Data on Growth of Injury Fatalities Due to Mobile Phone Use in Previous Years

The increasingly ubiquitous nature of cell phones, particularly cell phones with advanced capabilities for example other applications that are diverting or video chat, has had a dangerous effect of America’s roads. Data on growth of injury fatalities due to mobile phone use in previous years show that the misuse of cell phones by passengers and motorists has resulted in a growing amount of preoccupied driver caused injuries, a lot of which have resulted in one or more fatalities.

The Causes of Cell Phone Related Accidents

In fact, the World Health Organization (WHO) has determined that conversations with passengers in the automobile are actually less risky than speaking or operating a mobile phone. Many cell phone based mishaps occur for these reasons:

— Texting while driving has been shown to be extremely dangerous.

— Many phones allow the use of amusement or social based apps, which can certainly divert the driver.

In many cases, a motorist might be participated in more than one high-risk action in precisely the same time, such as talking on a cellphone reading or while also sending a text message. This is particularly common among younger drivers, who are already at a greater danger of being involved in a severe traffic accident.

The Increasing Number of Phone Connected Fatality Accidents

Now, the amount of fatalities due to cell phone abuse remains cloudy as not all bureaus report whether or not driver cell phone use proved to be a contributing factor to the accident. However, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) noted that in 2004 there were 4,978 fatalities that could be ascribed to preoccupied drivers. By 2008, this amount had increased to about 5,870 16 percent of all vehicular fatalities for that year.

The Legal Relevance of Identifying Distracted Drivers

A motorist is responsible for the safe operation of their vehicle. The statistics on increase of accident fatalities due to cell phone use in past years are so responsible, and demonstrates that lots of drivers are failing to participate in safe driving practices for virtually any injury that results from their activities. By identifying a driver who caused an accident due to her or his irresponsible mobile phone use, the legal help they need to obtain powerful damages for their loss can be secured by the sufferer’s family. When representing the casualties, a lawyer will perform the following actions:

— Obtain any texting or phone records to demonstrate that the cell phone was being operated by the driver at the time of the accident.

— Show the dangers of distracted.

— Use the very fact that the motorist was at fault to efficiently negotiate with the driver’s insurance companies or legal representation.

Ultimately, statistics on increase of injury fatalities due to cell phone use in past years help it become clear the sufferers of these irresponsible motorists must ensure effective legal help. By contacting the law offices of Haug Law Group, people who have endured the loss of a loved one can have the compensation they deserve.

Average Settlement For Medical Malpractice Lawsuit in Georgia

3 Typical Commercial Trucking Accidents

There are tens of thousands of commercial trucks on America’s roads and highways. As a result, every individual who travels by road will at some point be near a large commercial truck. The size and weight of these trucks, when combined with a negligent driver or vehicular malfunction, can result in tragedy. When this occurs, it is important for the victims to understand what their legal options are.

Common Trucking Accidents

Although there are many potential causes for a truck-involved accident, the most common reasons include driver fatigue, inattention and inadequate training or actions by other vehicles. Other, less common reasons for a truck-involved accident may include a shifting cargo or mechanical malfunction.

Driver Fatigue

Many truck drivers must abide by strict schedules, and because of this, driver fatigue is a common cause of accidents. Fatigued drivers often make errors in judgment or are slow to react to changing road conditions. This problem can be especially serious among freelance drivers, who are usually paid by the delivery. There are federal regulations involving how many hours a truck driver can be on the road, but these regulations are often ignored by truck drivers.

Inadequate Training

Some trucking companies fail to ensure that all of their truck drivers are properly trained. Many truck drivers are not aware of proper defensive driving techniques. Even if a truck driver has a valid commercial driver’s license, he or she may not have maintained the skills needed to avoid dangerous accidents.

