Archive for April, 2010
Thursday, April 15th, 2010
At Nahon Saharovich & Trotz, PLC (â€śNST Law), we know that as SUVs became popular, making the transition from off-road vehicle to all purpose family car, certain design elements made the SUV a moving death trap for many drivers.Â The SUV is portrayed in most auto industry advertising as the â€śheartwarming modern station wagonâ€ť where mom and dad load up the kids, dog and bikes and head off for a sun filled day at the beach.Â This popular image belies a darker side to the widespread popularity of the SUV â€“ the SUV rollover accident.
Although roll over accidents occur less frequently than other accidents, they are far more likely to result in serious injury or death.Â Rollover accidents kill about 10,000 people and injure more than 200,000 each year.Â Although rollover accidents accounted for only 3% of all auto accidents in 2001, they now account for a whopping 33% of all vehicle accident fatalities.Â At NST Law, we have many years of knowledge and experience with representing those injured in SUV rollover accidents.
The reasons that SUVs are so prone to rollover accidents and result in such catastrophic injuries like head trauma are well known in the SUV manufacturing industry.Â The risk of an SUV rollover occurs when taking emergency corrective action after steering in one direction and then rapidly correcting in the other direction.Â SUVs have a high center of gravity (i.e they are top-heavy) and are among the most unstable vehicles on the road.Â The high center of gravity and a narrow track width (i.e. the distance between the tires on each side of the vehicle) makes it difficult for a SUV to skid, spin and recover.Â This is a common evasive maneuver that auto driverâ€™s successfully perform every day.Â In SUV vehicles, this rapid corrective action often causes SUVâ€™s to rollover.Â SUV accident litigation often involves expert testimony regarding the physics of SUV rollovers and SUV safety standards.Â The attorneys of NST Law understand the value of using technology like computer animations to help the judge and jury understand and visualize an SUV rollover accident.
Studies of rollover accidents show that more than 90% of rollovers occur after a driver inadvertently runs off the roadway.Â Once the vehicle leaves the pavement after the driver loses control of the vehicle, it hits a ditch, soft soil, curb or rail guard or other â€śtripping mechanism,â€ť which then initiates the rollover accident.Â This type of chain reaction is the most common factor in SUV rollover accidents often called â€śtrippingâ€ť accidents. Electronic Stability Control (ESC) can reduce the risk of SUV rollover accidents to some degree.Â ESC is intended to aid drivers in maintaining control of their vehicles during extreme steering maneuvers.Â The ESC system senses when the SUV is starting to spin out (oversteer) or plow out (understeer), the system automatically activating the brakes to one or more wheels.Â Other systems slow the SUV with further brake and throttle control.
The design and manufacturing of an SUV not only make it more likely to rollover during an accident but also much more frequently results in catastrophic injury or death.Â Although many SUV type vehicles originally were designed with rollbars for off-road driving, SUV manufacturers viewed rollbars as an unnecessary expense as SUVs became routinely used for standard city driving.Â Today, very few SUVs have rollbars and almost none meet the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration roof safety standards for automobiles.Â The high center of gravity, narrow track width and lack of roof reinforcement form a deadly combination.Â The SUV auto accident attorneys of NST Law thoroughly understand the legal and mechanical issues related to SUV rollover accidents.Â NST Law will make the vast resources of experience, knowledge and technology at our disposal available to assist you in obtaining the best possible outcome in your SUV rollover accident case.
Monday, April 12th, 2010
Most people cross streets, walk to the market or through a store parking lot on a daily basis.Â We cross the street on our way to work while our children cross the street on their way to school.Â Rarely do we consider that there is a real chance that we may be involved in a pedestrian accident.Â Nonetheless, the statistics regarding the frequency of pedestrian accidents is staggering. At Nahon Saharovich & Trotz, PLC (â€śNST Law), we employ the latest cutting edge technology in litigating pedestrian accident cases.Â When a pedestrian is involved in a pedestrian accident, the resulting injuries are frequently catastrophic or life threatening because the human body does not typically fair well when it is faced with the impact of thousands of pounds of metal in the form of a car, truck or SUV.
The statistics concerning the frequency and seriousness of pedestrian accidents is mind-boggling.Â Over 68,000 people are injured and another 5,000 killed in pedestrian accidents each year.Â Consider a few more statistics that give a more complete picture of the risk of being seriously injured or killed in a pedestrian accident:
- 180,000 pedestrians were killed in motor vehicle accidents between 1975-2005.
