Success Stories

For more than 25 years, the lawyers and professionals at Martin & Jones have fought to protect the rights of individuals harmed by the negligence and wrongful conduct of others.  Our firm has helped thousands of individuals and families in a variety of legal matters over the years.  At Martin & Jones, we are always aware of the impact our efforts can have on our clients’ lives.  We approach each case with the objective of securing the best possible result for that individual client.  We are proud of the results we have obtained for our clients.  Prior results do not guarantee a similar result.

Martin & Jones Successfully Resolves Pro Bono Landlord-Tenant Dispute

Martin & Jones attorney G. Chris Olson successfully resolved a landlord-tenant dispute on behalf of a low-income Raleigh couple in a pro bono matter.  Martin & Jones agreed to represent the couple pursuant to a volunteer lawyer program in which attorneys donate their time and perform legal services on a pro bono (“for the public good”) basis.
 
The Raleigh couple had agreed to rent a house after the landlord promised to make needed repairs to the property.  The couple entered into the lease and paid a $650 security deposit in reliance upon the landlord’s promise to make repairs to the house.  However, the landlord refused to make the promised repairs and the house remained in an unsafe and uninhabitable condition.  The house was in such disrepair (i.e. bathroom toilet falling through hole in floor, unsafe wiring, electrical issues, fire hazards), that the rental property was found to be in violation of multiple sections of the Raleigh Housing Code.  When the landlord refused to repair the house and it remained under code, the tenants moved out.

The pro bono clients were referred to Martin & Jones and Chris Olson when the landlord refused to refund the couple’s security deposit and claimed that the couple owed the landlord more than $200 for “re-renting expenses” and such, on top of the some $1,300 he had collected from the couple.  Martin & Jones filed suit on the couple’s behalf after the landlord refused to discuss resolution of the matter.  The plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of the Residential Rental Agreement Act and breach of the implied warranty of habitability – based on the unsafe and uninhabitable condition of the property – and for violation of the Tenant Security Deposit Act – based on the landlord’s failure to provide a proper accounting of the couple’s security deposit and for failure to promptly return the security deposit, as required by law.  After a lawsuit and discovery requests were filed, the landlord agreed to refund the pro bono clients’ $650 security deposit and $650 in rent the couple had paid.  The landlord also agreed to drop the claim that the tenants owed money to him for cleaning and re-renting expenses.

Jones v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. and Amchem Products, Inc., 69 F.3d 712 (4th Cir. 1995).

In these combined cases, the plaintiffs brought suit after developing asbestosis and lung cancer as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products.  The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, contending that the undisputed evidence demonstrated that the plaintiffs had been exposed to the defendant asbestos manufacturer's asbestos-containing products.  The trial court granted the plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment and the case proceeded to trial as to damages.  A jury returned verdicts against the defendant asbestos manufacturer and in favor of each plaintiff in amounts of just more than $1.3 million each.

The defendant appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  The Fourth Circuit affirmed the trial court's summary judgment ruling, holding that the undisputed evidence established that the plaintiffs had been exposed to the defendant's asbestos on a regular basis for approximately 20 years.  In a 2-1 ruling, the Fourth Circuit reversed the trial court's ruling that the plaintiff's smoking history could not be used to bar their claims.  The case was then remanded for a new trial and eventually settled following remand.

Williams v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 176 N.C. App. 330, 626 S.E.2d 716 (2006).

The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed a $7.5 million jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff railroad employee who was exposed to asbestos in the workplace and died of malignant mesothelioma.  The plaintiff, Ray Williams, had worked for CSX Transportation and its predecessor railroad for some 37 years.  Throughout his employment, Mr. Williams was exposed to asbestos and developed mesothelioma as a result of his occupational asbestos exposure. 

