Paul Scott is a partner in the Firm and represents clients in a broad range of civil litigation, including lawsuits involving commercial truck accidents, automobile accidents, products liability, medical malpractice, negligent security, premises liability, insurance-coverage matters, class actions, and general liability. Paul represents both plaintiffs and defendants and has successfully handled cases for individuals, families, insurance companies, insureds, small businesses, multinational corporations, publicly traded corporations, Judges, Sheriffs, and the State of Georgia. Paul holds the Martindale-Hubbell “AV Preeminent” rating, the highest possible rating in legal ability and ethical standards, which was given to him by his peers. In addition, Paul has previously been named a Super Lawyer Rising Star, a distinction given to less than 2.5% of lawyers in Georgia, and holds a rating of 9.8 out of 10 on AVVO. Paul is also a registered mediator and arbitrator with the Georgia Office of Dispute Resolution. Please visit www.coastalmediationgroup.com for more information about Paul’s mediation practice.
Paul is a fourth-generation resident of Brunswick / St. Simons Island, attended elementary through high school in Brunswick, is married (Paul’s wife is heavily involved with non-profit and school functions), and has one son and one daughter who attend public school. Paul is one of the founding Board of Directors for HelloGoodbuy! (a non-profit that has given over $1.9 million to fund community projects for more than 140 organizations), and previously served on his church board. Before law school, Paul worked as a concert promoter where he promoted and/or funded live-music events by touring artists, such as John Mayer and Neyami Road featuring Luke Bryan, among others.
Representative Matters
Medical negligence cases. Paul has significant experience representing clients in medical negligence cases—such as medical malpractice, nursing home, and EMTALA claims—across various medical specialties, including brain surgery, labor and delivery, infectious diseases, orthopedic surgery, chiropractic treatment, general surgery, psychiatric treatment, and nursing care, 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 considerable experience litigating claims related to trucking accidents on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants. His expertise extends to catastrophic injury and wrongful death claims, including those involving multiple deaths and serious injuries resulting from a single crash. Paul also has extensive experience coordinating immediate responses to accidents and the investigation of accidents.
Products liability / Defective Products / Multi-District Litigation. Paul has successfully handled various cases involving personal injury, product liability, breach of warranty, and lemon law claims. He has represented clients in litigation related to a wide range of products, such as pharmaceutical drugs, medical devices, automobiles, motorcycles, recreational vehicles, consumer products, and even a zip line. Paul has represented parties in the following multi-district litigation matters: 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 were in St. Louis state court); MDL No. 2885 (IN RE: 3M Products Liability Litigation)(Florida); 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).
Spartan Race “Insurance Fee” Class Action. Co-counsel for the plaintiff in this class action. The court approved a nationwide settlement worth $25.6 million on behalf of over 800,000 consumers and a separate award of attorneys’ fees. Fruitstone v. Spartan Race, Inc., United States District Court, S.D. Fla.
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. The judgment was subsequently satisfied. HRB, LLC v. Alexander, 440 Fed. Appx. 781 (11th Cir. 2011)
ERISA and federal and state tax law. Represented the ex-wife of a Decedent in a dispute with the Decedent’s son regarding the beneficiaries of the Decedent’s ERISA and non-ERISA deferred compensation plans. The client recovered over $2.5 million of the $3.1 million at stake. Following the resolution of that case, the Estate of the Decedent paid almost $1 million in state and federal estate taxes on certain assets received by our client; thus, the son of the Decedent—acting as the Executor of the Decedent’s estate—filed a lawsuit against our client seeking reimbursement under 26 U.S.C. § 2206 of the taxes that the Estate paid to the IRS attributable to those assets received by our client. After prevailing on certain federal and estate tax issues that intersected with probate and family-law issues, the client’s tax liability was reduced to $493,939.
A case of first impression involving the RICO Act and appellate practice. The plaintiff sued several employees of the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) and two testing companies, alleging a violation of the RICO Act, among other things. The district court dismissed the RICO claims, due to the plaintiff’s failure to establish first-party reliance. The case proceeded to trial against one of the testing companies, which was represented by a different law firm. However, before the final judgment was entered, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion stating that a RICO plaintiff does not need to prove first-party reliance. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of the RICO claims, arguing that the Supreme Court’s opinion revived their 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 it to the district court’s attention before the final judgment was entered. Notably, our clients were the only parties to make this argument in this appeal. In a case of first impression, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with our clients, holding that when there is a significant change in the law before the final judgment, a party usually needs to inform the district court; if they fail to do so, they waive any arguments on appeal based on that change in the law. Therefore, 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 who alleged 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. This case received significant press coverage (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 vigorous defense, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the case against our clients in exchange for $25,000, representing 0.68% of the plaintiff’s past medical bills. Muhs v. River Rats, Inc., S.D.Ga.
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.