- A pedestrian is injured in a motor vehicle accident every 8 minutes and killed every 111 minutes.
- There are approximately 69,000 pedestrian accidents per year.
A pedestrian who is injured or killed in a motor vehicle accident may seek compensation against any person or entity whose negligent conduct contributed to the accident.Â Potential parties that may be liable include any drivers at fault or a governmental agency, such as, municipal, state or federal agencies responsible for the design, construction and maintenance of the sidewalk, roadway or parking lot.Â Other drivers owe a duty to exercise â€śreasonable care under the circumstancesâ€ť when driving a motor vehicle, while governmental agencies owe a duty of reasonable care in the safe design and maintenance of sidewalks, roadways and parking lots.Â Common causes for pedestrian accidents include the following:
- Inattentive or preoccupied drivers
- Driverâ€™s failure to obey the speed limit
- A driverâ€™s failure to yield at a crosswalk
- Disregarding traffic signs and signals
- Failure to signal when turning
- Ignoring weather or traffic conditions
- Driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol
The sad reality is that if a pedestrian is involved in a pedestrian accident the probability of serious injury or death is very high. A pedestrian involved in a motor vehicle accident has an 85% chance of death when a car is traveling over 40 mile per hour.Â Pedestrian accidents also commonly result in catastrophic injuries like brain injuries, spinal cord and head/neck injuries.Â These types of pedestrian accident injuries affect the quality of life of the person injured sometimes for the rest of his or her life.Â These types of injuries will typically require ongoing medical treatment and rehabilitative therapy with the injured victim never fully recovering from his or her injuries.Â Catastrophic injuries of this kind also mean a great deal of medical cost and rehabilitative care not to mention the lost earnings from time off work.
At NST Law, we have handled many pedestrian accidents and know that the lawyers for a driver or the driverâ€™s insurance company will routinely allege that the pedestrian who was injured or killed was at least partially responsible for his own injuries.Â Unfortunately, if the defendantâ€™s attorneys are successful in establishing that a pedestrian did not act in a reasonably prudent manner for his own safety, a judge or jury may reduce a pedestrianâ€™s recovery in proportion to the percentage of fault attributable to him or her.
The attorneys of NST Law will aggressively oppose attempts by defense lawyers to establish you should be apportioned fault in the accident that resulted in your injuries.Â We may use state of the art computer animations and the testimony of accident reconstruction experts to help establish that your were not partially responsible for the accident or to mitigate your proportion of fault.
There are commons types of conduct by pedestrianâ€™s that the attorney of a driver or the driverâ€™s insurance frequently point to as evidence of a pedestrianâ€™s own negligence.Â At NST Law, we have a great deal of experience addressing claims that a pedestrianâ€™s recovery should be reduced and a degree of fault allocated to the injured pedestrian.Â Types of pedestrian conduct often used as examples of pedestrian negligence include the following:
- Ignoring traffic controls: This would include entering a crosswalk against a â€śdonâ€™t walkâ€ť signal or yellow light.
- Jaywalking: If a pedestrian crosses the street in an inappropriate or unexpected location (i.e. the middle of the block), a pedestrian puts himself or herself at a greater risk of injury.
- â€śDartingâ€ť Children/Parents: Children often run out into the street without looking to chase a toy or pet.Â Alarmed parents will sometimes hastily follow to rescue a child and fail to check for traffic.
- Walking on a limited access highway: This is an extremely dangerous but sometime unavoidable practice when a driver has car trouble.Â Generally, a pedestrian is well advised to stay off any roadway marked â€śNo Pedestrians.â€ťÂ Drivers on these roadways are driving at high rates of speeds and are not typically expecting pedestrians.
The presence of any of these types of conducts greatly complicates recovery in a pedestrian accident.Â The experienced pedestrian accident lawyers at NST Law can evaluate your case and present you with potential strategies and outcomes if any of these types of conducts are present in your pedestrian accident case.Â Super Lawyers have recognized several attorneys at NST Law, which rates the top 5% of lawyers in the country.Â We at NST Law understand the potentially life altering consequences when you or someone you love is involved in a pedestrian accident; we pride ourselves on using the latest technology as well as novel and innovative strategies in litigating pedestrian accident cases.
