Workers’ Compensation…Exclusive Remedy Under Georgia Law

If you are injured at work due to the negligence of your employer or a co-worker the question may arise “can I sue the at-fault party for their negligence?”  Unfortunately, the answer is no. This is because under Georgia law, when it comes to workplace injuries, filing a workers’ compensation claim is an injured worker’s exclusive remedy.

The so-called “Exclusive Remedy Doctrine” is both good news and bad news for workers injured in Georgia.  The good news is, if you are injured in the course and scope of your employment, you are entitled to file a workers’ compensation claim – regardless of who is at fault.  Consequently, in most circumstances, you are permitted to file a workers’ compensation claim even if the accident was your fault.  This is true unless you were intoxicated, engaged in horseplay, or were engaged in some type of willful misconduct at the time of the accident.

The flip side of the Exclusive Remedy Doctrine is that since the employer or insurer must accept any claim that occurs in the course and scope of employment (with the exception of the specific instances detailed above) an injured worker cannot bring a cause of action for negligence against their employer or a co-worker.

Have you or a loved one been involved in a workplace accident?  It is important that you contact an attorney who specializes in workers’ compensation in order to ensure that your rights are adequately represented.  Contact the attorneys at Dan Chapman & Associates.  We offer free case evaluations and collect no fees unless you win!

If you’d like to discuss your Georgia workers compensation case, please call at 678-242-7626 or complete the intake form below.

Workers Compensation Evaluation

Atlanta Workers Compensation Intake
  • Please tell us who you work for.

Texas High Court Ends Appeal With Mesh Patient and Johnson & Johnson

A woman whose $1.2 million pelvic-mesh injury award was erased by an appeals court has asked the Texas Supreme Court to call off a final review, citing a settlement with device maker Johnson & Johnson.

Linda Batiste won $1.2 million in April 2014 over injuries allegedly caused by the TVT-O bladder sling. An appeals court overturned the trial award in November 2015 and Batiste quickly appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, where the case has been shelved ever since the two sides said last May that they’d reached a settlement in principle.

They asked the court Monday to dismiss the petition for review — despite still calling the deal an “agreement in principle.”

“The parties to this appeal have reached an agreement in principle to settle this case. Therefore, the parties file this joint request to dismiss the petition for review,” lawyers for Batiste and J&J said in the joint filing.

In the short motion, they also requested unspecified “general relief.”

TVT-O pelvic mesh is used to treat stress urinary incontinence. The Dallas appeals court had held in November 2015 that Batiste must show a link between an alleged defect — like the alleged propensity of the TVT-O’s heavyweight, small-pore mesh to erode — and her injuries, instead of just showing that injuries were caused by the device as a whole.

Representatives for the parties were not immediately available for comment.

Batiste had first requested that the state high court put the case on hold in May 2016, saying the parties had reached a settlement in principle but needed time to hammer out details and get them on paper. A status report from Jan. 31 of this year indicated that they’d made “significant progress” and asked for the last in a line of extensions.

Batiste had contended the appellate court wrongly required her to prove her injuries were caused by a specific defect, saying Texas courts are split on whether medical device cases are specifically exempt from a Texas product liability law that requires plaintiffs to isolate causation to a specific defect.

That’s a standard under which “it will be virtually impossible for any plaintiff to prevail on a product liability claim against a drug or device manufacturer in Texas,” Batiste had told the high court in her initial petition.

The Dallas appeals court said in November 2015 that while it’s undisputed that TVT-O can cause complications and it’s undisputed that Batiste suffered from those complications, the law of products liability doesn’t guarantee a product will be free of risk.

Batiste is represented by Tim Goss and Sara Turman-Vedral of Freese & Goss PLLC, Peter de la Cerda of Edwards & de la Cerda PLLC, Richard Capshaw of Capshaw & Associates, and David Matthews of Matthews and Associates.

Johnson & Johnson is represented by Stephen Brody and Charles Lifland of O’Melveny & Myers LLP and Scott Stolley of Cherry Petersen Landry Albert LLP.

The case is Batiste v. Johnson & Johnson et al., case number 15-0975, in the Supreme Court of Texas.

Link to appeal

If you have suffered from Hernia Mesh Complications then click here to submit a free case evaluation and analysis. There are no fees unless we win your case.

Hernia Mesh Attorney News

Upcoming Decision Looming On New MDL for Atrium C-Qur Hernia Mesh

On December 1, 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) is holding a hearing in Washington, DC to hear arguments on whether to create a new Multi-District Litigation (MDL), to be known as MDL 2753, in order to consolidate lawsuits around the United States involving Atrium Medical Corp. polypropylene surgical mesh patches.  Rather than bog down many federal district courts around the country with these cases, that are increasing in number on a weekly basis, the MDL consolidation allows one federal judge to preside over these cases, increasing judicial efficiency, while at the same time avoiding the risks of inconsistent rulings and other issues resulting from multiple rulings from many judges around the country.  The likelihood of the MDL being created is strong because Atrium agreed in a brief filed on Nov. 1, 2016 that the MDL should be created and the cases should be assigned to US District Judge Landya B. McCafferty in Concord, New Hamshire.

