Atlanta Injury Lawyers Blog

Published on: September 22, 2011

Ex-Marine Awarded $17.5 Million after Botched Dental Surgery

An ex-Marine, who was left severely injured after suffering a stroke that resulted from a botched dental surgery, has reportedly been awarded $17.5 million in damages caused by the alleged negligence.

The Marine, Christopher Ellison, had visited a Veterans Administration Medical Center for dental surgery in 2007. He needed to have at least eight teeth removed. While he was undergoing surgery for the removal of the teeth, his blood pressure began plummeting. However, the dentist did not stop the surgery as he should have.

After the surgery, when Ellison was driving back home, he suffered a stroke. He was driving alone, and was not in any position to rush to the hospital for emergency treatment. As a result of the dental malpractice, he suffered severe brain damage, and now needs twenty-four hour care.

Last week, a federal judge awarded him $17.5 million. According to Assistant U.S. Atty. Thomas Johnson, the verdict will be appealed.
Continue reading

Published on: September 17, 2011

Woman Claims Dental Malpractice Compensation after Wrong Extraction

by Robert J. Fleming

Most of the dental malpractice claims that I come across as an Atlanta dental malpractice attorney involve lingual nerve injuries or alveolar nerve injuries caused during dental procedures. However, there’s more than one way that a dentist can be reckless.

A woman in Somerset UK is suing her dentist for malpractice, after he extracted the wrong tooth. The story doesn’t end there. The dentist, who had discarded the extracted tooth into the garbage, then retrieved the tooth, and replanted it right back on to the patient.

According to the 44-year-old patient, her dentist erroneously extracted a perfectly healthy tooth instead of the rotting teeth. She realized it when she went home, and contacted the dentist. He called her back to his dental office for remedial measures, and proceeded to replant the extracted tooth. By this time, he had already discarded the healthy, extracted tooth into the waste-bin. Her tooth was retrieved from a waste-basket that had a lot of medical waste, including bloodied tissues, used needles and saliva wipes.

According to the toothpaste manufacturer, Colgate’s, web site:

When a tooth has been knocked out, the nerves, blood vessels and supporting tissues are damaged, too. The nerves and blood vessels can’t be repaired. That is why all avulsed teeth will need a root canal. However, the bone can reattach to the root of the tooth once it’s put back into place.

The odds of saving a tooth are highest in young children, but adult teeth can be saved as well. Only permanent teeth should be re-implanted.

It is important to get to the dentist as quickly as possible after a tooth has been knocked out. It is also important to avoid damaging the tooth even more.

Follow these suggestions to improve the chances of saving your tooth:

Handle the tooth carefully. Try not to touch the root (the part of the tooth that was under the gum). It can be damaged easily.
If the tooth is dirty, hold it by the upper part (the crown) and rinse it with milk. If you don’t have any milk, rinse it with water. Don’t wipe it off with a wash cloth, shirt or other fabric. This could damage the tooth.
Keep the tooth moist. Drop it into a glass of milk. If you can’t do this, place the tooth in your mouth, between the cheek and gum. A young child may not be able to safely “store” the tooth in his or her mouth without swallowing it. Instead, have the child spit into a cup. Place the tooth in the cup with the saliva. If nothing else is available, place the tooth in a cup of water. The most important thing is to keep the tooth moist.

Published on: August 30, 2011

Parent Launches Facebook Attack against Dentist

by Robert J. Fleming

It would have been much more effective to get in touch with an Atlanta dental malpractice lawyer, but the parent of a five-year-old child had other ideas. The father, created a Facebook page deriding his son’s dentist after a nightmarish treatment procedure, during which, he alleges, the dentist extracted a tooth without the proper use of anesthesia.

According to the Facebook page, the episode occurred last month at the clinic of a prominent dentist in the area. The Facebook poster/Dad alleges that the dentist didn’t wait for the child to be properly sedated before extracting the tooth. The child had a traumatic experience. He allegedly had to be held down by assistants, and vomited and urinated during the procedure, screaming the entire time.

What the father did next, which is what a lot of people these days do: vent on Facebook by creating a page and trashing the dentist. He immediately created a Facebook page called “I Hate Dr. ________ of ____________,” which quickly accumulated more than 400 members. Many of the members are concerned parents, who have used the Facebook post to vent about their own experiences with the concerned dentist.