Actions by Other Vehicles

In some cases, an accident may be caused by another vehicle. A passenger vehicle or other commercial vehicle may enter the truck’s blind spots, leading to a collision or forcing the driver to quickly avoid the danger, potentially colliding with other vehicles on the road. If the truck driver is fatigued or improperly trained, the action he or she takes may actually make the accident worse.

Consequences of Truck-Involved Accidents

The 3 typical commercial trucking accidents are very likely to end in injury or death for the occupants of any involved passenger vehicles. In fact, 3,675 individuals died due to truck related accidents in 2010. Although truck-involved accidents remain a minority of all vehicular accidents, they are more likely to result in severe injury or death.

When an accident is caused by the negligence of the driver, his company or any other group, the victims of the accident can obtain compensation for their injuries and other losses. This compensation can include the following:

• The cost of any medical care resulting from the accident, including short and long-term care.
• Pain and suffering arising due to the accident.
• Compensation for lost wages, especially if the victims are rendered unable to work in the aftermath of the accident.
• If a family member has died due to the accident, his or her family can obtain compensation for the lost companionship of their relative.
• If the accident was due to egregious negligence or malice, the court may impose punitive damages.

Obtaining a just compensation for a truck-involved accident can be a vital part of recovering from its financial, physical and emotional consequences. Whichever one of the 3 typical commercial trucking accidents a family has suffered, obtaining effective legal assistance is vital. The law firm of Haug Law Group can help the victims and their families determine what the best possible course of action will be. For this reason, anyone who has suffered from a truck-involved accident should immediately contact one of the firm’s experienced attorneys.

Georgia Personal Injury Attorney: Haug Law Group; Top Slip and Fall Accidents

 Every employer has a legal duty to ensure that the workplace is safe for his or her employees and customers alike. However, many types of working environments prone to slip and fall accidents are not properly maintained, leading to the danger that workers, customers, and visitors may suffer injury or death from an avoidable slip and fall accident. Therefore it is important to understand what types of work environments pose the most hazards for these types of accidents.

The Nature of Slip and Fall Accidents

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, slip and fall accidents account for over 16,000 fatalities every year. Non-fatal injuries stemming from these accidents include broken and fractured bones, brain injuries and contusions. Furthermore, these types of accidents may place the individual at risk from other causes, such as when a mechanic slips in front of a moving vehicle.

High Risk Working Environments

The most common types of working environments prone to slip and fall accidents are those that involve any type of physical labor. Working in a warehouse, industrial plant or retail store can all expose workers and customers to risk. Among the most common reasons for a slip and fall accident are the following:

·       Slippery or wet surfaces, especially floors and stairs.

·       Improperly secured work equipment, such as ladders and loading ramps.

·       Inadequate lighting in work or walk areas.

·       Improper training in safety procedures and equipment.

Retail Markets

Retail markets, ranging from supermarkets to warehouse style stores, pose a high risk of slip and fall accidents. Workers often fail to properly post warnings around hazards such as slippery floors or unsecured equipment. These establishments also have a large number of customers present, which can drastically increase the probability of an accident.

Industrial Plants

Industrial plants often have work areas that suffer from high noise levels and low lighting. This makes it very likely that workers may suffer from a slip and fall accident due to being unable to see an obstacle or hear warnings from their fellow workers. In addition, many managers fail to ensure that that their employees follow all workplace safety regulations. Construction Sites Construction sites can be especially prone to slip and fall accidents. Construction workers find themselves working on roofs and other areas where slip and fall accidents commonly occur. In addition, many construction sites are located in areas with rough terrain and poor lighting, making these types of accidents even more likely.

Finally, because of the number of individual contractors working at most construction sites, the enforcement of state and federal safety regulations can be uneven. When a slip and fall accident occurs, it is important to immediately seek out effective legal assistance. If the accident was due to negligence on the part of the employee’s coworkers or managers, he or she can receive compensation for any injuries or other damages suffered due to the accident. The wide range of types of working environments prone to slip and fall accidents demands the assistance of a lawyer skilled in litigating these types of cases.