Atrium markets the C-Qur surgical mesh for permanent abdominal wall reinforcement in hernia repair surgeries.  Atrium claims that the C-Qur Mesh’s barrier coating, comprised of Omega-3 fatty acids, will reduce the risk of complications involving the patient’s intestines, including, pain, adhesions, and erosions, while at the same time helping the mesh better attach to the abdominal wall.  However, plaintiffs claim in the lawsuits that the C-Qur mesh is defective and that there were inadequate warnings given on the complications associated with the mesh after implantation.  The suits allege that the C-Qur mesh does not cut down on adhesions, but actually causes an inflammatory response that increases adhesion formation and it also impedes proper abdominal wall fixation for the mesh patch.

If you have suffered complications after a hernia surgery, please contact the experienced mesh lawyers at Dan Chapman & Associates, LLC ® for a free case evaluation.  You can reach us by calling (800) 321-4477 or by going to our website at to learn more about these defective hernia mesh claims and whether you may be entitled to recover money for your injuries, harms and suffering. 

Baby Powder Linked To Ovarian Cancer

Third Jury Finds Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder Caused Ovarian Cancer

Jury Finds Negligence With Johnson & Johnson

On October 27, 2016, Johnson & Johnson® lost a third straight jury trial to a woman claiming that she developed ovarian cancer after using Johnson & Johnson baby powder for many years.  The St. Louis, MO jury awarded Deborah Giannecchini, age 62, an award of more than $70 million in damages.  This verdict follows damages verdicts of $72 million and $55 million against J&J returned this year in the first two talc powder cases to go to trial in St. Louis. Both of the earlier verdicts are being appealed and J&J also has said it will appeal this third verdict.

One juror interviewed after the trial said J&J should have provided a warning label on the product to let consumers decide whether to use the talc powder.  Juror Billie Ray of St. Louis said after the trial “it seemed like Johnson & Johnson didn’t pay attention.” She also said “it seemed like they didn’t care.”  J&J has denied any link to talc use and ovarian cancer.

J&J is facing hundreds of claims in St. Louis state court.  It is also facing about more suits in Los Angeles, CA and others in New Jersey by woman claiming to have developed ovarian cancer after long term use of the talc powder.  However, a New Jersey state court judge last month threw out two J&J talc cases set for trial, finding inadequate scientific support for the cancer claims.

 Our legal team is filing talc cases for women who have suffered from ovarian cancer after the use of talc powder products, such as Johnson’s Baby Powder® and Shower To Shower®.  If you or a loved one used Johnson’s Baby Powder® or Shower To Shower® for more than 5 years and have developed ovarian cancer, please contact us for a free, no obligation, case evaluation.  

Representatives are available 24/7 to take your call at (800)321-4477.

Hernia Mesh Recall Lawyers

Hernia Mesh Devices Recalled

Hernia Mesh Devices Recalled

Many complications related to hernia repair with surgical mesh that have been reported to the FDA have been associated with recalled mesh products that are no longer on the market. Pain, infection, recurrence, adhesion, obstruction, and perforation are the most common complications associated with recalled mesh.

More Information on the hernia mesh recall lawsuits can be found here.

If you are suffering from one of these devices, call use now at 1-8800-321-4477 to speak with one of our legal professionals regarding your case or complete the form below to receive a call.

Georgia Truck Accident Lawyers

What To Do & Not Do After A Truck Wreck

This is a general guide to what you should do immediately after a collision with a tractor trailer, large truck. big rig or 18 wheeler.

Say Nothing!

Say as little as possible about the collision. This includes statements to the police or highway patrol. Remember that you must always tell the truth when you do talk, but do not volunteer information. You do not want to say something that can be misconstrued or twisted around to hurt you case. Your innocent comments could be taken as your admission of fault on your part or an admission that you were not hurt and it can take a few days or weeks to discover the nature and extent of your injuries.  You are not trying to hide anything but want your legal counsel present when you speak.

Continue reading “What To Do & Not Do After A Truck Wreck”

The 4 Critical Things You Must Do If Injured On The Job

1) Notify your employer immediately that you suffered an injury at work.

2) Get the names and phone numbers of any witnesses.

3) Do not attempt to be tough and hope the injury will go away that only hurts you and your case. Ask for the medical treatment you are entitled to and give the medical provider as much information as possible about your injury and pain.

4) Call Dan Chapman & Associates to get immediate help. The employer and insurance company will have their lawyers working against you from the start. You deserve an experienced workers compensation lawyer fighting for you! Call 678-CHAPMAN (678-242-7626) NOW for a free, no obligation consultation!


  • Free Medical Care – past, present and future
  • Lost Weekly Wages
  • Cash Disability Settlements

Continue reading “The 4 Critical Things You Must Do If Injured On The Job”