According to some of the Facebook posts, the dentist has often mistreated child patients. Some of them spoke of him slapping and strapping children down to restrain them, and others spoke of a dentist who couldn’t be bothered to wait until a child was properly sedated before beginning a procedure.
Continue reading

Published on: August 30, 2011

Citizenship and Immigration Status Often Not Admissible in Georgia Trials

by Robert J. Fleming

With the recent changes in immigration law, many immigrants in Georgia are shying away from utilizing the court system for fear of being deported. This is unfortunate and unwarranted because Georgia law is clear: evidence concerning a party’s immigration status is irrelevant to the issues of negligence and damages in a lawsuit. This type of evidence is highly prejudicial and has no probative force as to the issues involved. E.g., Evans v. State 433 S.E.2d 426 (Ga. App. 1993).

The admission of this evidence at trial would improperly influence the jury and result in a jury decision based on bias and prejudice, rather than on the relevant facts of the case.

In Georgia state court, admissibility of this type of evidence is governed by O.C.G.A. § 24-2-1. Evidence that is irrelevant to the issues at trial is NOT admissible. Evidence is relevant if it has a logical relationship to the fact to be established. In a typical personal injury lawsuit, the citizenship and immigration status of the plaintiff simply have no relevance to the issues at hand (typically liability and damages) and are only sought to be introduced by the Defendant to bias the jury.

In federal court, references to citizenship and immigration status are governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 402, which excludes all evidence that is not relevant. Relevant evidence is evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. FRE 401.

Evidence related to a Plaintiff’s citizenship or immigration status is irrelevant and should be excluded by the trial judge in both federal and state courts in Georgia.

Not only are the issues of citizenship and immigration status inadmissible in Georgia trials, a recent federal court decision has held that this information is not discoverable during pre-trial discovery. Rodriguez v. Niagara Cleaning, No. 09-CV-22645, 2010 WL 2573974, at *3 (S.D. Fla. June 24, 2010). In the Rodriguez case, the Defendant attempted to discover pretrial information on the Plaintiff’s citizenship and immigration status. In denying Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to produce this information, the Rodriguez court correctly noted “courts that have examined this issue have nearly unanimously found that defendants typically are not entitled to information related to the immigration status of plaintiffs.”
Continue reading

Published on: August 26, 2011

Atlanta Patients Don’t Have Access to Essential Safety Information

by Robert J. Fleming

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (the “CDC”), about one in twenty patients who are hospitalized for treatment, will contract a hospital-acquired infection such as MRSA. In spite of those scary statistics, patients in Georgia still do not have access to the kind of information they need to make a safe choice while choosing a hospital.

Georgia’s laws do not require hospitals to share information about infections in their facilities. Hospitals are only required to notify Georgia’s public health officials about an outbreak of an infectious disease like tuberculosis, but are not required to report infections that occur in patients who have been admitted into the hospital for treatment.

Atlanta medical malpractice lawyers hope that will soon change. The Georgia Department of Public Health has kicked off a program aimed at preventing the kind of hospital-acquired infections that occur in Georgia’s hospitals daily. The hope is that at some point, the system will also allow a statistical record of infections. However, all that is in the future, and currently, patients in Georgia have no way of ascertaining the safety of the hospital they are considering. This is a shame, because we are seeing a large rise in the number of potential clients who have contracted MRSA and other infections due to hospital stays and the resulting negligence of the hospital.
Continue reading

Published on: August 22, 2011

Atlanta Medical Malpractice Attorney Discusses Recent Study

by Robert J. Fleming

A study recently published by the New England Journal of Medicine found that 1 in 5 medical malpractice claims results in recoveries. Some of the findings of this study are not surprising, such as: 1 in about 15 doctors are sued each year; that lawsuits on behalf of victims who are children result in higher recoveries; and that specialists are sued more often than general practitioners. On the one hand, these statistics do appear to be more favorable to the plaintiffs than other studies that were conducted prior to this study.

As a medical malpractice lawyer in Georgia, the study puzzles me because it fails to point out that only a fraction of the victims of medical malpractice file lawsuits or make a claim on the doctor’s insurance company. The reason for this is simple: the cost to pursue a medical malpractice claim (i.e., expert witness fees and trial preparation fees) is so high that only the cases with the most egregious facts that result in catastrophic injuries can be brought by attorneys.

While these statistics may be accurate, it should be noted that most medical malpractice cases with merit are resolved favorably–if in the hands of a competent lawyer. These types of studies should not dissuade those who have been seriously injured in Georgia due to medical negligence from having their case reviewed by a competent lawyer who specializes in medical malpractice.