Saturday, April 10th, 2010
If you are injured when you are on someone elseâ€™s property, you may be able to seek compensation for your injuries from the person who â€ścontrolsâ€ť the property, typically the person who owns or has the right to possession of the property (hereinafter referred to as the â€śpremises ownerâ€ť).Â You may seek compensation regardless of whether the property is a neighborâ€™s home, commercial business or city sidewalk depending on the circumstances surrounding your injuries.Â Â Â An experienced Tennessee premises liability lawyer should know how to gather critical evidence of the premises ownerâ€™s knowledge of the dangers lurking on his or her property and how to make a compelling presentation to a judge or jury.
There are often complex questions regarding the â€śforseeabilityâ€ť of certain dangers that visitors encounter on a property, which may require an expertâ€™s analysis and testimony.Â At Nahon Saharovich & Trotz, PLC (â€śNST Law), we understand the importance of analyzing statistical data and employing expert testimony in to help ensure that our clientâ€™s are compensated or their injuries.Â At NST Law, we will carefully analyze the circumstances of your accident and rely on state of the art models, video reenactments and computer simulations in helping a judge or jury understand how you were injured and why you should be compensated for your injuries.
The body of Tennessee accident law that provides for the liability of a premises owner to someone injured on his or her premises is generally called â€śpremises liability.â€ťÂ What your Tennessee premises liability lawyer must show to establish liability of a premises owner for injuries you suffer while on the property depends on the reason for your visit.
A premises owner owes a different duty of care to those who visit their property depending on how a visitor is characterized.Â This classification system was the common law (judge made law) approach in Tennessee and remains the law in many states.
- Invitee: Basically, an invitee is someone who is on the property for some business purpose that is mutually beneficial to both parties.Â The person is said to have the implied or express consent of the premises owner to visit the property.Â A customer who visits a grocery store to buy groceries would be a typical example.Â Under Tennessee common law and the law of many states, a premises owner owes this type of visitor the highest duty of care.
- Licensee: A licensee is a social guest who visits your property.Â A visiting neighbor or friend would be an example of a licensee.Â The premises owner traditionally has an obligation to warn an invitee of risks of injury that the invitee would not likely discover on their own.Â If a premises owner knows that a step on the basement stairs is broken (but does not appear broken), the premises owner may be liable to a social guest who is injured by the broken step.Â Put another way, a premises owner is liable for injuries to social guests that result from â€ślatent defects,â€ť meaning defects that are not obvious to a reasonably observant person.
- Trespasser: A trespasser is a person who has neither an express or implied invitation to be on the property but instead is present for his or her own purposes rather than to perform any task for the owner.Â If the premises owner is unaware of a trespasserâ€™s presence, the owner typically has no duty to warn the trespasser of dangers or to make the premises safe for the trespasser. The premises owner is only obliged not to intentionally hurt an adult trespasser.Â A premises owner could be liable if she sets some kind of trap to catch someone pilfering from the premises, for example. But if someone were wandering around the property without permission and fell in a hole, the premises owner would ordinarily not be liable for his or her injuries.
If the trespasser is a child who is attracted by a dangerous condition on the property, such as, a deep hole or swimming pool, a premises owner may be liable under what is referred to as the â€śattractive nuisance doctrine.â€ťÂ This special case of liability for injury to a child does not apply to the terrain of the property.Â Tennessee premises liability law also has a special provision that relieves a property owner of liability if land is leased to the government for recreational use.
Tennessee has generally abandoned the common law distinction between the level of care owed to a licensee and an invitee.Â A uniform standard of care requires the exercise of reasonable care for the safety of visitors other than trespassers. To satisfy the reasonableness standard owed to invitees and licensees, a premises owner has a continuing duty to inspect the property to identify dangerous conditions and either repair them or post warnings as appropriate.
At NST Law, we have many years of experience representing those injured by property owners who fail to warn of a dangerous condition on his or her property or fail to make the property safe.Â The attorneys of NST Law have represented clients who were injured by natural or man-made conditions on a property and even injuries suffered by the intentional or criminal act of a third party.Â Often, the â€śforeseeabilityâ€ť of ones injuries will be a critical issue in these cases, especially where oneâ€™s injuries are caused by the intentional or criminal act of a third party.