The law firm of Haug Law Group is experienced in handling slip and fall cases. The firm’s lawyers can help the victim of this type of accident understand his or her legal options. Anyone who has suffered a slip and fall accident should immediately contact the law offices of Haug Law Group for a consultation regarding their particular case.

Haug Law Group, LLC

www.hauglawgroup.com

1-844-428-4529

Statistics for Main Causes of Car Accidents in Georgia

A vehicle accident can be a traumatic event that can result in severe injury and even death for its victims. Because of that, it is important for drivers and passengers alike to understand what the statistics for main causes of car accidents in Georgia indicate about safe driving practices. In addition, it is important to note that very few accidents are actually blameless. In most cases, one or more of the drivers involved in the accident were driving in a way that either helped create the accident or resulted in the accident being more severe than it would have otherwise been.

Distracted Driving

One of the most common causes of accidents of all types is when one or more of the drivers are distracted while operating the vehicle. In addition to the traditional causes of distraction, such as talking with a passenger or looking inside the vehicle, the explosion in cell phones and text messaging system have resulted in many drivers, especially younger ones, using these devices when they should be concentrating on their driving. Georgia has enacted laws forbidding the use of cell phones by teenage drivers and forbidding texting while driving for all drivers. However, distracted driving remains a severe problem in the state.

Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs

Drunk drivers remain a serious threat to other drivers in Georgia, and according to the Georgia Department of Transportation, alcohol and drug impairment is the second highest contributing factor to crashes that have resulted in a fatality. In addition, when considering statistics for main causes of car accidents in Georgia, it is important to note that individuals who are not legally intoxicated can still demonstrate impaired driving skills even after ingesting even a small amount of alcohol.

Teenage Drivers

Teenaged drivers are more likely than any other group to be involved in a serious traffic accident. In 2003, 18-year-old drivers received the highest rate of traffic citations of any group, and had the highest rate of involvement in fatal crashes of any age group. The reasons for this were bound up in the fact that younger drivers were both less experienced than other drivers and more likely to engage in unsafe driving practices, such as speeding or driving while intoxicated.

Speeding

Unsafe driving speeds are also a major factor in serious and fatal vehicular accidents in Georgia. In this case, speeding is not simply defined as exceeding posted speed limits, but driving faster than is safe given the current road conditions. Many speeding related accidents occur because the driver failed to adapt his or her driving speed in the face of fog, road ice, or other factors. In 2006, at least 5.3 percent of all accidents were at least partially caused by speeding on the part of one or more drivers.

Evaluating the Risks of Driving

While the statistics for main causes of car accidents in Georgia show that many accidents are caused by a combination of factors, such as younger drivers who are speeding or driving while distracted, it also shows that safe driving practices can dramatically reduce the chance of a vehicular accident. If a driver is involved in an accident involving a careless, distracted or intoxicated driver, he or she can obtain compensation for any injuries or damages suffered in the accident.

Those who have suffered from a car accident should contact the attorneys of Haug Law Group for an immediate consultation to understand what their legal options are.

Haug Law Group, LLC

1-844-428-4529

Distinction between Tennessee and Georgia Medical Malpractice Law: Statute of Limitations and Standard of Care

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

Tennessee medical malpractice law, referred to as “health care liability” by the Tennessee Code Annotated, differs in many aspects from Georgia medical malpractice law. First, the statue of limitations for medical malpractice cases in Tennessee is only one (1) year, as opposed to two years in Georgia. Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-104, § 29-26-116. The one-year period begins to run from the date of discovery. Id. No action shall be brought more than three years from the negligent act or omission, unless there is fraudulent concealment by the defendant. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-6-116 (a)(2).

