the solution to the problem. It seems like you agree with that. Right now, my goal is to help defeat the Dump. If the proposal is defeated, we will have time to more carefully debate the long-term issue of garbage disposal.
-
Freebird:
The heart of the County is Dallas, where the Courthouse and County buildings are located. The City has made tremendous progress in the last several years with the street scape project on the Square, the renovated theater and marketing new business/industrial businesses. This Dump will be located about a mile from the Chamber of Commerce and several neighborhoods are located nearby.
Placing a Dump in the proposed location would negatively impact the progress achieved by the City and County in the last ten years or so. This issue will affect the future of City and County residents.
-
Craftygal:
The Dallas Planning Commission, which is comprised of five Dallas residents, is accepting public input on the application for the Dump on December 2nd at 7:00 pm at City Hall. You can voice your opinion at that time. After the meeting, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to approve or reject the application.
Then, on Monday, December 6th, the City Council will hold its monthly public meeting to vote on whether to accept or reject the Planning Commission's recommendation. Anyone can and hopefully will attend both meetings.
Thanks, RRR: I was responding at the same time you were and didn't realize your post had already gone through.
-
Melodie:
My curiousity with your place of residence seems self-explanatory, but if the Dump is not going to directly affect your home or business, like it would a significant number of people, I understand your apparent support for the Dump. Of course, your opinion is valued regardless. I was just curious about the circumstances.
As for the issue of garbage, I agree it needs attention. However, placing the problem in the heart of the County is not the solution, IMO. We need to look at more rural locations which will not negatively affect homeowners, industry and businesses like the proposed Dump.
-
The Tour of Homes for the City of Dallas is an additional event that helps promote our City. Ironically, it is scheduled on December 5th this year, which is one day before the City Council Meeting. Maybe next year we could add the proposed site of the Garbage Dump to the Tour of Homes.
-
Melodie:
Did you see Channel 16 in the last few days with Jeff Israel interviewing Mayor Austin about the future of the City? It was extremely informative and made me proud that Dallas is the place I call home.
-
Melodie:
How does rezoning property for a Garbage Dump for households fit within the vision of the City Council about the future of Dallas, which has been developing over the last ten years or so?
Do you live near the site of the proposed dump? How about the County dump? If not, where do you live? Is it in the City of Dallas?
-
The Garbage Dump is not about the Tibbets Family. This Family is a good family, many of whom are personal friends.
The issue is whether the City of Dallas should have a GARBAGE DUMP located close to neighboorhoods and local businesses, which include the KB Home Subdivision off of 278 and Bainbridge Subdivision off of Business 6.
The Garbage Dump is simply not conducive to all of the progress the City of Dallas has made in the last several years, including the revitalization project on the Square, the renovated Theater and the new Kroger Shopping Center.
Also, ask yourself one question: would you knowingly move your family within a mile or less of a new Garbage Dump? If not, then your help is needed to ensure that this Dump is not approved.
The reason the County Garbage Dump off of Ivey Gulledge Road is closing in the next 12-18 months is because it is not conducive to the residential development in that area.
-
My law firm has been retained by the owner of the Bowling Alley to assist with OPPOSING the application for a special use permit to allow a GARBAGE DUMP in the City of Dallas.
Currently, the property is zoned for industrial use, which does not allow the dumping of household garbage. It is currently permitted to allow the dumping of construction material (ie lumber, etc.) The applicant, JLT Enterprises, is seeking a special permit under subsection Q of the relevant City Ordinance, which would allow a GARBAGE DUMP, OFFAL (animal entrails) and even DEAD ANIMALS.
No matter how you spin it, it will be a GARBAGE DUMP for household garbage in the City of Dallas (not a landfill). In other words, garbage will be trucked to the GARBAGE DUMP and stored until later transferred to a landfill located outside of the County. It is similar to the County's Garbage Dump off of Ivey Gulledge Road.
Your support in opposing this application is critical. Please contact the City of Dallas (770/443-8110), county and state representatives (Glenn Richardson and Howard Maxwell) to voice your opposition. Also, please plan on attending the public meeting of the Dallas Planning Commission scheduled for December 2nd at 7:00 p.m., after which the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will then vote on the application at its monthly meeting on December 6th at 7:00 p.m.
Please telephone me (770/443-6060) or PM me in how you can help with defeating the GARBAGE DUMP in the City of Dallas.
-
Texan:
If I read your post correctly, then, you support an injured party's claim if it is legitimate but not one that is frivolous. I think we finally agree, as I could not agree more with you. I just don't think you can label every claim as frivolous and all attorneys who represent injured parties as greedy heathens.
-
Texan:
How do you know there were no medical expenses incurred or loss of wages if the person lost work? What if the person broke their neck and is paralyzed? Shouldn't that person have an avenue to recover compensation for the loss of their quality of life?
A criminal charge will not comepnsate a victim for those damages (although resittution for medical expenses may be ordered).
BTW: I have yet to meet a person who was severely injured who were "hoping and praying" to be in that position. I'll be happy to introduce you to some of my clients, once of which is a 2-year old girl who will never walk again, and see if you hold the same opinion.
Would you sign away your children's rights?
in Internet Cafe
Posted · Edited by Mason Rountree
Foxmeister:
Senate Bill 3 had nothing to do with McDonald's or frivolous lawsuits. It limits the amount of money a person can recover for legitimate claims from a physician's negligent medical treatment.
I support stronger tort reform legislation which penalizes attorneys and parties who bring frivolous lawsuits. I don't support the State forcing me, as a parent, to sign a permanent release of claims (similar to the one shown in one of my prior posts) if my children are seriously injured or killed because of a physician's negligence.