While Miller & Wynn is proud of the large settlements and awards that we have procured for our clients, we are also proud of the many not-so-large settlements and awards that we fight hard for. At Miller & Wynn we realize that many people who experience soft tissue injuries or other injuries that are less than “catastrophic” often times need representation to protect their rights and maximize the value of their cases. Below are a few examples of cases where we believe we were successful in protecting our clients in both large and small cases.
Back injury – Confidential Settlement
Client suffered a disabling injury in trucking accident. An Atlanta personal injury law firm preparing to try the case in Douglas County associated Miller & Wynn as local counsel to assist in trial preparations and jury selection.
Low Back Injury – $560,000
Client was injured in accident and attempted to return to work light duty status. Client was eventually forced to discontinue working after having back surgery and being placed on permanent light duty. Miller & Wynn developed the case using a renowned economist and vocational rehabilitation expert to prove value of client’s future lost wages. Case settled at mediation for an amount in excess of liability insurance limits.
Head, Neck, and Back Injury – $300,000
Client suffered head, neck and back injuries after falling in unsafe area at a residence. Miller & Wynn lawyers recovered policy limits under the homeowner’s insurance policy and negotiated with Client’s medical insurance provider’s intent to subrogate saving the Client over $200,000 in reimbursement expenses.
Leg Fractures – $375,000
Client suffered multiple fractures to her left leg. The negligent driver had only $50,000 in insurance coverage and had limited assets; however Miller & Wynn lawyers researched additional policies that ultimately provided coverage for which we were able to receive policy limits.
Leg Fracture – $296,000
Young woman was the driver of a vehicle that hit by a tractor trailer making a left hand turn resulting in a fractured leg requiring internal fixation with screws and plates. Miller & Wynn obtained a favorable settlement despite the fact that venue for the case was in a historically conservative county.
Low Back Injury – $100,000
Client was injured in a car collision causing a substantial low back injury requiring a surgical discectomy. The at-fault driver’s insurance had lapsed leaving Client without coverage and client had no medical insurance. Miller & Wynn lawyers were able to procure pre-litigation funding for Client’s surgery and was then able to recover policy limits from Client’s Uninsured Motorist Policy.
Leg Fracture – $100,000
Young woman was the driver of a vehicle that collided with by a teenage driver running a red light resulting in a fractured leg requiring internal fixation with screws and plates. Miller & Wynn conducted an asset search of the negligent driver’s family finding limited assets, the family’s insurance company provided policy limits to compensate client for her injuries.
Leg Injury – $96,000
Client was engaged in activity on residential property when he severely injured his leg requiring surgery. Client attempted to settle the case on his own, but after 22 months of attempting to work with the Homeowners’ insurance company, insurance company denied liability. Client engaged Miller & Wynn who filed suit to preserve the statute of limitations and eventually negotiated a settlement just below the homeowners’ policy limits.
Punitive Damage Claim – $90,000
Client was injured in an collision caused by a Drunk Driver who was nearly three times the legal limit. Initially DUI Driver’s insurance company denied coverage on the punitive damage claim and offered a minimal amount to settle, thereby jeopardizing their insured who had substantial assets, which Miller & Wynn had uncovered. M & W further researched the insurance company’s policies and determined that the insurance company had been less than truthful in their disclosure of policy information. As a result of M & W’s research and diligence our client was compensated and the insurance company was forced to protect it’s consumer.
Closed Head Injury – $55,000
Elderly client received a concussion and had residual medical problems from the head injury as a result of a minor car accident. Miller & Wynn exhausted minimum $25,000 policy limits from at-fault driver insurance and researched other available policies finding an additional $30,000 of coverage.
Back injury – $50,000
Client was a commercial driver who was hit head on by driver who was under the influence of Methamphetamine and who later died of her injuries. Initially Deceased Driver’s insurance company denied liability and then discounted client’s injuries and damages because client was being treated under worker’s compensation insurance. Miller & Wynn negotiated a policy limit settlement as well as negotiated a near complete reduction in reimbursement to Clients worker’s compensation provider.