ELEMENTS OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-115 sets out the requirements for a health care liability action. Under this code section, the claimant has the burden of proving:

(1) the recognized standard of professional practice in the profession and the specialty thereof, if any, that the defendant practices in the community in which the defendant practices or in a similar community at the time of the alleged injury or wrongful action occurred; (2) that the defendant acted with less than or failed to act with ordinary and reasonable care in accordance with such standard; and (3) as a proximate result of the defendant’s negligent act or omission, the plaintiff suffered injuries which would not otherwise have occurred. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-115(a).

Essentially, the plaintiff must establish the standard of care in that community, show the defendant breached that duty of care, and that the breach of the standard caused the plaintiff’s injury. This are of the code section varies little from Georgia law.

EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS

However, perhaps the largest distinction between Georgia medical malpractice law and Tennessee health care liability lies in the expert qualification requirements. The applicable code sections states:

No person in a health care profession requiring licensure under the laws of this state shall be competent to testify in any court of law to establish the facts required by subsection (a), unless the person was licensed to practice in the state or a contiguous bordering state a profession or specialty which would make the person’s expert testimony relevant to the issues in the case and had practiced this profession or specialty in one (1) of these states during the year proceeding the date that the alleged injury or wrongful act occurred. Tenn. Code. Ann. § 29-26-115 (b).

Thus, in order to establish the three requirements stated in subsection (a), there must be an expert, who practices in that field or specialty, in Tennessee or a contagious border state, and must have practiced in the year preceding the negligent act or omission.

LOCALITY RULE

The “locality rule” refers to the portion of Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-15(b), which states, “recognized standard of acceptable professional practice … in the community in which the defendant practices or in a similar community.” Previously, Tennessee common law operated under a “strict locality rule”, which required that an expert must be familiar with the standard of care in the locality in which the defendant practiced. Shipley v. Williams, 350 S.W.3d. 527, 537. That standard has since been relaxed and an expert is qualified to testify to the standard of care if they can show they are familiar with the standard of care in that community or a similar community. Id. While the courts have broadened the standard of the locality rule, they have declined to adopt a national standard of care. Id. at 545.

FILING OF CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH

§ 29-26-122 of the Tennessee Code Annotated sets out an additional requirement for a medical malpractice suit in the state of Tennessee. § 29-26-122 states that if the plaintiff does not file a certificate of good faith with the complaint, the complaint shall be dismissed. Subsection (a) requires that the certificate of good faith must state (1) that the plaintiff has consulted with one or more experts who have provided a written statement confirming that upon information and belief they:

(A) Are competent under §29-26-115 to express an opinion or opinions in the case; and

(B) Believe, based on the information available from the medical records concerning the care and treatment of the plaintiff for the incident or incidents at issue, that there is a good faith basis to maintain the action consistent with the requirements of § 29-26-115; or;

(2) The plaintiff or plaintiff’s counsel has consulted with one ore more experts who have provided a signed written statement confirming that upon the information and belief they:

(A) Are competent under §29-26-115 to express an opinion or opinions in the case; and

(B) Believe, based on the information available from the medical records concerning the care and treatment of the plaintiff for the incident or incidents at issue and, as appropriate, information from the plaintiff or others with knowledge of the incident or incidents at issue, that there are facts material to the resolution of the case that cannot be reasonably ascertained form the medical records or information reasonably available to the plaintiff or plaintiff’s counsel; and that, despite the absence of this information, there is a good faith basis for maintaining the action as to each defendant consistent with the requirements of § 29-26-115. Refusal of the defendant to release the medical records in a timely fashion or where it is impossible for the plaintiff to obtain the medical records shall waive the requirement that he expert review the medical records prior to expert certification.

Experienced Atlanta, GA Lawyer for Catastrophic Medical Malpractice Cases

Catastrophic medical malpractice can result in permanent disability or even death for its victims. For this reason, individuals who have suffered due medical malpractice can obtain compensation for their injuries. By securing an experienced Atlanta, GA lawyer for catastrophic medical malpractice cases the victim and his or her family will be able to start the process of recovering from their injuries.