Martin & Jones filed suit against CSX on Mr. Williams’ behalf and, in October 2004, a Scotland County jury returned a verdict of $7.5 million in favor of Mr. Williams.  Following the verdict, Ray Williams died as a result of his mesothelioma.  CSX appealed the verdict to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.  In a unanimous Opinion issued on March 7, 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the jury’s verdict.  Lawyers from Martin & Jones, E. Spencer Parris and H. Forest Horne, Jr., handled both the trial in Scotland County and the appeal to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Martin & Jones Recovers $7.5 Million for Quadriplegic Cerebral Palsy Birth Injury

Martin & Jones recovered a $7.5 million settlement in a medical malpractice case arising from a birth injury that caused cerebral palsy.  The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a child diagnosed with quadriplegic cerebral palsy.  The mother was young and healthy when she became pregnant.  She had an uneventful pregnancy and went into labor at term.  The mother presented to the hospital and an electronic fetal monitor was initiated that showed a healthy baby.  Later, the fetal monitor began to show signs of fetal distress, but the attending nurse did not notify the doctor for more than two hours.  After the baby's heart rate plummeted, an obstetrician was finally called.  The baby was delivered by emergency c-section.  However, no pediatrician was called until after the delivery and there was no physician skilled in neonatal resuscitation present at the time of birth.  The baby was not breathing but the respiratory therapist did not attempt to intubate the baby for six minutes and then the therapist placed the breathing tube in the wrong place. 

The child was diagnosed with quadriplegic cerebral palsy and was rendered dependent upon around-the-clock care.  The family sued the hospital and designated more than 20 experts in nursing, respiratory therapy, pediatrics, neonatology, maternal-fetal medicine, obstetrics, physical and rehabilitative medicine, pediatric neurology, pediatric neuroradiology, placental pathology, economics, and life care planning.  The case, handled by Martin & Jones attorneys John Alan Jones and Katie Bricio, settled for $7.5 million, three days before trial was to begin.  

Hawley v. Cash, 155 N.C. App. 580, 574 S.E.2d 684 (2002).

The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed a $2.5 million jury verdict in favor of an elderly gentleman involved in a collision with a tractor trailer.  Martin & Jones filed suit on behalf of the plaintiff who was struck from behind by a tractor-trailer rig while traveling on I-85 near Oxford, North Carolina.  Suit was filed against the defendant driver and the defendant trucking company which both owned the tractor trailer rig involved in the collision and employed the truck driver.  The plaintiff’s evidence established that the plaintiff suffered a permanent brain injury as a result of the collision.  After a one-week trial, a Granville County jury awarded the plaintiff $2.5 million in personal injury damages.

The defendants appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, arguing that the plaintiff was partly at fault for the wreck because he was driving slower than the posted speed after getting on I-85, just before the collision.  The defendants also argued that the damages award was excessive.  In an Opinion issued in December 2002, a unanimous panel of the Court of Appeals rejected the defendants’ arguments and affirmed the jury’s verdict in favor of the plaintiff. 

In addition to recovering $2.5 million for personal injury damages, the plaintiff recovered $20,000 for property damage to his prized 1969 pick-up truck, court costs, and statutory prejudgment and post-judgment interest.  Martin & Jones attorney Hoyt Tessener handled the case both at trial and before the Court of Appeals.

Haislip v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 86 F.3d 1150 (4th Cir. 1996).

Martin & Jones filed this lawsuit on behalf of the estate of a deceased member of the United States Navy.  The suit was based upon the decedent’s development of mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products during his 30 years of service in the US Navy.  The decedent was a construction worker and was exposed to asbestos-containing products during that work.  He developed mesothelioma as a result of prolonged exposure to asbestos-containing products. 

A jury awarded the decedent’s widow $2.8 million in compensatory damages upon its finding that the decedent’s exposure to asbestos-containing pipe covering was a substantial contributing factor to his development of mesothelioma and resulting death.  The defendant asbestos manufacturer appealed the jury’s verdict to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, arguing that the verdict was not supported by substantial evidence and that the jury’s damages award of $2.8 million was excessive. 

A unanimous panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected these arguments and affirmed the jury’s verdict.  The Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiff properly proved that the decedent developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by the defendant.  The Fourth Circuit also held that the amount of the jury’s verdict was not excessive, specifically noting the extreme pain and mental and physical suffering the decedent and his widow endured as he battled mesothelioma.  The Fourth Circuit issued its unanimous opinion on May 23, 1996.

