Some of the most difficult cases we handle as personal injury lawyers involve fatal workplace injuries, especially when they claim the life of someone who was just starting out in life. Regina Elsea, a young worker crushed to death by robotic machinery at the AJIN plant in Cusseta, Alabama, is one of these cases. It’s a highly tragic case because it would not have happened had her employer complied with basic workplace safety regulations to spare workers from injury and death. 

Poor Safety Practices Killed Regina Elsea

AJIN USA is a Korean manufacturer that supplies auto parts to Hyundai and Kia. It has production facilities in Cusseta, Alabama, South Korea, Vietnam, and China. In June 2016, Ms. Elsea and three of her AJIN coworkers were sent to the robotics station to clear a sensor and restart the plant’s assembly line after it had stopped, halting production. Ms. Elsea, and other workers, were inside the operations zone when the machine abruptly restarted and crushed her. She was transported to a local hospital and then flown to UAB Hospital in Birmingham, Alabama, where she died from her injuries. 

“Regina was just 20 years old when her life was cut short. Her wedding day was two weeks away when this senseless tragedy occurred,” said Beasley Allen lawyer Kendall Dunson, who represents Regina’s mother, Angel Ogle. 

“Government regulators fined AJIN $1.3 million for the safety violations, but Regina’s death represents the true cost of the company’s reckless disregard for safety,” Kendal said. “Her life was just getting started. Now there is a permanent, painful void among her family, friends, and community.”

Dozens of Willful Safety Violations 

U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) officials investigated the AJIN plant after Ms. Elsea’s death and found 51 safety violations. The agency said all but three of those violations were deemed willful, indicating a purposeful disregard or lack of concern for worker safety.

OSHA cited AJIN for “lockout” or “tagout” violations. When correctly followed, lockout/tagout procedures ensure machines are safely shut off so workers can clean, maintain, or repair them without the risk of a sudden intentional or unintentional start-up.

According to OSHA, AJIN supervisors in Alabama failed to enforce lockout/tagout procedures effectively. OSHA officials observed AJIN supervisors entering the machinery at least twice without following proper safety procedures. 

AJIN: A Severe Violator

OSHA also placed AJIN in its “Severe Violator Enforcement Program.” The program focuses on employers that endanger workers by repeatedly refusing to obey federal safety regulations. Under the program, OSHA puts more resources into overseeing the violator. The program also allows the agency to inspect any of the employer’s facilities if it believes the employer continues disregarding regulations. 

Safety issues among Hyundai and Kia’s U.S. suppliers have long been a concern for federal labor officials. Just months before Ms. Elsea’s fatal on-the-job incident, Dr. David Michaels, the then assistant secretary of labor for OSHA, met with Hyundai and Kia executives in South Korea to express concerns about the hazardous working conditions at their suppliers’ facilities. Dr. Michaels reported that OSHA found the automakers’ production targets were creating dangerous conditions at suppliers’ factories and endangering workers. 

Months later, after Ms. Elsea’s death, Dr. Michaels said that AJIN appeared to have “cut corners on safety” to reduce costs in meeting production targets set by Hyundai and Kia. 

AJIN Pleads Guilty to Criminal Charge

The U.S. Department of Labor also brought AJIN to court on criminal charges over this case, and the company ultimately pleaded guilty to intentionally causing Ms. Elsea’s death. In September 2020, an Alabama federal court ordered AJIN to pay a $500,000 criminal fine plus $1 million in restitution to Ms. Elsea’s family. 

“Workers like Ms. Elsea just want to put in a good day’s work and go home to their families at the end of the day. Every company has a legal obligation to ensure its workers get to do that,” Kendall said. “Unfortunately, companies like AJIN value profits more than the safety and well-being of their employees, and the results are devastating.”

Regina Elsea’s family and Beasley Allen hope this lawsuit will hold AJIN accountable. Maybe the company will finally take safety seriously, and perhaps these devastating incidents will become a thing of the past.

The post $1.3 Million OSHA Fine in Our Fatal On-the-Job Product Liability Case appeared first on Beasley Allen.