The experienced premises liability attorneys of NST Law will carefully investigate to determine if there has been previous criminal activity in the area.Â Â Â We will typically use an expert to gather such evidence of past criminal activity in an area and testify regarding statistical evidence of crime in the area.
At NST Law, we understand that establishing that a premises owner should have known that his or her property was unsafe is usually a critical issue in establishing liability on behalf of someone who has been seriously injured or killed on the property.Â We routinely employ our skill and experience by using statistics and expert testimony to establish this knowledge, and computer simulations or other state of the art technological evidence to communicate this knowledge to a judge or jury.Â NST Law attorneys have been nationally recognized by Super Lawyers, which rates the top 5% of lawyers in the country.
Thursday, April 8th, 2010
Though activity in the construction industry has recently declined as a result of a lagging economy, construction sites are still commonplace in most communities.Â Â Whether a person is working at a construction site or simply passing by a site, there is a significant risk of injury or death from construction site hazards.Â The law compensating those injured by hazards on a construction site differs based on whether someone is working at the site or just passing by.Â A person who is injured as a bystander is compensated by normal personal injury law from any party who is at fault.Â Those who are employed at construction sites may face a more complex situation.Â The lawyers of Nahon, Saharovich & Trotz (â€śNST Lawâ€ť) will use our many years of experience in handling construction injury claims to help you or your family obtain compensation for a construction accident victimâ€™s injuries or death.
Thousands of construction workers are hurt or killed each year while on the job.Â The construction industry accounted for the most fatal work injuries in any private sector industry in 2008.Â Even construction accidents that do not result in death often involve catastrophic injuries like head and neck injuries from various types of accidents including:
- Falls from scaffoldings, ladders or roofs
- Construction vehicle accidents
- Accidents resulting from defective heavy equipment
- Mishaps caused by careless storage of equipment or debris
- An accident resulting in electrocution, fire or explosion
A construction worker who is injured on the job is typically compensated for his or her injuries under the workerâ€™s compensation system.Â The system provides benefits to workers who are injured on the job or who suffer an occupational disease that occurs in the course and scope of employment.Â The system is not based on fault so there is no need to prove that an employer is at fault in causing an employeeâ€™s injuries nor is it relevant that the workerâ€™s own negligence contributed to his or her own injuries.
The lack of need to prove fault is the good news, but the workerâ€™s compensation system also includes some bad news.Â Workerâ€™s compensation benefits are far more limited than those that can be awarded under Tennessee personal injury law.Â At NST Law, we recognize the limitations of the workerâ€™s compensation system and understand the importance of naming all potential partiesâ€™ to a construction accident case so that our clients can be fully compensated by a personal injury action against third parties.
A construction project usually involves many individual companies, people and products.Â Property owners, contractors, architects and engineers all have some duty to provide a safe working environment at a construction site.Â Additionally, equipment manufacturers and suppliers also have a duty under Tennessee construction accident law to provide equipment and supplies that are safe.Â At NST Law, we will routinely investigate the potential to pursue a personal injury lawsuit against any of these third parties in addition to a workerâ€™s compensation claim against an injured construction workerâ€™s employer.Â The damages that may be recovered in a third-party negligence lawsuit far exceed typical workerâ€™s compensation benefits and may include lost wages, reduced earning capacity, current and future medical costs, pain and suffering and loss of consortium (deprivation of the benefits of a family relationship due to a workerâ€™s injuries).
Unlike claims brought by injured construction workerâ€™s under the Tennessee workerâ€™s compensation system, an injured worker must prove the fault of any third-party in a Tennessee personal injury action.Â At NST Law, we have handled many such cases and know that the lawyer for a third-party or their insurer may argue that the conduct of the injured worker contributed to his or her own injury.Â Under Tennessee construction accident law, an injured construction workerâ€™s recovery can be reduced according to the workerâ€™s own degree of fault.Â This element of Tennessee construction accident law is called comparative negligence.
At NST Law, we understand the importance of investigating to determine all potential parties that may have played a role in causing an injured construction workerâ€™s injuries.Â We also know that is it critical that an experienced construction lawyer moves promptly to seek compensation for a construction worker who suffers catastrophic injury or death.Â The landscape of a construction site changes and evolves quickly so NST Law will act promptly to make sure evidence that may help establish liability of a third-party is not destroyed or altered.Â At NST law, we will use our skilled staff, experience and resources to pursue compensation from all potential parties responsible for a construction workerâ€™s injuries.Â Whether you are a construction worker or a person injured when passing a construction site, NST Law has the experience and skill to assist you in seeking just compensation for your injuries.