Prekler v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 60 F.3d 824 (4th Cir. 1995).

Martin & Jones pursued this case on behalf of the widow of a laborer who developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing insulation.  The worker had been exposed to significant quantities of asbestos dust during more than 30 years’ work as a laborer and boilermaker.  The worker developed mesothelioma and died as a result of that asbestos-related disease during the course of the lawsuit.  His widow was then substituted as the plaintiff in the case. 

The case was tried and a North Carolina jury returned a verdict of $477,085 in favor of the plaintiff.  The defendant asbestos manufacturer, which had manufactured the asbestos products which caused the decedent’s mesothelioma and resultant death, appealed the jury’s verdict to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. 

The defendant argued that its motion to continue the trial should have been granted and that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict.  The Fourth Circuit rejected these arguments, noting that the plaintiff had made all required disclosures more than three years prior and that there was no reason for further delay in resolution of the case.  The Fourth Circuit also held that the plaintiff proved that the worker’s exposure to the defendant manufacturer’s asbestos-containing products was a substantial factor in causing his mesothelioma and death from that occupational lung disease.  The Fourth Circuit’s opinion was issued on July 6, 1995.

McNeil v. Wyeth, 462 F.3d 364 (5th Cir. 2006).

In this prescription drug failure to warn case filed in Texas, the plaintiff alleged that she developed tardive dyskinesia, an irreversible neurological condition, as a result of taking the prescription drug Reglan.  The claim was based upon the manufacturer’s drug warning which mentioned the side effect of tardive dyskinesia, but did not warn that the risk of developing the condition may be as high as 1 in 4 with long-term use of the drug, as some published medical studies had reported.  The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the drug manufacturer and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim because the drug label mentioned the side effect which the plaintiff ultimately developed.  The trial court held the label was adequate as a matter of law under Texas law governing failure to warn claims.

Martin & Jones attorneys briefed and argued the plaintiff’s appeal of the summary judgment ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  In an Opinion issued in August 2006, the Fifth Circuit reversed the summary judgment ruling and held that the plaintiff was entitled to have a jury determine the question of whether the Reglan drug label adequately warned of the tardive dyskinesia risk.  The case was remanded for further discovery and trial.  Following remand, the parties agreed to a confidential settlement. 

  Martin & Jones successfully resolves pro bono case for disabled client. 

Martin & Jones attorney Chris Olson successfully resolved a lawsuit on behalf of a pro bono client sued for alleged breach of a rental agreement.  The client, who suffered from MS, had entered into a residential rental agreement with a local landlord.  When the woman’s MS worsened to the point that she could no longer safely live at the rental property, she requested that she be released of her lease obligations as provided for by the Fair Housing Amendments Act.  The landlord refused and sued her for unpaid rent through the end of the rental term. 

Martin & Jones entered an appearance on behalf of the pro bono client, answered the Complaint for damages against her, and asserted counterclaims for the landlord’s violation of the Fair Housing Amendments Act and the Tenant Security Deposit Act.  The counterclaims were based upon the landlord’s failure to properly account for the client’s security deposit and for failure to allow the client early termination of the lease, based upon her medically-documented deteriorating physical condition.  Martin & Jones moved for dismissal of the landlord’s collection action, contending that the pro bono client was entitled to an absolute release from the rental agreement with no charges or penalties assessed.  On the eve of the summary judgment hearing, the parties agreed to a dismissal with prejudice of all claims asserted.  The settlement meant that the pro bono client was not liable for the landlord’s damages claim. 

 Martin & Jones successfully resolves pro bono case involving wrongful denial of credit insurance benefits.