In the first eight months since the Camp Lejeune Justice Act was signed, attorneys have filed about 800 cases for service members, their families, and civilians who became ill after exposure to contaminated water at the military base camp in North Carolina. 

Toxic chemicals were in the drinking and bathing water at Camp Lejeune from 1953 to 1987, exposing those who lived or worked on the base to health risks, such as cancer, leukemia, Parkinson’s disease, birth defects, and fertility problems. The new Congressional Act allows those who suffered injuries from this exposure to file a claim for compensation within two years. 

Latest Developments

In a recent hearing before the U.S. House and Senate Veterans Affairs committees, various veteran organizations urged the committees to impose a cap on attorneys’ fees. The main opposition didn’t focus on whether a fee cap was appropriate. Many are in favor of working within a reasonable percentage. However, some argue that dropping the fee too low could discourage qualified attorneys from taking these cases, leaving veterans with less qualified representation. 

Beasley Allen has an entire team of lawyers and staff dedicated to investigating, filing, and establishing causation for claims by people or survivors of individuals who were exposed to the contaminated water at Camp Lejeune and were later diagnosed with certain health conditions. The team is co-led by Julia Merritt and Leslie LaMacchia, under the Toxic Torts practice group led by Rhon Jones. The timetable for filing claims for exposure to toxic water at Camp Lejeune is two years from signing the Act into law on Aug. 10, 2022. Contact a lawyer on the Toxic Torts team at Beasley Allen to help you with your Camp Lejeune claims.

In Harm’s Way

We promised to care for our service members and their loved ones and pay for that care in return for their service to us. Yet, Congress has historically turned its back on those affected by the toxic chemicals that tainted the water at Camp Lejeune. Records show that both military and the Environmental Protection Agency knew that dangerous chemicals were leaching into the water at the base camp as early as the 1970s. Several studies well into the 1980s confirmed these findings. 

Toxic agents seeped into the soil along the base camp at fuel depots, base junkyards, and at least one dry cleaner. The chemicals poisoned groundwater for over 34 years, beginning in 1953, and sickened millions. Over months, years, and decades, they suffered from multiple cancers, neurological disorders, miscarriages, and birth defects. Many died from their diagnoses. 

Those who became ill after exposure to the contaminated water were at the mercy of North Carolina’s statute of repose, which placed a strict 10-year time period for individuals to bring a lawsuit seeking compensation for their injuries until President Biden signed the Camp Lejeune Justice Act into law.

Long-Awaited Justice for Camp Lejeune Victims

Congressional Act, which went into effect on Aug. 10, 2022, allows anyone who lived or worked at the base for at least 30 days from Aug. 1, 1953, to Dec. 31, 1987, who suffered certain health problems to file a claim against the U.S. government. There is a strict two-year statute of limitations for administrative claims, so time runs out on filing a Camp Lejeune administrative claim on Aug. 10, 2024. 

The government handles the claims in a two-part process involving an administrative claim to the Department of the Navy followed by a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of North Carolina. Investigating and filing these claims takes time, so those seeking to file a claim should act quickly.   

Our nationally recognized attorneys represent Camp Lejeune victims throughout the country to get the compensation they deserve. Call us today to discuss your case. We have the resources to represent clients nationwide while never losing sight of the individual. Contact us today for a free, no-obligation case evaluation.

The post Camp Lejeune Litigation is Underway  appeared first on Beasley Allen.

Mesothelioma is a rare form of cancer that is caused by asbestos exposure. Plaintiffs seeking accountability and compensation for their mesothelioma diagnosis must show the court proof that a defendant is legally responsible – plaintiffs must prove liability. Most mesothelioma cases involve asbestos exposure in the 1960s, 70s or 80s, and the amount of time from asbestos exposure to preparing a case for trial adds another layer of complexity to these claims.

How do our mesothelioma lawyers prove that a defendant knew or should have known about their product’s health and safety risks to others?  