Monday, April 5th, 2010
The attorneys of NST Law also understand the importance of coordinating our legal theories and evidence closely with a medical expert so that the information is understandable and persuasive to a jury of lay people.Â We employ state-of-the-art Medical Demonstrative Evidence (â€śMDEâ€ť) to create a visual and tactile presentation to vividly communicate the complex mechanisms of causation in a medical malpractice case.Â MDE includes medical illustrations, animations, anatomical models and computer presentations, which assist our attorneys and their expert witnesses in communicating medical information, clearly and concisely, to a jury of lay people.
To explain causation in a medical malpractice case, it falls on someone to explain the details of human anatomy, physiology, trauma and/or surgery.Â No matter how good an attorney or medical expert is at explaining complex medical terms and issues, the attorneys of NST Law know that the effective use of visual aids greatly increases the understanding and retention of complex medical information during a medical malpractice trial.Â At NST Law, we pride ourselves on using cutting edge technology in the courtroom to assist the jury in understanding the mechanics of how a medical providerâ€™s negligence caused a patientâ€™s injury or death.Â NST Law attorneys have been nationally recognized by Super Lawyers, which rates the top 5% of lawyers in the country.
Friday, April 2nd, 2010
Tennessee medical malpractice cases can be among the most challenging cases to litigate because of the complexity of the subject matter.Â Many people presume that medical malpractice, which leads to the injury or death of a patient, is a fairly rare event.Â There are, in fact, many good doctors practicing medicine. However, in reality, it is estimated that as many as Â (Please check facts. My sources suggest about 98,000.) people die each year from preventable medical errors.Â The attorneys at the law firm of Nahon, Saharovich & Trotz (â€śNST Lawâ€ť) have the experience and the resources needed to aggressively seek compensation for those who have been injured by the negligence of medical professionals.
Statistics show that only one malpractice claim is made for every 7.6 hospital injuries, according to a Harvard study. Further, plaintiffs drop 10 times more claims than they pursue, according to Physician Insurer Association of America data.Â One of the most challenging issues in a medical malpractice case is establishing that the negligent act of the medical professional was the â€ścauseâ€ť of the patientâ€™s injuries.Â Several factors contribute to the challenge in establishing this â€ścausal connectionâ€ť including the following:
- The complexity involved in understanding the scientific medical details of disease and treatment
- The need for a medical expert to analyze the facts and testify to the judge or jury
- The difficulty of separating the negative outcome from the ordinary result of the condition or disease
- The frequent lack of tangible evidence of what caused the patientâ€™s injury
At NST Law, we will use our experience in addressing the complexities of medical malpractice cases and proving that a medical error â€ścausedâ€ť a patientâ€™s injury to help you or your family seek just compensation.Â A plaintiff seeking compensation for the injuries caused by a medical professional must establish the following: 1) the medical professional owed the patient a â€śduty of careâ€ť; 2) the medical professional failed to exercise the degree of care and skill of a similar medical professional under routine circumstances; 3) the medical professionalâ€™s mistake caused the patientâ€™s injury; and 4) the patient suffered damage from the medical professionalâ€™s mistake.â€ť
Actual vs. Proximate Cause
Causation in medical malpractice cases is made up of two components â€ścausation in factâ€ť and â€śproximate cause.â€ťÂ Causation in fact refers to the mistake or misconduct of the medical professional being the â€śbut forâ€ť cause of the patientâ€™s injury.Â If the medical professionalâ€™s error had not occurred, the patient would not have suffered the injury.Â If the physician had not given the patient a drug to which the patient had a known allergy, for example, the patient would not have suffered an allergic reaction and died.
Proximate cause (sometimes called â€ślegal causeâ€ť) is a complex legal term and a complete explanation is beyond the scope of this article.Â Simply put, proximate cause is defined as a cause which in a natural and continuous sequence unbroken by any intervening event produces injury and without which the injury would not have occurred. In general, the concept of proximate cause reflects policy considerations that even when an event is the â€śbut forâ€ť cause of any injury, sometimes an outcome is so remote and unforeseeable that it is considered unfair to hold someone accountable for the result.