Injured victims of medical malpractice should also be aware of the potential difficulties of finding a competent lawyer to take their case if the injuries from the malpractice are not catastrophic.

It’s estimated that hundreds of thousands of patients a year suffer some type of preventable injury or die while undergoing medical care. For many of these patients or surviving family, a lawsuit is the only hope to recover losses, learn the truth about what happened, and ensure the problem is corrected.

A 2013 Emory University School of Law study found that 95 percent of patients who seek an attorney for harm suffered during medical treatment will be shut out of the legal system, primarily for economic reasons. Most attorneys would not accept a case—even one they might win—if the damages likely were less than $250,000. Due to the high “cost of entry” in the form of expert review fees, and other expenses that must be incurred to investigate every medical malpractice case, this is not surprising.

More than 450 attorneys were surveyed for the Emory study, “Uncovering the Silent Victims of the American Medical Liability System,” which found that three out of four medical malpractice attorneys reject more than 90 percent of the cases they screen.

The reason: Lawyers may have to invest $50,000 or much more in order to pursue a case, and they usually only get paid if they win or settle. The payout is determined largely by economic damages—lost earnings, medical bills, and future costs caused by the injury. Those who don’t earn big paychecks—including children, the elderly, and stay-at-home-moms—are the least likely to find an attorney, studies show. The inability to find a lawyer is a common refrain.

Published on: August 20, 2011

Malpractice Lawsuit Claims Dentist Watched Soap Opera During Treatment

by Robert J. Fleming

A woman in Cook County, Illinois has filed a lawsuit against her dentist, claiming that he severely injured her lip during a procedure. That fact by itself would not have intrigued any Atlanta dental malpractice lawyer. However, according to the lawsuit, the dentist had been watching TV while he was performing the procedure. I have been a patient and a patient advocate for many clients who have been injured by dental malpractice. Some of the injuries resulting from dental malpractice that I have worked on include broken jaws, dental nerve damage, sinus perforations, blindness, and many other injuries and conditions caused by dental malpractice. It is hard to see, from my perspective, how a dental malpractice lawsuit can be justified for a bloody lip. However, I do not know all the facts and do not even begin to try to make the determination of whether that case has merit. I do know the great pains and the amount of expense involved in having a dental malpractice reviewed by an expert and filing the lawsuit–and it is quite substantial.

According to the woman, the incident occurred on July 30, 2009, when she visited the dentist for a procedure. While the dentist was performing the procedure, he and a dental assistant watched a soap opera on a television set in the room. While he was distracted, the dental instrument burned a hole in her lip.

The hole quickly began to bleed. There was severe bruising, and the wound began to ooze liquid. When the effects of the dental anesthesia wore off, the plaintiff also began to suffer excruciating pain. When she informed the dentist about her pain, he simply prescribed an oral treatment to treat mouth sores.
Continue reading

Published on: August 15, 2011

Dog Owner and County Liable to Victim in Pit Bull Attack

by Robert J. Fleming

Sue Gorman was in her home when a neighbor’s pit bill entered through an open patio door and started attacking Ms. Gorman’s two Jack Russell terriers. When Ms. Gorman tried to pull the pit bull off her dogs, the pit bull attacked Ms. Gorman, who suffered multiple bites to her face and arms. Although it took four years for her case to come to trial, Ms. Gorman finally got her day in court–and was awarded $2.2M. As has been said many times, the wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind fairly!

The jury assigned almost half of the legal blame to the County because animal control officials took no action against the owners of the dog, despite the pit bull being the source of more than a dozen complaints from neighbors.

Most local ordinances provide that an animal shall be properly restrained when in public and the violation of one of these “leash laws” is usually enough to establish negligence against the owners of a dog which attacks. This case was complicated by the fact that the County failed to act and issue proper citations when alerted of the prior animal code violations.