What is Catastrophic Medical Malpractice?

Medical malpractice occurs when the patient suffers injury or death due to the negligence of his or her healthcare providers. Examples of medical malpractice on the part of a healthcare provider can include the following actions:

• Failing to promptly treat the patient’s health condition, resulting in avoidable health problems.

• Failing to properly diagnose the patient’s health issues.

• Prescribing or administering incorrect medication to the patient.

• Failing to properly supervise nurses and other healthcare providers during the patient’s recovery.

• Committing egregious errors during a surgical procedure.

In all of these cases, the patient will often suffer long-term side effects from his or her maltreatment. These effects can include the need to endure other medical procedures in order to rectify the errors in treatment, long-term disability, and in some cases, death. In many cases, the worst symptoms may not manifest until sometime after the treatment, making it vital that the victim consult with an attorney skilled in developing a persuasive malpractice case.

Types of Compensation

When an individual suffers from catastrophic medical malpractice, he or she can obtain compensation from the court. In general, malpractice compensation is divided into real damages and punitive damages.

Real Damages

Real damages are focused on compensating the individual for the actual damage caused by the medical malpractice. This category includes a wide range of factors, and the victim may receive compensation for the following types of damage:

• The costs of any current or future medical treatment the victim must receive, including long-term rehabilitation or care.

• Compensation for lost wages and work opportunities.

• Compensation for pain and suffering, including both physical and mental anguish.

• If the victim is crippled or killed, his or her family can receive compensation for any lost companionship and support from their loved one.

Because estimating the proper amount of real damages to claim can be a very complex issue, it is important to have a lawyer present who can effectively present the victim’s case to the court. An experienced Atlanta, GA lawyer for catastrophic medical malpractice cases can help ensure that all of the victim’s will receive full compensation from the defendants for all of his or her real damages.

Punitive Damages

Punitive damages are imposed in cases of egregious negligence or actual malice. These damages can be imposed on more than one individual or group. For example, a hospital that failed to remove an alcoholic employee would be liable for punitive damages due to its failure to adequately supervise its employees. Ultimately, by finding an experienced Atlanta, GA lawyer for catastrophic medical malpractice cases, the victims of medical malpractice and their families alike can obtain a just compensation. In many cases, having a skilled attorney present will convince the defendant to settle out of court, eliminating the need for a long and stressful trial. For this reason, anyone who has suffered from any type of catastrophic medical malpractice should immediately contact the law offices of James R. Haug in order to schedule a consultation to determine how best to proceed with his or her case.

Haug Law Group, LLC

www.hauglawgroup.com

1-844-HAUGLAW

The Effects of an Undetected Brain Injury

An undetected brain injury can result in serious long-term mental and physical problems. Because of this, individuals who have been involved in an accident that may have resulted in brain damage may be able to obtain compensation for their injury, if they take the correct steps.

Undetected Brain Injuries

The Effects of Brain Injuries

Compensation for Brain Injuries

Georgia Medical Malpractice Lawyer: Extending Statute of Limitations

The Defendant notes in his own brief that case law concerning the statute of limitations for misdiagnosis cases state that “the statute of limitations begins running when the injury occurs rather than on the date of the negligent act.” (See Brief in Support of the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant, hereinafter “Defendant’s Brief,” II, B, Π 1 citing Witherspoon v. Aranas, 254 Ga.App. 609 (2002)).

However, there are exceptions to this general rule such as the subsequent injury exception in misdiagnosis cases. Even as recent as the end of 2009, the Georgia Supreme Court reaffirmed and provided a very helpful analysis of this exception in McCord v. Lee, No. S08G1947 (2009). McCord cites Brown v. Coast Dental of Ga., which states that “misdiagnosis cases are useful in that, while they discuss an ‘exception’ to the two-year statute, they are simply applying the basic rule that the statute begins to run when the injury occurs, which is not necessarily the same time the malpractice is committed.” Brown, 275 Ga. App. 761, 767 (2005).