Soft Tissue, Back Injury and Head Injury – $50,000
Client slipped and fell at local Douglasville restaurant. Client and witnesses contended that restaurant manager admitted knowledge of a defect in flooring prior to fall.
Soft Tissue Injury – $27,000
Client received soft tissue neck and back injuries in clear liability case. Defendant’s insurance company denied liability. Miller & Wynn attorneys tried the case in Paulding County Superior Court and received a verdict far exceeding the client’s special damages.
Sprained Ankle – $25,000
Client sprained ankle on drain clean-out cap at local Douglasville convenience store extending from store’s walk way and entrance. Store clerk failed to render assistance to injured client. Store’s insurance company initially denied liability but submitted settlement offer after realizing that the Store failed to answer admissions served on Store by Miller & Wynn.
Punitive Damage Claim – $25,000
Client’s vehicle was hit from behind by drunk driver. The impact caused a multiple car collision with multiple injured parties. Despite the existence of multiple injured parties, and minimal policy limits, Miller & Wynn secured policy limit settlement within 90 days of incident.
Soft Tissue Injury – $22,000
Client had substantial yet subjective injuries and initially engaged the services of a high volume personal injury in Atlanta. After having difficulty locating the defendant, the high volume firm disengaged the client shortly before the statute of limitations expired. Miller & Wynn took client’s case, filed suit and worked diligently to find the defendant. After serving defendant, Miller & Wynn negotiated with Defendant’s insurance company securing a settlement just short of the policy limits.
Broken Wrist – Slip and Fall – Net Settlement $17,000
Client slipped on a wet floor in the entrance of a chain restaurant on a rainy day and injured his wrist. Client initially hired an Atlanta law firm to represent him on the case. Client ultimately had surgery on his wrist incurring substantial medical expenses. The restaurant denied liability and the Atlanta firm withdrew from representing client. Just prior to the expiration of the Statute of Limitations, client retained Miller & Wynn on his case. Miller & Wynn quickly negotiated a settlement with the restaurant and then worked hard to negotiate a substantial reduction in Client’s medical bills, leaving client with proceeds in excess of medical cost and attorney’s fees.
Punitive Damage Claim -$10,000
Client was passenger in vehicle that was hit by drunk driver. Client received minor injuries and had less than $1000 in special damages.
Punitive Damage Claim – $10,000
Client was driving as independent contractor when she was hit in a parking lot by driver who was under the influence of prescription drugs. Client suffered a sprained wrist and had minimal special damages.
While Miller & Wynn routinely receives positive results for our criminal clients, the following cases are a few examples of cases where our firm has achieved amazing results for our clients. Although the cases listed below only reflect cases in which our firm obtained a full dismissal, our firm is also often able to negotiate a reduction in pending charges to lesser offenses when a full dismissal is not feasible. The attorneys at Miller & Wynn explore all possible avenues when it comes to resolving your case. Our firm will aggressively fight for you at trial and during plea negotiations.
State v. R.N – DUI, OPEN CONTAINER – NOT GUILTY – jury verdict
Client was accused of Driving under the influence (less safe), having an open container of an alcoholic beverage, and failure to use his turn signal when changing lanes. Douglas County Prosecutors presented evidence at trial that client was reported driving eratically on I-20 by individuals who were heading west bound on I-20. Douglasville officers began following client after he stopped at a fast food restaurant on Fairburn Road. After officers began following client, client neither made any driving infractions nor exhibited any erratic driving prior to client changing lanes without using his turn signal when another car abruptly slowed in front of him. Officers initiated a stop for failure to use his turn signal. Officers claimed that client smelled of alcohol, was unsteady on his feet and had slurred speech. After the trial, the jury stated that the video evidence of the stop was contrary to the officers’ testimony and they saw no evidence that the client was a less safe driver. The open container was dismissed by the trial Judge because the open container was found behind the vehicle’s furthest-most upright seat and was not a violation of the statute.
State v. M.S. – DUI – Dismissed
This is a DUI case where a client was stopped by Villa Rica Police Officer in Villa Rica city limits, Miller & Wynn requested Jury trial and had the case bound up to Carroll County State Court. While case was pending in the State Court, evidence of the incident became missing and after a successful motion to suppress the State Court Judge limited the evidence available at trial and the prosecution was unable to prove its case.