Testimony

Experts testify or explain to a jury what was generally known and identifiable in the medical, scientific, and corporate communities relative to asbestos over the years. Plaintiffs also need to prove that the specific defendant at trial knew or should have known its product was dangerous. The rules of civil procedure govern the judicial process for these claims and require corporate defendants to designate an individual who can speak on their behalf on noticed topics. This corporate representative deposition in mesothelioma cases normally covers topics related to liability and when and how the defendant learned about the hazards of asbestos and its products. 

A Recent Example

Beasley Allen mesothelioma lawyers collected documents during discovery in a recent case dating back to the early 1900s involving a particular defendant. These documents revealed the company’s knowledge about the dangers of dust in general and specifically asbestos dust in industrial settings. 

Armed with this information, our lawyers walked the corporate representative through the facts beginning with the earliest information in the early 1900s and ending with the most recent points in the 1980s. This systematic walk through the defendant company’s history established precisely what it knew and when regarding the dangers of its products containing asbestos. Building a case around this type of evidence is extremely time-consuming and requires significant planning, yet it was highly beneficial to our client. The defendant could not explain away or dismiss the evidence that clearly showed the defendant’s liability. We use this approach for all our clients seeking justice for their mesothelioma diagnosis. 

If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with mesothelioma and want to pursue legal action, Charlie Stern leads the firm’s Asbestos Litigation Team and can help you navigate a complex mesothelioma lawsuit. Contact us today for a free, no-obligation case evaluation.

The post Proving Asbestos Exposure and Liability in a Meso Case appeared first on Beasley Allen.

Mom alleges Forest Cove apartment complex owners and management failed to address dangers to residents and others despite knowledge of ongoing violent activity at the location. 

ATLANTA (April 18, 2023) – Beasley Allen attorneys filed a wrongful death lawsuit for Takezia Jackson, mom of Jamarkis Jackson, who was fatally shot last summer while residing at the Forest Cove apartment complex. Ms. Jackson is represented by Beasley Allen Atlanta attorneys Parker Miller and Houston Kessler, and Jacob Jackson and William Hagood, IV of Jackson Hagood Injury Lawyers in Atlanta. 

“It is hard to imagine worse conditions than those at this complex,” said Beasley Allen attorney Parker Miller. “How on earth was more action not taken by the complex in the years leading up to this shooting?”

The complex has come under enormous scrutiny, given the horrible living conditions and the unprecedented volume of violent crime that plagued the residents. Last year, Atlanta mayor Andre Dickens called Forest Cove a “worst-case scenario.” A municipal judge condemned the complex because of its unsanitary and unsafe conditions. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, since 2009, there have been 19 homicides at Forest Cove.

On July 18, 2022, Jamarkis Jackson was standing with others at the complex when armed individuals entered the property and began shooting throughout the complex’s common area. The assailants’ bullets struck numerous people, including Jamarkis, who sustained serious injuries. Jarmarkis suffered in the hospital during the following days before succumbing to the injuries caused by the gunshot. 

The lawsuit alleges that before the incident that claimed Jamarkis’ life, “the complex was poorly maintained and was a haven for dangerous conduct and/or violent activity like the type perpetrated on the deceased.” The defendant corporations that own Forest Cove did nothing to deter the attackers or their criminal activity. The corporate wrongdoing enabled the activity that led to Jamarkis’ death. The complaint further states, “numerous prior incidents involving gunshots, gunplay, violent threats with weapons, and disturbing acts of violence in the common areas,” resulting in serious injuries and death of the victims. 

The lawsuit is Takezia Jackson v. Millennia Housing Management, LLC, et. al., case number 23EV001962  was filed in the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia. 

The post Beasley Allen Files LawSuit After Teenager Fatally Shot at Georgia Apartments  appeared first on Beasley Allen.

A young mother and her unborn child were killed by stray bullets at her Georgia apartment complex after its owners and managers failed to address known, violent activity.

ATLANTA (April 11, 2023) – Beasley Allen and co-counsel secured a $26 million settlement in a deadly Georgia apartment complex shooting case that took the lives of a young mother and her unborn child. The victims were killed by stray bullets from a shooting involving other parties.