Martin & Jones attorney Chris Olson successfully resolved a pro bono case involving wrongful denial of credit insurance benefits.  The couple had been sold credit insurance in connection with the purchase of an automobile.  The credit insurance was intended to pay off the car loan upon the occurrence of the insured against event, in this case the purchaser’s disability following a stroke.  The couple properly paid the credit insurance premium, but the defendant seller refused to honor the policy.  Martin & Jones attorney Chris Olson contacted the defendant car dealer and persuaded management personnel at the dealership to honor the insurance policy.  The couple then received the benefits to which they were entitled, insurance proceeds which paid off the couple’s car loan. 

Martin & Jones successfully resolves pro bono matter for client sued in collection matter.

Martin & Jones attorney Chris Olson successfully defended a lawsuit on behalf of a pro bono client sued in a collection matter.  The client had co-signed for a car loan so her daughter could purchase a used vehicle.  When the engine in the car went out and the client’s daughter experienced other personal and financial difficulties, she got behind on payments on the car.  The client and her daughter voluntarily surrendered the vehicle to the finance company, but the company sued the client for a claimed loss on the vehicle allegedly sustained on the company’s sale of the vehicle at auction.  Despite minimal use of the car, the finance company asserted that the amount recovered when the car was re-sold was insufficient to pay off the loan.  Even though the finance company repossessed the vehicle and the client was only behind with a couple payments, the finance company claimed it was owed nearly $10,000.  

Martin & Jones, through Chris Olson, entered an appearance on behalf of the client and asserted defenses based upon the creditor’s failure to comply with statutory requirements related to disposition of collateral following repossession.  The credit company failed to produce documents in discovery and Martin & Jones filed a motion to compel on the client’s behalf.  Among the documents requested were those related to the commercial reasonableness of the vehicle’s sale at auction and documentation of the finance company’s claimed losses.  On the eve of a hearing related to discovery motions, the finance company agreed to dismiss its claim against the client. 

Perry v. Burlington Industries, Inc., 80 N.C. App. 650, 343 S.E.2d 215 (1986). 

The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed an Industrial Commission ruling awarding workers’ compensation benefits to an employee whose occupational lung disease was caused by exposure to cotton dust in the workplace.  Martin & Jones filed the claim in the Industrial Commission, seeking workers’ compensation benefits for a mill worker who developed a severe, debilitating lung disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, after more than 25 years’ work in the defendant’s textile mill.  The Industrial Commission, following a hearing on the matter, found that the plaintiff employee was totally incapacitated due to his occupational lung disease and was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. 

The defendant appealed to the Full Commission of the Industrial Commission, which adopted the decision of the hearing commissioner awarding benefits to the worker.  The defendant then appealed the Full Commission’s decision to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.  In a unanimous opinion, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the Industrial Commission’s rulings awarding the worker full workers’ compensation benefits based upon his debilitating occupational lung disease.  The Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff had proved that his employment in the textile mill was a significant causal factor in the development of his work-related lung disease.

Martin & Jones settlement secures lifetime medical benefits and handicapped-accessible housing for laborer paralyzed in construction accident. 

Martin & Jones filed suit on behalf of a general laborer who suffered severe injuries following a fall at a Wake County construction site.  The worker was knocked from the roof of a structure under construction by roof trusses that were being swung into position.  The plaintiff and his co-workers would grab roof trusses that were being swung into place by a crane and nail the trusses into place.  The plaintiff suffered permanent injuries, including paraplegia, after being knocked from the roof to a concrete driveway below.

Martin & Jones filed suit against the crane company responsible for moving the roof trusses, the general contractor, and the framing subcontractor.  The plaintiff was employed by an unlicensed, uninsured framing crew.  The framing subcontractor was dismissed from the third-party suit after it accepted the workers’ compensation claim and the plaintiff proceeded with the third-party suit against the general contractor and the crane company.  The case against the general contractor was resolved at mediation. 

The agreement to settle the third-party claim against the crane company and to resolve all of the workers’ compensation claim with the exception of the claim for medical benefits was reached at trial, following the hearing of pre-trial motions.  The third-party case was resolved for $1,580,000.  The settlement also required the workers’ compensation carrier to provide lifetime medical benefits for the plaintiff, in addition to requiring the workers’ compensation carrier to purchase a suitable, handicapped-accessible home for the plaintiff.  