State v. H.B. – Domestic Violence, Battery, and Cruelty to Children – Dismissed
Client, while on Federal parole, was involved in a domestic dispute with his wife. He was accused in Douglas County, Georgia of simple battery and felony charges of cruelty to children. Miller & Wynn lawyers were able to negotiate with Client’s Federal Parole Officer avoiding a parole violation. Additionally, Miller & Wynn investigated the case procuring statements that lead to strong defenses and ultimately to the case being dismissed.
State v. G.B.-Entering Auto with Intent to Commit Theft – Dismissed
Client and other defendants were accused of attempting to break into a vehicle at a motel. After investigating and interviewing the State’s eyewitness, Miller & Wynn developed defenses based upon extreme discrepancies in witness’ statements. The case against Miller & Wynn’s Client was eventually dismissed.
State v. D.V. – Statutory Rape, Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor, and multiple related charges – Dismissed
Client was an 18 year old high school senior who was accused of being one of several boys who had allegedly engaged in sexual activity with females who were under the age of sixteen years old. Miller & Wynn’s prompt investigation revealed many questionable facts to the allegations including jurisdictional issues. The case was dismissed prior to being formally indicted by prosecutors.
State v. C.B.- DUI, Driving on a Suspended License – Dismissed
Client was in the U.S. military. Two weeks before he was to deploy to Iraq, he was arrested for DUI and other traffic charges. Through investigating and negotiating the case, Miller & Wynn uncovered that Client had actually been previously accused of DUI while on Post, leading to our Client receiving discipline under the Military Code of Justice, however our Client was not actually convicted of DUI. Despite the fact that our Client had not been formally charged and convicted of DUI in the State of Georgia, his license had been suspended as a result of the incident. In addition to his license suspension, the prosecutor in the municipal court where his new DUI charge was pending insisted on treating the charge as our Client’s second DUI charge in five years. Based upon the prosecutor’s unreasonable position we demanded a jury trial and had the case bound up to the County State Court. Ultimately, all charges against our Client were dismissed.
State v. B.D – DUI – Dismissed
Client was accused of DUI and other traffic related offenses in Fulton County. After requesting a jury trial, attorneys from Miller & Wynn researched and learned that the arresting officer had been fired by the County. Appearing at trial, our attorneys moved for a Dismissal for Want of Prosecution based upon lack of evidence. The prosecutor admitted to not having the Sate’s officer present for trial and the Judge granted Miller & Wynn’s Motion, thereby dismissing all charges.
State v. J.D. – Douglas County – DUI – Dismissed; Paulding County – DUI – reduced to Reckless Driving; City of Stockbridge – First Lifetime DUI Conviction.
Client received multiple DUI and traffic related charges with in a one year period in several different jurisdictions. Miller & Wynn was able to have our client seek counseling and work toward resolving client’s obvious alcohol abuse issues. Simultaneously, we successfully worked toward resolving the client’s multiple charges. Miller & Hightower was able to minimize the adverse results to our client by first resolving the Douglas County case, having our client plead guilty to traffic offenses other than DUI or reckless driving. We then were able to resolve the client’s Paulding County case by requesting a jury trial and then negotiating a plea to a reckless driving charge. Finally, in light of the past two reductions, and the strong evidence against our client we were unable to avoid a DUI conviction on the client’s third DUI charge; however, we were able to utilize the city’s liberal sentencing policy and avoid having the client spend any time in jail on the DUI charge.
State v. T.W. – Violation of Georgia Controlled Substances Act – Dismissed
Client was accused of possession of Marijuana when a search was conducted on a residence that client owned but rented to others. Miller & Wynn investigated, uncovered, and presented evidence supporting an “equal access” defense resulting in the prosecutor dismissing the charges.