Beasley Allen Atlanta lawyers Parker Miller and Houston Kessler, along with Greg Stokes and Neil Kopitsky of Stokes & Kopitsky, and Natanya Brooks, Meredith Watts, and Morgyn Graber of Brooks Injury Law represented the victims’ family members.

“This was a hard-fought, tragic case that should have never happened,” said Beasley Allen attorney Parker Miller. “The defendant apartment complex had a history of violent crime and was warned consistently about the dangers. We absolutely were not settling this case unless the defendants did the right thing, which they ultimately did, but not before precious lives were lost and years of litigation ensued.”

The attorneys who represented the family members confirmed that the complex had violated many of its own policies and procedures regarding the management of the property on numerous occasions before the shooting event at issue. The complex also received many calls reporting multiple gunshot events.

One witness compared the complex to a war environment, explaining that he and his family had to duck under the kitchen table during dinner when gunshots would ring out. A former, retired police officer with experience responding to calls at the complex described the location as one of the worst in the area.

These and other witnesses’ testimony show that the complex’s owners and management were aware of its history of violence and should have followed its policies, or even hired a security guard, a courtesy officer, or installed a fence, but they did not take any measures to address the known violence.

“Unfortunately, this is what happens when little to no action is taken to address known violent activity,” said Natanya Brooks of Brooks Injury Law. “The defendants had every opportunity to do something to make a difference in this community, but they chose another path. The victim’s family was so brave throughout this entire process, given they had to bear this enormous loss while also fighting for justice at the same time. We are all so proud of them.”

Violence at apartment complexes throughout Georgia have gained attention because owners’ inaction allows the violence to continue. Many of the complexes are privately owned and operated but receive significant government funding. Ownership might be tempted to collect the funds and ignore the conditions of the complex, but that would be a mistake.

The post $26 Million Settlement Secured in Georgia Wrongful Death Shooting Case appeared first on Beasley Allen.

With the dismissal of Johnson & Johnson’s LTL bankruptcy petition by Chief Judge Michael Kaplan of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New Jersey, lawyers representing thousands of ovarian cancer and mesothelioma victims are seeking a swift return to trials in federal and state civil courts.

We are prepared to move forward in the MDL and resume the scheduling of bellwether trials with the court. The major evidentiary and procedural issues have been resolved, and the victims of J&J’s corporate negligence and greed have already been waiting too long. Hundreds have died during the past 18 months, and with the dismissal of J&J’s bankruptcy claims, any attempt at a further delay by J&J should be viewed as an outrage.

Leigh O’Dell, co-chair of the plaintiffs’ steering committee in the multidistrict litigation in New Jersey federal court

Multidistrict litigation is designed to conserve resources and foster consistent court rulings by consolidating similar legal claims into a single court with one federal judge. The MDL system has been shown to provide guidance to both plaintiffs and defendants in establishing liability in torts claims and reaching comprehensive settlements. Currently, more than 38,000 claims in the talc litigation have been centralized in the MDL. Overall, attorneys estimate that there are approximately 50,000 total claims.

It is tragic that in the name of fairness and efficiency J&J threw up the bankruptcy roadblock. Few could argue that, but for that failed strategy, we could have already established the parameters that make the MDL process work so well, and perhaps already gained consensus on a plan for resolving claims.

Michelle Parfitt, co-chair with Ms. O’Dell of the plaintiffs’ steering committee.

In addition, more than 1,500 talc-related lawsuits are consolidated in New Jersey state court.

Based on the evidence and the company’s self-imposed desire for resolution, we believe that J&J should be willing to accept responsibility and arrive at a fair model for compensating cancer victims for their medical bills and lost wages, at a minimum. A conservative estimate of the direct treatment costs and lost wages for an individual claimant in this litigation averages nearly $500,000, even without other complications. That should be considered the minimum compensation for victims as we move forward.