A patient is re-admitted into a hospital because he suffers a heart attack, for example, which the physician in the hospital failed to diagnose or treat on a prior visit.Â If the patient dies from a heart attack after being re-admitted to the hospital, this result may be deemed the â€śreasonably foreseeableâ€ť result of the patient not being properly diagnosed or treated on the prior visit.
By way of comparison, if a criminal burst into the hospital and shoots the patient in an attempted robbery to steal drugs from the hospital, the physicianâ€™s failure to properly treat and diagnose the patient on the prior visit may be the â€śbut forâ€ť cause of the injury.Â Nonetheless, a robber shooting the patient may be deemed to be too unforeseeable a result from a failure to diagnose and treat a heart attack to be considered proximately caused by the physicianâ€™s error.Â The intentional act of the robber who injects himself into the chain of events between the failure to diagnose and the patientâ€™s death is sometimes called a â€śsuperceding causeâ€ť or â€śintervening cause.â€ťÂ As this example illustrates, the concept of proximate cause is rooted in the idea that the consequences of the physicianâ€™s error must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the mistake.
At NST Law, we have handled many medical malpractice cases and are familiar with working with medical experts to determine if a medical professional deviated from the appropriate standard of care and to determine how that deviation caused a patientâ€™s injury.Â The opinion of a medical expert is required under Tennessee medical malpractice law before a lawsuit may even be initiated.Â Courts consider the subject matter of medical malpractice cases too complex for lay people to understand without a medical expert.Â The medical expert is necessary to establish the appropriate standard of care and that the medical professionalâ€™s failure to comply with that standard of care was the â€ścauseâ€ť of the patientâ€™s injury.
The attorneys at NST Law understand the importance of effective expert testimony especially in cases where the underlying medical condition that motivated the patient to seek treatment ultimately results in the patientâ€™s death.Â A common example of this situation is the failure to diagnosis cancer.Â The insurance provider for the medical professional will often argue that the cancer killed the patient and that the failure to diagnose the patient would not have made a difference.Â At NST Law, we will work closely with medical experts to develop legal theories and present evidence to help communicate to the judge and jury in an understandable way that the injuries suffered by you or your loved ones were caused by the medical professionalâ€™s error.
Res Ipsa Loquitur
One of the reasons that proving causation in a medical malpractice case is difficult is that the defendants are often the ones who write the medical reports that frequently form the basis of a lawsuit. Since the defendants are often the only ones who are present and know what really occurred when the negligence happened, and they choose how to describe the event, records are often not descriptive of what truly happened.Â Moreover, the medical provider may frame the report to protect against the appearance of misconduct.
If a patient is injured during a medical procedure but does not know exactly what caused his or her injury, but it is the type of injury that would not have occurred without negligence on the part of his or her medical professional, he or she may invoke a legal doctrine known as “res ipsa loquitur.” Translated, this Latin phrase literally means “the thing speaks for itself,” and implies that the plaintiff need only show that a particular result occurred and would not have occurred but for someone’s negligence.Â The classical example of this doctrine is when a medical instrument is left in the patient after surgery.Â Obviously, a medical instrument would not be left in a patient without negligence by the medical professional or a member of his or her team.
An injured patient must establish the following elements to invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur:
- No evidence exists of the actual cause of the patientâ€™s injury
- The injury is the type that would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence
- The patient was not responsible for his or her own injury
- The medical professional (team) had exclusive control over the instrumentality that caused the injury
- The injury could not have been caused by a different instrumentality
Where it is unclear exactly how a patient was injured during a medical procedure, it is obviously problematic to establish that the error in the procedure was the â€ścauseâ€ť of the patientâ€™s injury.Â We at NST Law understand the unique challenges in proving that the negligence of a medical professional caused injury or death to a patient.Â We will coordinate with medical experts who understand the appropriate medical procedures and treatments.Â At NST Law, we will work closely with medical experts to review your medical records and investigate the circumstances of a patientâ€™s medical care and resulting injury.
Memphis, TN Office
488 South Mendenhall
Memphis, TN 38117
Jackson, TN Office
2709 North Highland Avenue
Jackson, Tennessee 38305
Phone: 731- 427-5550
Knoxville, TN Office
408 North Cedar Bluff Road
Knoxville, Tennessee 37923
Jackson, MS Office
460 Briarwood Drive
Jackson, Mississippi 39206
Jonesboro, AR Office
922 South Main Street
Jonesboro, Arkansas 72401