For instance, relevant portions of the City of Atlanta Leash and Pet laws are as follows:

Excerpts from the City of Atlanta Code of Ordinances

Sec. 110-70. Pets (a) No person shall walk any pet in any park except on a leash, unless the area of the park is explicitly designated as an off-leash dog area. (b) It shall be the responsibility of any person bringing a pet into a public park to clean up any matter excreted by the pet. (c) Leashed pets are not prohibited in public parks except in the following areas of any parks: (1) Amphitheater. (2) Swimming pools and pool areas. (3) Tennis courts. (4) Golf course. (5) Within 15 feet of all fences and structures. (6) Lakes. (7) Zoo. (d) Pets are prohibited in parks during permitted class A, class B, and class C outdoor festivals, as defined in section 138-187 and 138-205. Pets are permitted in parks during class D and class E outdoor festivals, as defined in section 138-187 and 138-205. Any prohibition on pets during any outdoor festival or special event, regardless of whether the outdoor festival is class A, B, C, D, or E, shall not apply to those animals that are part of a performance, exhibit, or other activity conducted as part of the special event or festival, or when those animals are confined to a specific area of the park designated for that purpose. (e) Subsections (c) and (d) of this section shall not apply to any guide dog especially trained for the purpose of accompanying a totally or partially blind person or a deaf person, or a service dog especially trained for the purpose of accompanying a physically disabled person, or a dog trained and licensed by and in the possession of the Atlanta Police Department or any other law enforcement agency, or a horse utilized by the city’s mounted police patrol. (f) Certain defined areas of select parks shall be designated as off-leash dog areas. These areas must be completely fenced with a double-gated entrance and exit system. For any area of a park designated as an off-leash dog area, the rules set forth below shall apply. All of the rules below shall be posted on a sign at each entrance to the off-leash area. In the event that the rules are not posted, users of the area shall still be held responsible for knowing and following the rules, and may be fined or otherwise penalized for failure to abide by such rules. These rules may be augmented by the commissioner or her/his designee should s/he determine that additional rules are needed. (1) All users of the off-leash area shall assume all risk and liability associated with such an area. (2) Owners are responsible for the action of their dogs. Each dog must be kept within sight of her/his owner and under voice control. (3) Dog owners have responsibility for watching their dog’s behavior. If a dog displays aggressive behavior or fights, the owner shall be responsible for immediately controlling or removing the dog from the off-leash area. (4) No more than three dogs per owner shall be allowed in the area at one time. (5) All dogs must wear a collar and ID tag. (6) All dogs must be properly licensed, healthy, and have current vaccinations. (7) No puppies under 16 weeks are allowed. (8) No dogs in heat are allowed. (9) No dogs are permitted to enter with pronged collars. (10) Any dog that barks continually must be removed or muzzled by her/his owner. (11) Owners must clean up after their dogs. (12) The off-leash areas have double gated entrances. Owners must close and latch both gates after entering or exiting the area. (13) No children under the age of 12 are allowed in the area without close adult supervision. (14) The only food of any kind allowed is bite-size dog treats. (15) Do not feed dogs without the owner’s permission. (16) Bicycling, skateboarding, rollerblading, jogging or strollers are not allowed. (17) Dogs are not permitted on benches. (18) The off-leash area may be closed in times of bad weather or for maintenance. (19) Serious problems resulting in injury must be reported immediately to the bureau of parks. (Code 1977, § 10-2015; Ord. No. 2003-112, § 7, 12-9-03; Ord. No. 2005-04, §§ 1, 2, 1-24-05) Cross references: Animals, ch. 18. State law references: Right to have guide dog in public place, O.C.G.A. § 30-4-1. Sec. 110-70.1. Dogs permitted in certain areas of Grant Park (a) For the safety of dogs and zoo animals, dogs shall only be permitted in certain areas of Grant Park, provided the pet is on a leash and controlled by a competent person. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to permit such person’s dog within the following areas of Grant Park:

(1) Twenty-one acres of the zoo area and buildings (2) Cyclorama building and area (3) Swimming pool and pool area (4) Tennis court area (5) Athletic field areas

(c) It shall be the responsibility of any person bringing a dog into Grant Park to clean up any matter excreted by such pet. Sec. 110-70.2. Dogs permitted in certain areas of Piedmont Park An off-leash pet area for dogs shall be established on a two and one-half acre parcel of specified parkland within Piedmont Park. Said area shall be operated, maintained and supervised with appropriate equipment, supplies, signage, and fencing by the Piedmont Park Conservancy, Inc., at no cost to the City of Atlanta. (Ord. No. 2002-25, § 1, 4-5-02; Ord. No. 2003-78, § 1, 6-24-03; Ord. No. 2005-04, § 3, 1-24-05) Sec. 110-70.4. Dogs permitted in certain areas of Frankie Allen Park (a) An off-leash pet area for dogs shall be established on a half-acre parcel of specified parkland within the Frankie Allen Park. Said area shall be operated, maintained and supervised with appropriate equipment, supplies, signage, and fencing by the David Forehand Memorial Organization, at no cost to the City of Atlanta.?(Ord. No. 2005-54, § 1, 9-12-05)

