Paul Scott

Brown, Readdick, Bumgartner, Carter, Strickland & Watkins, LLP:Strickland Richard K

Paul Scott Personal Injury Lawyer

Brown, Readdick, Bumgartner, Carter, Strickland & Watkins, LLP:Strickland Richard K

Google Business Profile

Rating:

Firm Summary

Paul Scott is a partner in the Firm and represents a broad range of clients in a broad range of civil litigation, including claims for products liability, defective products, trucking litigation, medical malpractice, and personal injury. During Paul’s career, he has represented individuals, families, Judges, Sheriffs, small businesses, and some of the world’s most-recognized companies, including several Fortune 500 companies.

Paul has received the Martindale-Hubbell AV® Preeminent Peer Review Rating. According to Martindale-Hubbell’s website, “AV Preeminent is a significant rating accomplishment – a testament to the fact that a lawyer’s peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence.” Paul was also named as a Super Lawyer Rising Star, an honor given to no more than 2.5% of lawyers in the State of Georgia. Paul is rated 9.8 out of 10 by AVVO.

REPRESENTATIVE WORK

Products liability / Defective Products / Multi-District Litigation. Paul has experience handling personal injury and product-liability claims, including claims involving pharmaceutical drugs, medical devices, dangerous consumer products, automobiles, motorcycles, and other products. These lawsuits often include claims for failure to warn, breaches of express and implied warranties, strict liability, and defective design. Paul has a particular interest in multi-district litigation and preemption issues. Paul currently represents parties in the following multi-district litigations: MDL 2804 (IN RE: National Prescription Opiate Litigation)(Ohio); MDL 2741 (IN RE: Roundup Products Liability Litigation (California) – most of Paul’s client’s Roundup cases are pending in St. Louis state court); MDL 2738 (IN RE: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation)(New Jersey); MDL 2846 (IN RE: Davol, Inc./C.R. Bard, Inc., Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation)(Ohio); MDL 2782 (In RE: Ethicon Physiomesh Flexible Composite Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation)(Georgia); MDL 2592 (IN RE: Xarelto Products Liability Litigation)(Louisiana); MDL 2753 (IN RE: Atrium Medical Corp. C-Qur Mesh Products Liability Litigation)(New Hampshire); and MDL 2452 (IN RE: Incretin-Based Therapies Products Liability Litigation)(California).

Medical negligence cases. Paul has significant experience representing clients in healthcare cases, such as medical malpractice, nursing home, and EMTALA cases, and has recovered millions of dollars working with his partners and co-counsel. The names of clients and defendants are not disclosed to protect the privacy of our clients and due to confidentiality agreements.

Trucking litigation. Paul has extensive experience litigating claims arising out of trucking accidents, which includes catastrophic injury and wrongful-death claims, some of which include multiple deaths and serious injuries arising out of a single crash. Paul also has extensive experience coordinating immediate responses to accidents and the investigation of accidents.

Commercial law. Representing the plaintiff in this case, the defendants failed to file a timely answer and a $1.6 million default judgment was entered. The defendants, through counsel, tried to get the default judgment set aside. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the default judgment, holding that the judgment was not void because the interest rate was allegedly usurious. HRB, LLC v. Alexander, 440 Fed. Appx. 781 (11th Cir. 2011)

ERISA and non-ERISA compensation plans. Represented client in competing claims over correct beneficiary of several ERISA and non-ERISA deferred compensation plans. The client recovered over $2.5 million of the $3.1 million dollars at stake.

A case of first impression involving appellate practice and the RICO Act. The plaintiff sued several employees of the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) and two testing companies, claiming that the defendants violated the RICO Act, among other things. The district court dismissed the RICO claims, holding that the plaintiff’s failure to allege first-party reliance defeated the RICO wire and mail fraud claims. The case proceeded to trial against one of the testing companies, who was represented by a different law firm. Before the entry of the final judgment, however, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion holding that a RICO plaintiff does not have to allege that it relied on a false statement to state a wire or mail fraud claim. Appealing the dismissal of the RICO claims, the plaintiff argued that the Supreme Court’s opinion resuscitated its RICO claims. Faced with this change in the law, Special Assistant Attorney General Todd Carter and Paul argued that the plaintiff waived its right to rely on this new decision because the plaintiff failed to bring the change in the law to the district court’s attention before the entry of final judgment. Notably, BRBCSW’s clients were the only parties to make this argument in this appeal. In a case of first impression, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit agreed with BRBCSW’s clients, holding that when there is a relevant change in the law before entry of final judgment, a party generally must notify the district court; if the party fails to do so, it waives arguments on appeal that are based on that change in the law. As a result, all of the RICO claims were dismissed. Douglas Asphalt Co. v. QORE, Inc., 657 F.3d 1146 (11th Cir. 2011)