Therefore, in Plaintiff’s case, the “’operative question is: when did symptoms of the injury caused by the [alleged malpractice first manifest themselves’” to her? Brown at 767. In order for the new injury exception to apply, this question must then be followed by the questions of whether there is evidence of that the Plaintiff patient remained asymptomatic for a period of time following the misdiagnosis, which in Plaintiff’s case is evidenced by the lack of laboratory testing by Defendant or concern that the headaches may be related to kidney disease, and there is evidence that the Plaintiff developed a new injury, which is end-stage renal disease in Plaintiff’s case. Amu v. Barnes, 286 Ga.App. 725, 729 (2007).

1. Plaintiff was asymptomatic from June 2, 2004 until December 3, 2008 as to the end-stage renal disease and therefore meets the first requirement of the new injury exception.

“In order for this exception to apply, not only must there be evidence that the [patient] developed a new injury, but [the Plaintiff] also must remain asymptomatic for a period of time following the misdiagnosis.” Amu v. Barnes, 286 Ga.App. 725, 729 (2007) citing Burt v. James, 276 Ga. App. 370, 374 (2005).In Amu v. Barnes, the Plaintiff sought treatment from the Defendant doctor for a specific purpose, rectal bleeding, and the Defendant failed to properly diagnose the Plaintiff for colon cancer. Amu at725. The Plaintiff experienced an asymptomatic period after the treatment and was treated by a variety of doctors afterward. Amu at 726. The Plaintiff then developed terminal colon cancer as a result of Plaintiff’s misdiagnosis. Id.

Similarly, Plaintiff first visited Defendant seeking treatment for a specific purpose, his elevated blood pressure, for which he was diagnosed with hypertension. See Complaint, ¶ . Plaintiff continued to see Defendant over the course of the next four and a half years, during which time the renal disease developed in Plaintiff, and Defendant failed to properly diagnose Plaintiff for renal disease, which was caused and worsened due to the blood pressure medications prescribed by Defendant, and could have been detected in the tests that should have been conducted due to the medications. During this time, Plaintiff was asymptomatic as to the renal disease; Plaintiff developed end-stage renal disease as a result of Defendant’s misdiagnosis, which is irreversible and progresses from acute renal disease, which is reversible. See Expert depo., 45:4-46:13.

If evidence does not establish, as a matter of law, that a certain symptom or symptoms experienced by a person are necessarily a symptom of a “new injury”, but that they could be attributable to other factors, the person is still in an asymptomatic period regarding the “new injury.” Cleaveland v. Gannon, 284 Ga. 376, 382 (2008). In Cleaveland v. Gannon, doctors failed to diagnose kidney cancer in a patient, which became metastatic. Cleaveland at 376. The Plaintiff and his wife filed suit on October 29, 2004, alleging that “had the cancer been diagnosed and treated before it metastasized, a complete recovery would have been likely.” Id. The Defendants filed motions for summary judgment on the ground that the original claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations and that a wrongful death claim later added by the Plaintiff’s wife was barred by the five-year statute of repose. Id.

The Plaintiff invoked the “new injury” exception, arguing that the original condition was a treatable cancer confined to his kidney, and because it went undiagnosed the result was the metastasized untreatable cancer that moved outside the kidney. Cleaveland at 378. Although the Plaintiff was tested again for microscopic hematuria and again had positive results, it was not decisively a symptom of kidney or metastatic cancer. Cleaveland at 381. Additionally, the court found that the Plaintiff observing blood in his urine was not necessarily a symptom of metastatic cancer, as it could also be due to other causes or a symptom of a bladder infection. Cleaveland at 382. The Plaintiff also experienced “night sweats” which the court also found to not necessarily be a symptom of the cancer, as it could be related to many other causes. Id. The court found that despite these symptoms, during the time the Plaintiff was treated by the doctors he was asymptomatic of his “new injury”, metastatic cancer. Id.