Ted Meadows, co-chair of the coordinated litigation in New Jersey state court

Unfortunately, to date, J&J has offered nothing but delay after delay, or schemes that seek a deep discount on justice. With the finding of bad faith in the ‘Texas Two-Step’ bankruptcy debacle, it is time for this company and its hundreds of billions in assets and revenue to take these claims seriously and join with us in seeking an equitable settlement.

Richard Golomb, co-chair with Mr. Meadows of the coordinated litigation in New Jersey state court

The post Leadership in Talc Litigation Ready to Resume Trials appeared first on Beasley Allen.

Middle District of Tennessee federal judge William L. Campbell, Jr. granted certification of a class of Nissan Rogue owners and lessees claiming the vehicles with an AEB (Automatic Emergency Braking) system experience sudden unintended brake activation when there are no hazardous objects in the vehicles’ path, placing the vehicles’ occupants at risk.  

Class certification is a pivotal step in a class action. Now that the court granted class certification, we look forward to continuing the case and believe our evidence will lead to meaningful relief for the car owners.

Beasley Allen attorney Dee Miles, interim co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs’ class

The judge certified, at least at this point, 10 states as a class, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas. A nationwide class remains an option.

The alleged sudden unintended brake activation (“SUBA”) defect is a problem with the sensor used in all class vehicles, the Continental ARS410. This sensor erroneously detects obstacles in the path of the class vehicles and triggers a programmed response that directs the vehicles to brake without driver input, causing accidents and other hazards. The class plaintiffs contend that Nissan was aware of this defect even before the vehicle was placed on the market and failed ever to offer a remedy or warning.

The class case will now move forward to a jury trial or a possible class resolution for the court to consider. The other co-lead firms along with Beasley Allen are Bailey Glasser, Stranch Law Firm, Bursor Fischer and DiCello Levitt.  

Beasley Allen lawyers and co-counsel filed a class action for consumers in 2019. Class members allege that Nissan knew or should have known about the problem but continued selling affected vehicles without telling customers about the problem. They say they would not have purchased it if they had known their vehicle had a dangerous defect.

The case is In Re Nissan North America, Inc. Litigation, case number 3:19-CV-00843, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

The post Federal Judge Grants Certification of Proposed Nissan Rogue Class appeared first on Beasley Allen.

Beasley Allen, Wagstaff & Cartmell, and Goza & Honnold lawyers filed lawsuits on behalf of three Alabama school districts against Meta (Facebook and Instagram), TikTok, YouTube and Snapchat over the youth mental health crisis caused by the social media companies. The Baldwin County, Montgomery Public and Tuscaloosa City School Districts’ lawsuits are filed in the California state court Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding (JCCP).

“The harm created by social media companies has strained already limited school resources as educators attempt to combat the widespread problems caused by social media addiction. These lawsuits make it clear to social media companies that they will face consequences for their conduct not only from the adolescents they harmed but also from the people and institutions supporting our youth.”

Beasley Allen attorney and JCCP co-lead counsel Joseph VanZandt

Beasley Allen attorney Davis Vaughn agreed:

“We must guide our youth through this mental health crisis. To do so, our schools need additional funding, personnel, training and more. Beasley Allen attorneys, along with our co-counsel at Wagstaff Cartmell and Goza & Honnold, seek to help these school districts get the resources they need from the companies that preyed upon our youth.”

The Alabama school districts are among the first to file these types of suits against social media companies. The complaints allege public nuisance and negligence claims under Alabama law. The three districts fall within the top 15 in Alabama based on student population, according to the U.S. Department of Education.

Last year, Beasley Allen began filing social media lawsuits nationwide on behalf of adolescents harmed by social media addiction. The suits claimed social media companies knowingly exploited young people for profit, employed addictive psychological tactics to increase the use of their products and failed to protect young, vulnerable and at-risk users. They further alleged that social media addiction causes harms, such as anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia, self-harm and even suicide.  