A case of first impression under the whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act. Along with John Bumgartner, represented a whistleblower in a False Claims Act action claiming that certain services provided to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries by a physician constituted false claims because the services were worthless. The United States Department of Justice intervened and the hospital subsequently settled. The case received significant press coverage in the local media (newspapers and television), national media (Bloomberg and Forbes online), and also in legal trade publications. Both Health Lawyers Weekly and Credentialing & Peer Review Legal Insider noted that this case was a case of first impression. U.S. ex rel. Rogers v. Azmat, et al., United States District Court, S.D. Ga.

Burn injury / maritime law. The plaintiff sustained burns to over 90% of his body after his boat caught fire. The plaintiff sought to recover $3.2 million in past medical bills, over $450,000 for future medical care, and pain and suffering damages. Through an extremely aggressive defense, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the case against BRBCSW’s clients in exchange for $25,000, representing 0.68% of the plaintiff’s past medical bills. Muhs v. River Rats, Inc., (S.D.Ga.)

Professional negligence / destruction of evidence. Represented patient of a medical provider who sustained life-changing injuries as a result of the provider’s negligence. After hiring a forensic document examiner and proving that the medical provider altered the patient’s medical records, the case settled for the provider’s policy limits of insurance.

First Amendment. The plaintiff, a tow-truck operator, actively campaigned for the sheriff’s opponent during the campaign for the sheriff’s office, and the sheriff removed the plaintiff from the wrecker-rotation list one week after the sheriff defeated his opponent. Notably, plaintiff’s counsel represented a tow-truck operator in a similar case and prevailed in the United States Supreme Court. O’Hare Truck Serv. v. City of Northlake, 518 U.S. 712 (1996). The district court found that the sheriff provided an acceptable basis for removing the tow-truck operator from the rotation list and the the case was dismissed against BRBCSW’s client, the sheriff, without the payment of any money. Smithey v. McDuffie, (S.D. Ga.)

Fourth Amendment. In this case, law-enforcement officers suspected that the plaintiffs were hosting an underage-drinking party, and the officers entered the plaintiffs’ home without a warrant and arrested several occupants.  During the criminal case, the trial court found that the officers’ entry into the home was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment and the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Ealum, 283 Ga. App. 799 (2007). With the criminal charges dismissed, the plaintiffs sued the officers in a civil lawsuit seeking to recover money damages for the officers’ unconstitutional entry and arrests. BRBCSW defended the civil lawsuit, and the district court dismissed all of the claims against the officers. As a result, even though the Georgia Court of Appeals found in the criminal case that the officers violated the plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth Amendment, BRBCSW’s defense of the officers in the civil case resulted in the federal court dismissing all of the plaintiffs’ civil claims and the officers not paying any money to the plaintiffs. Ealum v. Wilcox, (M.D. Ga. 2010).

Lemon Law / Regulatory Compliance. Represented automobile manufacturer in numerous lemon-law arbitrations before the Georgia Department of Law’s Consumer Protection Unit. Paul also advises an international automobile manufacturer regarding certain regulatory compliance issues.

COURTS

Paul is admitted to practice in all Georgia state courts, the Georgia Court of Appeals, the Georgia Supreme Court, and the U.S. District Courts for the Northern, Middle, and Southern Districts of Georgia.

PERSONAL INFORMATION
A fourth-generation resident of Brunswick / St. Simons Island, Paul is married and has one son and one daughter. Paul is active in the community, having served on his neighborhood homeowners’ association, church board, and on the Board of Directors for HelloGoodbuy! a non-profit. Before law school, Paul worked as a concert promoter where Paul purchased and/or promoted concerts for touring artists such as, by way of a few examples,  John Mayer and Luke Bryan.