Sec. 110-70. Pets (a) No person shall walk any pet in any park except on a leash, unless the area of the park is explicitly designated as an off-leash dog area. (b) It shall be the responsibility of any person bringing a pet into a public park to clean up any matter excreted by the pet. (c) Leashed pets are not prohibited in public parks except in the following areas of any parks: (1) Amphitheater. (2) Swimming pools and pool areas. (3) Tennis courts. (4) Golf course. (5) Within 15 feet of all fences and structures. (6) Lakes. (7) Zoo. (d) Pets are prohibited in parks during permitted class A, class B, and class C outdoor festivals, as defined in section 138-187 and 138-205. Pets are permitted in parks during class D and class E outdoor festivals, as defined in section 138-187 and 138-205. Any prohibition on pets during any outdoor festival or special event, regardless of whether the outdoor festival is class A, B, C, D, or E, shall not apply to those animals that are part of a performance, exhibit, or other activity conducted as part of the special event or festival, or when those animals are confined to a specific area of the park designated for that purpose. (e) Subsections (c) and (d) of this section shall not apply to any guide dog especially trained for the purpose of accompanying a totally or partially blind person or a deaf person, or a service dog especially trained for the purpose of accompanying a physically disabled person, or a dog trained and licensed by and in the possession of the Atlanta Police Department or any other law enforcement agency, or a horse utilized by the city’s mounted police patrol. (f) Certain defined areas of select parks shall be designated as off-leash dog areas. These areas must be completely fenced with a double-gated entrance and exit system. For any area of a park designated as an off-leash dog area, the rules set forth below shall apply. All of the rules below shall be posted on a sign at each entrance to the off-leash area. In the event that the rules are not posted, users of the area shall still be held responsible for knowing and following the rules, and may be fined or otherwise penalized for failure to abide by such rules. These rules may be augmented by the commissioner or her/his designee should s/he determine that additional rules are needed. (1) All users of the off-leash area shall assume all risk and liability associated with such an area. (2) Owners are responsible for the action of their dogs. Each dog must be kept within sight of her/his owner and under voice control. ?(3) Dog owners have responsibility for watching their dog’s behavior. If a dog displays aggressive behavior or fights, the owner shall be responsible for immediately controlling or removing the dog from the off-leash area. (4) No more than three dogs per owner shall be allowed in the area at one time. (5) All dogs must wear a collar and ID tag. (6) All dogs must be properly licensed, healthy, and have current vaccinations. (7) No puppies under 16 weeks are allowed. (8) No dogs in heat are allowed. (9) No dogs are permitted to enter with pronged collars. (10) Any dog that barks continually must be removed or muzzled by her/his owner. (11) Owners must clean up after their dogs. (12) The off-leash areas have double gated entrances. Owners must close and latch both gates after entering or exiting the area. (13) No children under the age of 12 are allowed in the area without close adult supervision. (14) The only food of any kind allowed is bite-size dog treats. (15) Do not feed dogs without the owner’s permission. (16) Bicycling, skateboarding, rollerblading, jogging or strollers are not allowed. (17) Dogs are not permitted on benches. (18) The off-leash area may be closed in times of bad weather or for maintenance. (19) Serious problems resulting in injury must be reported immediately to the bureau of parks. (Code 1977, § 10-2015; Ord. No. 2003-112, § 7, 12-9-03; Ord. No. 2005-04, §§ 1, 2, 1-24-05) Cross references: Animals, ch. 18. State law references: Right to have guide dog in public place, O.C.G.A. § 30-4-1. Sec. 110-70.1. Dogs permitted in certain areas of Grant Park (a) For the safety of dogs and zoo animals, dogs shall only be permitted in certain areas of Grant Park, provided the pet is on a leash and controlled by a competent person. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to permit such person’s dog within the following areas of Grant Park:

(1) Twenty-one acres of the zoo area and buildings (2) Cyclorama building and area (3) Swimming pool and pool area (4) Tennis court area (5) Athletic field areas