The case at hand is factually analogous to Cleaveland v. Gannon. Defendant alleges that the high blood pressure, fatigue and continuous headaches that Plaintiff experienced from his first visit with Defendant on June 2, 2004 show that there were symptoms of the injury. However, at this point Plaintiff would have not had any renal disease or one at a very early stage, which would most likely have been treatable. See Expert depo. 52:1-5. In addition, these symptoms were nonspecific, and not necessarily the sign of renal disease, and Plaintiff attributed them, as did Defendant, to the hypertension that Plaintiff had been diagnosed with, or to stress. See Torres depo. 82:2-3; 149:11-14. The medications Defendant prescribed, in addition to the hypertension, resulted in the kidney damage, the beginning stages of which would have been detected through simple laboratory tests and diagnosed, but Defendant failed to have the tests conducted. Expert depo. 58:1-25. Plaintiff was asymptomatic until the gout and blood work done December, when he was formally diagnosed with end-stage renal disease on December 31, 2008.

2. Acute renal failure, the subsequent injury, could not reasonably have been discovered by Plaintiff before the laboratory blood tests that established kidney failure.

In line with good case law, “when there has been a misdiagnosis of a medical condition, the tortious injury commences when the harm was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered.” Miller v. Kitchens, 251 Ga. App. 225, 226 (2001) citing Walker v. Melton, 227 Ga. App. 149, 150-151 (1997). In addition, case law states that, “[W]hen a misdiagnosis results in subsequent injury that is difficult or impossible to date precisely, the statute of limitation[s] runs from the date symptoms attributable to the new injury are manifest to the plaintiff.” Walker v. Melton, 227 Ga. App. 149,151 (1997).

In the instant case, Dr. Torres failed to diagnose Plaintiff’s kidney disease over the course of time in which Plaintiff was a patient of Defendant’s, and the misdiagnosis ultimately led to Plaintiff having end-stage renal disease. The exact dates when the renal disease developed and when it worsened are impossible to tell. See Expert depo., 52:1-9. However, the symptoms attributable to the end-stage renal disease were not manifest to Plaintiff until the date he was diagnosed, December 30, 2008.

III.       Under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-71(b), the five-year statute of repose on Plaintiff’s claims had not expired prior to the filing of the Complaint, as Defendant’s negligent act occurred in the five years prior to the filing of the Complaint.

“OCGA § 9-3-71 (b) does not provide that the period of repose commences on the date of the first ‘negligent . . . act or omission.’ It provides that the period commences on the date the negligent act or omission occurs, thus establishing the negligent act as the trigger for commencement of the period of repose without purporting to limit the number of separate negligent acts which may act as a trigger.” Schramm v. Lyon, 286 Ga. 72, 74 (2009). The negligent acts performed by Defendant which resulted in Plaintiff’s end-stage renal failure were the prescriptions written by Dr. Torres and the refills that followed thereafter. Expert depo. 57:1-24. Based on the law as decided in Schramm v. Lyon, the adding of additional prescriptions and the constant refills of each without performing laboratory tests on Plaintiff each count as new and separate instances of professional negligence.

On March 3, 2005, Plaintiff was prescribed the highest possible prescriptive amount of Lisiniopril, on March 7, 2005, Defendant added the prescription of Hydrochlothizide (HCTZ 20 QAM), and on July 254, 2005 Defendant added the prescription of Toprol XI 100 ZD. Complaint ¶¶ 4-7. Each of these instances represents a different point in which Defendant negligently prescribed medicine to Plaintiff, and negligently omitted to do any laboratory testing on Plaintiff, both of which fell below the standard of care. Each of these dates is within five years prior to the filing of the Complaint, and thus Plaintiff’s claims are not barred due to the five-year statute of repose.