Martin & Jones recovers $1.25 million jury verdict on behalf of seniors defrauded in investment scam.

After a weeklong trial, a Wilson County jury returned a punitive damages verdict of $1.25 million to two elderly investors who claimed a Johnston County man had defrauded them as part of a widespread investment scam.  The plaintiffs were two of hundreds of investors who had purchased unregistered securities marketed at the time as “business opportunities” in the sale and leaseback of mobile billboards.  As the investments were marketed, investors would purchase mobile billboards in units of $20,000 from Mobile Billboards of America, Inc. (MBA), which would then pay a monthly lease from advertising revenues.  At the end of a seven-year period, MBA would repurchase each billboard unit for the original price paid, so that the investment appeared as a method of preserving principal and making seven years of competitive interest.  In reality, the sale and leaseback program was a Ponzi scheme, where the lease payments came from investors’ own money.

Martin & Jones filed suit on behalf of two of the investors, both older women who invested part of their retirement savings.  The plaintiffs contended that the program was represented to investors as “business opportunities” so MBA and its sales agents could circumvent state and federal securities laws.  After regulators pursued MBA, they discovered that millions of dollars in retiree wealth had already disappeared. 

The defendant in the case filed by Martin & Jones was a sales agent who would seek out and earn the trust of senior citizens so he could induce the purchase of these investments.  The defendant would often invite senior citizens to a free lunch and seminars as part of his scheme to curry favor with them and earn their trust.  The plaintiffs’ evidence demonstrated that the defendant would tell senior citizens that there was “little” or “no risk” while failing to disclose that he was making commissions of up to 20% or that the initial “lease payments” would actually come from their own investment money and not from mobile billboard revenues as promised.

The case was tried before a Wilson County jury for a week, and on December 5, 2008, the jury returned a punitive damages verdict in the amount of $1.25 million in favor of the defrauded seniors.  The case was handled and tried by Martin & Jones attorneys Hoyt G. Tessener and Walt Wood.

Smith v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Co., 278 F.Supp.2d 684 (W.D.N.C. 2003).

A North Carolina federal court held that the plaintiff presented proper expert testimony in this pharmaceutical failure to warn case.  Martin & Jones pursued this drug failure to warn case on behalf of a woman who developed primary pulmonary hypertension, a rare but often-fatal lung disease that causes elevated blood pressure in the pulmonary artery.  There was no dispute that the diet drug combination she took, Fen-phen, was capable of causing pulmonary hypertension.  However, patients generally developed symptoms of the disease within a year of exposure to the drug.  In this case, the plaintiff’s symptoms first developed about four years after her last exposure to the drug, and there was no published medical literature tp establish any increased risk of developing pulmonary hypertension that long after exposure to the drug. 

That issue -- late-onset primary pulmonary hypertension in diet drug users-- was being litigated in several cases across the country.  The Smith case was the first in which a federal judge conducted an evidentiary hearing (a Daubert hearing) to assess the scientific evidence related to this causation issue.  The plaintiff presented testimony from Dr. Stuart Rich, a world-renowned expert and one of the lead authors of the International Primary Pulmonary Hypertension Study (IPPHS), to prove the scientific case for late-onset primary pulmonary hypertension in diet drug users.  Martin & Jones attorney Greg Martin presented the plaintiff’s evidence at a two-day trial of that scientific issue before a federal district court judge.  On April 17, 2003, the federal court issued its written opinion, ruling that the proposed testimony of Dr. Rich was proper and that the jury should be allowed to hear such evidence at the trial of the plaintiff’s case.  The favorable ruling at this first Daubert hearing paved the way to confidential settlements of late-onset PPH cases across the country.

McKenney v. Purepac Pharmaceutical Co., 167 Cal.App.4th 72 (Cal. App. 5th Dist. 2008).