(c) It shall be the responsibility of any person bringing a dog into Grant Park to clean up any matter excreted by such pet.Sec. 110-70.2. Dogs permitted in certain areas of Piedmont Park An off-leash pet area for dogs shall be established on a two and one-half acre parcel of specified parkland within Piedmont Park. Said area shall be operated, maintained and supervised with appropriate equipment, supplies, signage, and fencing by the Piedmont Park Conservancy, Inc., at no cost to the City of Atlanta. (Ord. No. 2002-25, § 1, 4-5-02; Ord. No. 2003-78, § 1, 6-24-03; Ord. No. 2005-04, § 3, 1-24-05) Sec. 110-70.4. Dogs permitted in certain areas of Frankie Allen Park (a) An off-leash pet area for dogs shall be established on a half-acre parcel of specified parkland within the Frankie Allen Park. Said area shall be operated, maintained and supervised with appropriate equipment, supplies, signage, and fencing by the David Forehand Memorial Organization, at no cost to the City of Atlanta.(Ord. No. 2005-54, § 1, 9-12-05)

Sec. 110-70. Pets (a) No person shall walk any pet in any park except on a leash, unless the area of the park is explicitly designated as an off-leash dog area. (b) It shall be the responsibility of any person bringing a pet into a public park to clean up any matter excreted by the pet. (c) Leashed pets are not prohibited in public parks except in the following areas of any parks: (1) Amphitheater. (2) Swimming pools and pool areas. (3) Tennis courts. (4) Golf course. (5) Within 15 feet of all fences and structures. (6) Lakes. (7) Zoo. (d) Pets are prohibited in parks during permitted class A, class B, and class C outdoor festivals, as defined in section 138-187 and 138-205. Pets are permitted in parks during class D and class E outdoor festivals, as defined in section 138-187 and 138-205. Any prohibition on pets during any outdoor festival or special event, regardless of whether the outdoor festival is class A, B, C, D, or E, shall not apply to those animals that are part of a performance, exhibit, or other activity conducted as part of the special event or festival, or when those animals are confined to a specific area of the park designated for that purpose. (e) Subsections (c) and (d) of this section shall not apply to any guide dog especially trained for the purpose of accompanying a totally or partially blind person or a deaf person, or a service dog especially trained for the purpose of accompanying a physically disabled person, or a dog trained and licensed by and in the possession of the Atlanta Police Department or any other law enforcement agency, or a horse utilized by the city’s mounted police patrol. (f) Certain defined areas of select parks shall be designated as off-leash dog areas. These areas must be completely fenced with a double-gated entrance and exit system. For any area of a park designated as an off-leash dog area, the rules set forth below shall apply. All of the rules below shall be posted on a sign at each entrance to the off-leash area. In the event that the rules are not posted, users of the area shall still be held responsible for knowing and following the rules, and may be fined or otherwise penalized for failure to abide by such rules. These rules may be augmented by the commissioner or her/his designee should s/he determine that additional rules are needed. (1) All users of the off-leash area shall assume all risk and liability associated with such an area. (2) Owners are responsible for the action of their dogs. Each dog must be kept within sight of her/his owner and under voice control. (3) Dog owners have responsibility for watching their dog’s behavior. If a dog displays aggressive behavior or fights, the owner shall be responsible for immediately controlling or removing the dog from the off-leash area. (4) No more than three dogs per owner shall be allowed in the area at one time. (5) All dogs must wear a collar and ID tag. (6) All dogs must be properly licensed, healthy, and have current vaccinations. (7) No puppies under 16 weeks are allowed. (8) No dogs in heat are allowed. (9) No dogs are permitted to enter with pronged collars. (10) Any dog that barks continually must be removed or muzzled by her/his owner. (11) Owners must clean up after their dogs. (12) The off-leash areas have double gated entrances. Owners must close and latch both gates after entering or exiting the area. (13) No children under the age of 12 are allowed in the area without close adult supervision. (14) The only food of any kind allowed is bite-size dog treats. (15) Do not feed dogs without the owner’s permission. (16) Bicycling, skateboarding, rollerblading, jogging or strollers are not allowed. (17) Dogs are not permitted on benches. (18) The off-leash area may be closed in times of bad weather or for maintenance. (19) Serious problems resulting in injury must be reported immediately to the bureau of parks. (Code 1977, § 10-2015; Ord. No. 2003-112, § 7, 12-9-03; Ord. No. 2005-04, §§ 1, 2, 1-24-05) Cross references: Animals, ch. 18. State law references: Right to have guide dog in public place, O.C.G.A. § 30-4-1. Sec. 110-70.1. Dogs permitted in certain areas of Grant Park (a) For the safety of dogs and zoo animals, dogs shall only be permitted in certain areas of Grant Park, provided the pet is on a leash and controlled by a competent person. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to permit such person’s dog within the following areas of Grant Park:

(1) Twenty-one acres of the zoo area and buildings (2) Cyclorama building and area (3) Swimming pool and pool area (4) Tennis court area (5) Athletic field areas

(c) It shall be the responsibility of any person bringing a dog into Grant Park to clean up any matter excreted by such pet.Sec. 110-70.2. Dogs permitted in certain areas of Piedmont Park An off-leash pet area for dogs shall be established on a two and one-half acre parcel of specified parkland within Piedmont Park. Said area shall be operated, maintained and supervised with appropriate equipment, supplies, signage, and fencing by the Piedmont Park Conservancy, Inc., at no cost to the City of Atlanta. (Ord. No. 2002-25, § 1, 4-5-02; Ord. No. 2003-78, § 1, 6-24-03; Ord. No. 2005-04, § 3, 1-24-05) Sec. 110-70.4. Dogs permitted in certain areas of Frankie Allen Park (a) An off-leash pet area for dogs shall be established on a half-acre parcel of specified parkland within the Frankie Allen Park. Said area shall be operated, maintained and supervised with appropriate equipment, supplies, signage, and fencing by the David Forehand Memorial Organization, at no cost to the City of Atlanta.?(Ord. No. 2005-54, § 1, 9-12-05)

Sec. 110-70. Pets

(a) No person shall walk any pet in any park except on a leash, unless the area of the park is explicitly designated as an off-leash dog area.
(b) It shall be the responsibility of any person bringing a pet into a public park to clean up any matter excreted by the pet.
(c) Leashed pets are not prohibited in public parks except in the following areas of any parks:
(1) Amphitheater.
(2) Swimming pools and pool areas.
(3) Tennis courts.
(4) Golf course.
(5) Within 15 feet of all fences and structures.
(6) Lakes.
(7) Zoo.
(d) Pets are prohibited in parks during permitted class A, class B, and class C outdoor festivals, as defined in section 138-187 and 138-205. Pets are permitted in parks during class D and class E outdoor festivals, as defined in section 138-187 and 138-205. Any prohibition on pets during any outdoor festival or special event, regardless of whether the outdoor festival is class A, B, C, D, or E, shall not apply to those animals that are part of a performance, exhibit, or other activity conducted as part of the special event or festival, or when those animals are confined to a specific area of the park designated for that purpose.
(e) Subsections (c) and (d) of this section shall not apply to any guide dog especially trained for the purpose of accompanying a totally or partially blind person or a deaf person, or a service dog especially trained for the purpose of accompanying a physically disabled person, or a dog trained and licensed by and in the possession of the Atlanta Police Department or any other law enforcement agency, or a horse utilized by the city’s mounted police patrol.
(f) Certain defined areas of select parks shall be designated as off-leash dog areas. These areas must be completely fenced with a double-gated entrance and exit system. For any area of a park designated as an off-leash dog area, the rules set forth below shall apply. All of the rules below shall be posted on a sign at each entrance to the off-leash area. In the event that the rules are not posted, users of the area shall still be held responsible for knowing and following the rules, and may be fined or otherwise penalized for failure to abide by such rules. These rules may be augmented by the commissioner or her/his designee should s/he determine that additional rules are needed.
(1) All users of the off-leash area shall assume all risk and liability associated with such an area.
(2) Owners are responsible for the action of their dogs. Each dog must be kept within sight of her/his owner and under voice control.
(3) Dog owners have responsibility for watching their dog’s behavior. If a dog displays aggressive behavior or fights, the owner shall be responsible for immediately controlling or removing the dog from the off-leash area.
(4) No more than three dogs per owner shall be allowed in the area at one time.
(5) All dogs must wear a collar and ID tag.
(6) All dogs must be properly licensed, healthy, and have current vaccinations.
(7) No puppies under 16 weeks are allowed.
(8) No dogs in heat are allowed.
(9) No dogs are permitted to enter with pronged collars.
(10) Any dog that barks continually must be removed or muzzled by her/his owner.
(11) Owners must clean up after their dogs.
(12) The off-leash areas have double gated entrances. Owners must close and latch both gates after entering or exiting the area.
(13) No children under the age of 12 are allowed in the area without close adult supervision.
(14) The only food of any kind allowed is bite-size dog treats.
(15) Do not feed dogs without the owner’s permission.
(16) Bicycling, skateboarding, rollerblading, jogging or strollers are not allowed.
(17) Dogs are not permitted on benches.
(18) The off-leash area may be closed in times of bad weather or for maintenance.
(19) Serious problems resulting in injury must be reported immediately to the bureau of parks.
(Code 1977, § 10-2015; Ord. No. 2003-112, § 7, 12-9-03; Ord. No. 2005-04, §§ 1, 2, 1-24-05)