State v. M.F. – Possession of marijuana – Dismissed
Client was stopped for a window tint violation. When the officer reached Client’s vehicle he smelled a strong odor of burnt marijuana coming from inside the Client’s vehicle. The officer told Client to step out of the vehicle because he wanted to search the vehicle for contraband. The officer found a small plastic bag containing a green leafy substance suspected of being marijuana. The officer also found a two burnt marijuana cigarettes (“roaches”) in the console of the car. Client was then arrested for possession of marijuana less than one ounce. During Miller & Hightower’s investigation of the case several issues surrounding how the search was conducted came to light. After these issues were presented the case was dismissed.
State v. E.W. – Consumption Under Age (“CUA”) – Dismissed
Client was in a local bar without a drink in her hand when she was approached by local law enforcement. Even though the officer had no probable cause to believe that Client was intoxicated, he nonetheless demanded Client to blow into a portable breath machine. When Client refused his request the officer then escorted the client out of the bar and threatened to arrest Client if she did not submit to a portable breath test. Client reluctantly did as the officer demanded and blew into the portable alcohol intoxilyzer and her breath registered a blood alcohol level over .04. After testing positive for alcohol my client was given a written citation or ticket for consumption under age (“CUA”). Miller & Hightower made an articulable suspicion and probable cause argument and the case was dismissed.
State v. S.F. – Possession of marijuana – Dismissed
Client rode with a friend who was going to purchase marijuana. Client was in the vehicle when the friend purchased the marijuana. The person selling the marijuana came to the window of the vehicle to conduct the sale; therefore, the Client knew the marijuana was in the vehicle. Once the friend made his purchase he hid the marijuana under the bench seat of his truck. Shortly there after, while the Client and his friend was driving around, the friend started swerving the vehicle and was stopped for suspicion of driving under the influence. Officers then arrested the friend for DUI and searched the vehicle. Once they found the marijuana Client was arrested for possession of marijuana. Miller & Wynn presented evidence of “equal access” and the case was dismissed.
State v. J.D. – DUI – Dismissed
Client was involved in a three car accident. Client rear ended a car which caused the car he hit to rear end the car in-front of it. During the investigative stop, officers noticed a strong odor of alcohol coming from Client’s breath. The officers also noticed that Client’s eyes were watery and blood shot. Officers then asked Client if he had been drinking and Client stated that he had one drink at a business meeting earlier. Officer then asked Client to perform the three standardized field sobriety tests. Client agreed. The first test was the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (“HGN”), and the officer observed 6 of 6 clues. The second test was the Walk and Turn, and the officer observed 3 of 8 clues. The third and final test was the One Leg Stand, and the officer observed 2 of 4 clues. The officer then asked my client to submit to a breath test. Client submitted to the test and tested positive for alcohol. Client was then arrested for DUI. Miller & Wynn investigated the case and discovered that the accident was actually caused by the middle car. The driver of the middle car cut Client off while conducting a lane change. It was also later discovered that the driver of the middle car was severely intoxicated. After presenting this evidence to the prosecutor the case was dismissed against Client.
State v. F.G. – DUI – Dismissed
A law enforcement officer was parked at a gas station when he was approached by a concerned citizen. The concerned citizen informed the officer that an unknown motorcyclist (“Client”) was driving recklessly and went around her in a curb. The concerned citizen also informed the officer that she observed Client pull off to the side of the road once he had pasted. The officer responded by driving to the location where the citizen had mentioned and found Client sitting on his bike on the side of the road. The officer initiated a stop and approached the client. As the officer approached Client he smelled a strong odor of alcohol, and when the officer asked the Client why he was parked on the side of the road my client’s speech was slurred and his eyes were watery. The officer then returned to his patrol car to retrieve his portable alcohol intoxilyzer. The officer then requested that Client blow into the intoxilyzer. Client complied and the results of the test registered positive for alcohol. Client then informed the officer that it was over and requested the officer cut him a break. Soon after this another officer arrived. This officer informed Client that he would not be going home tonight. After this statement was made to Client the officers requested that he take the standardized field sobriety tests. However, Client stated that he had several medical conditions that would prevent him from being able to complete the tests properly and refused to take the tests. Client was then arrested for DUI. After investigating the case, issues surrounding when Client was “in custody” and the officer’s failure to properly read Client his Miranda rights surfaced, and Miller & Wynn were able to get the case dismissed based upon these issues.