The California Court of Appeals rejected a generic drug manufacturer’s preemption argument.  Martin & Jones pursued this prescription drug failure to warn claim against a manufacturer generic metoclopramide, the bio-equivalent of the brand-name drug Reglan.  The claim was based upon the generic manufacturer’s failure to provide adequate warnings about the risk of tardive dyskinesia, a debilitating and often permanent movement disorder.  The drug’s label suggested the risk of TD was very low (1 in 500), even though published medical studies reported the risk was as high as 1 in 4 patients with longer-term exposures to the drug.. 

The issue in this case was whether generic drug companies are liable for failure to warn about dangerous side effects associated with their drugs.  The generic manufacturer argued that federal law precluded it from making any changes to the drug’s warning label unless the brand-name manufacturer directed a change. The trial court agreed, dismissing the plaintiff’s claim and holding that the claim was preempted as a matter of federal law. 

 If the trial court ruling had been allowed to stand, the practical effect would have been that whether or not a patient injured by a dangerous drug could recover would depend entirely on whether the patient’s pharmacist decided to fill a prescription with a brand name or generic drug: if the patient was injured by a brand name drug a claim could be pursued; but if the patient was injured by a generic version of exactly the same drug, there could be no recovery. Martin & Jones attorney Greg Martin briefed and argued the case before the California Court of Appeal, and a unanimous panel reversed the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings and trial.  This case was the first appellate decision in any State in the nation to hold that generic drug companies have an independent duty to warn, and are liable to patients injured by their defective drugs.

Interstate tractor-trailer collision leads to $5 million settlement

Martin & Jones attorney Hoyt Tessener filed suit in this action arising from an interstate tractor-trailer collision, which occurred in Robeson County.  The wreck occurred on September 14, 2004, as the plaintiff was driving to a job site in South Carolina.  The plaintiff’s van was hit by a tractor-trailer, flipping several times down I-95 just outside of Rowland, North Carolina, in Robeson County.  The driver of the tractor-trailer rig fled the scene.  Fortunately several eyewitnesses traveling behind the truck identified particular markings and later provided affidavits and testimony.  The plaintiff suffered serious injuries to nearly every part of his body, including massive head wounds that resulted in epidural hematoma.  The injuries left the plaintiff with serious physical, mental, and emotional limitations that would prohibit him from returning to work.

The defendant trucking company initially claimed that it could not identify the driver involved and that it was not the defendant’s tractor-trailer that was involved in the wreck.  However, through extensive investigation, discovery, interviews and testimony from eyewitnesses and experts, the plaintiff’s attorneys concluded that the tractor-trailer belonged to the defendant trucking company.  Because of the trucking company’s position, Tessener filed suit against every potential defendant in Connecticut.  Prior to mediation, plaintiff’s attorneys conducted jury focus groups in Robeson County to determine reasonable ranges for damages.  The focus groups confirmed that the amount the plaintiff was pursuing would be the likely outcome of a jury trial.  At mediation, the plaintiffs used video testimony from four eyewitnesses, video and transcript testimony from a half dozen medical experts, a life care plan, an economic loss forecast, body boards, a sanctions presentation of the plaintiff’s injuries, a multimedia exhibit detailing the plaintiff’s life before his brain injury, and numerous simulations of the crash.

The defendant’s highest offer at mediation was less than the amount of the plaintiff’s special damages (e.g. medical expenses, lost wages, amounts for future lost wages, and future medical expenses).  The case did not settle at mediation and proceeded to trial.  The trial court denied the defendant’s contributory negligence claim at summary judgment, and as the jury was sworn in for selection, the defendant agreed to settle the case for $5 million.  Following the settlement, the plaintiff’s lawyers negotiated a settlement of the plaintiff’s worker’s compensation claim with the worker’s compensation carrier agreeing to pay the plaintiff an additional $235,000 and waiving its lien, in exchange for a complete clincher.

The plaintiff’s team included a collision reconstruction expert, a collision animation expert, a trucking industry expert, an economist, an expert in psychodrama, a jury consultant, a life care planner, and multiple medical doctors to support the plaintiff’s claim.  Martin & Jones attorney Hoyt Tessener filed the lawsuit and he and Martin & Jones professionals handled the case from investigation through settlement at trial.