Beasley Allen attorney Joseph VanZandt also serves on the Plaintiffs Steering Committee for the federal Social Media MDL consolidated in the Northern District of California, Oakland. In addition to VanZandt, the school districts are represented by Beasley Allen lawyers Davis Vaughn, Jennifer Emmel, Clinton Richardson and Seth Harding, along with attorneys from Wagstaff & Cartmell and Goza & Honnold,

The case involving the Alabama school districts is Baldwin County Public Schools, et al. v. Meta Platforms, et al., filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.

The post Three Alabama School Districts File Lawsuits Against Social Media Giants appeared first on Beasley Allen.

In March 2022, Beasley Allen Whistleblower Litigation Team secured a jury verdict for $1,438,467.74 in damages under the False Claims Act (FCA) against the Birmingham–Jefferson County Transit Authority (BJCTA) after whistleblowers alleged that the agency knew it was making false claims to federal transportation officials. One year later, U.S. District Judge Corey L. Maze affirmed the jury award and tripled the damages based on a provision in the FCA. Judge Maze also assessed civil penalties against the BJCTA for each of its 22 violations of the law, totaling $308,000. Judge Maze’s March 2023 order resulted in a final damage award of $4,623,403.22.

Larry Golston, a member of the firm’s Whistleblower Litigation Team who assisted the government with the case, said, “This case is a victory against government abuse and demonstrates why FCA cases brought by relators are essential in fighting fraud against the government and preventing bad actors wasting taxpayer’s money for their own personal benefit.”

At the center of the case is the federal funding used to help pay for a public transportation project, the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) collaboration between the City of Birmingham and the BJCTA. The project was designed to update Birmingham’s inner-city transit system by connecting 25 neighborhoods.

The case began when two whistleblowers, also called relators, Starr Culpepper and O. Tameka Wren, filed a lawsuit alleging that the BJCTA flagrantly violated the Brooks Act selection requirements in selecting an architectural and engineering (A&E) services provider. The Brooks Act is a federal law that outlines the procedures for selecting vendors of such services when using federal funding. A&E service providers should be chosen based on their competency, qualifications and experience rather than by price.

The relators argued that BJCTA selected the third-most qualified A&E firm to provide all the related services for the BRT project. They claimed that instead of awarding contracts to the firm ranked as the most highly qualified A&E vendor, the BJCTA awarded contracts to a local A&E firm with political ties to the City of Birmingham’s former leadership.

The jury found that the BJCTA lied when it led the government to believe it had fulfilled the Brooks’ Act requirements. Over the last year, the parties filed post-trial motions.

The BJCTA asked the court to essentially invalidate the jury’s verdict, arguing that the relators failed to present sufficient evidence on falsity, scienter (knowledge) and materiality. The relators asked the court to issue a judgment to uphold the jury verdict because the damage amount is 100% of the grant monies the government awarded the BJCTA and assess penalties allowed by the law.

Judge Maze’s 44-page order is a comprehensive and candid analysis of how the relators’ evidence supported each BJCTA FCA violation. Most importantly, Judge Maze found that the U.S. government received no benefit from BJCTA’s noncompliant sole-sourced work.

Further, Judge Maze respected the jury’s finding of materiality throughout his analysis and directly dismissed the BJCTA’s primary argument. BJCTA argued that it should have an offset before the final damages were calculated against it. It claimed it should be credited from the A&E provider’s work because it offered the government an intangible benefit and enhanced the Birmingham transportation system. In dismissing the argument by the BJCTA, Judge Maze said, “…as a matter of policy and common sense, [BJCTA] should not be credited for satisfying one of Congress’s policy goals while violating another.”

The order also provides a sweeping, historical illustration of how the BJCTA knowingly and willfully acted against the best interest of the citizens it served as an agent of the federal government.

Beasley Allen attorneys Leon Hampton, Lauren Miles and Jessica Haynes also represented the relators. The case is United States Ex. Rel. Culpepper, et al., v. Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority, et al., case no. 2:18-cv-567-CLM.

The post $4.6 Million Birmingham Transit Authority Whistleblowers’ Verdict appeared first on Beasley Allen.