Cross references: Animals, ch. 18.

State law references: Right to have guide dog in public place, O.C.G.A. § 30-4-1.

Sec. 110-70.1. Dogs permitted in certain areas of Grant Park

(a) For the safety of dogs and zoo animals, dogs shall only be permitted in certain areas of Grant Park, provided the pet is on a leash and controlled by a competent person.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to permit such person’s dog within the following areas of Grant Park:

(1) Twenty-one acres of the zoo area and buildings
(2) Cyclorama building and area
(3) Swimming pool and pool area
(4) Tennis court area
(5) Athletic field areas

(c) It shall be the responsibility of any person bringing a dog into Grant Park to clean up any matter excreted by such pet.

Sec. 110-70.2. Dogs permitted in certain areas of Piedmont Park

An off-leash pet area for dogs shall be established on a two and one-half acre parcel of specified parkland within Piedmont Park. Said area shall be operated, maintained and supervised with appropriate equipment, supplies, signage, and fencing by the Piedmont Park Conservancy, Inc., at no cost to the City of Atlanta.
(Ord. No. 2002-25, § 1, 4-5-02; Ord. No. 2003-78, § 1, 6-24-03; Ord. No. 2005-04, § 3, 1-24-05)

Sec. 110-70.4. Dogs permitted in certain areas of Frankie Allen Park

(a) An off-leash pet area for dogs shall be established on a half-acre parcel of specified parkland within the Frankie Allen Park. Said area shall be operated, maintained and supervised with appropriate equipment, supplies, signage, and fencing by the David Forehand Memorial Organization, at no cost to the City of Atlanta.
(Ord. No. 2005-54, § 1, 9-12-05)

Published on: August 9, 2011

“Feel Good Dentist” Paroled from Prison

by Robert J. Fleming

A dentist, who spent more than twenty-five years in prison after being convicted of the murder of three patients from improper use of anesthesia, has been paroled.

The case involving California dentist Tony Protopappas has interested Atlanta dental malpractice lawyers for a while now. Protopappas had a thriving dental practice in Costa Mesa. Everything was going great until 1980, when three patients including two women and a thirteen-year-old girl mysterously died after they had been administered anesthesia during dental treatment at his clinic.

In 1982, Protopappas was charged with three counts of second-degree murder. He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. He had been granted parole in 2008, but the parole was overturned by then Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The governor based his decision on the fact that Protopappas had informed mental health evaluators that his staff, and not him, had been responsible for the deaths of the patients.

Last week, Protopappas officially exited prison. He has lost his dental license, and will never be able to start a practice again. But his lawyers says that he hopes to find a job working at a dental lab.
Continue reading

Published on: July 31, 2011

Researchers Successfully Use Stem Cells To Treat Dental Pain

by Robert J. Fleming

As an Atlanta dental malpractice lawyer, I constantly monitor new developments in the field of dentistry and dental pain management. Chronic dental pain because of nerve or joint disorders can be debilitating for many patients. Researchers at Boston University School of Dental Medicine have now found that stem cell therapy can help substantially reduce such dental pain.

The researchers used mesenchymal stem cells derived from the bone marrow in order to treat dental pain in lab rats. In order to stimulate pain in the rats, the Boston University researchers used two types of techniques. They tied up the masticatory muscle tendon to deliver musculoskeletal pain, and tied up the facial nerve in order to deliver neuropathic pain. The stem cells were either injected into the area, or were administered via IV just like anesthesia.

The researchers found that in the rats that received the stem cell therapy, the pain subsided and did not return. However, in a control group of rats that did not receive the stem cell therapy, the pain continued for twenty-two weeks. According to the researchers, they did not find any side effects from the use of the stem cells.
Continue reading