Georgia’s O.C.G.A. 9-11-67.1 Automobile Wreck Pre-suit Demand

Georgia’s O.C.G.A. 9-11-67.1 Pre-Suit Car Wreck Demands

Pre-Suit Demands in Auto Wreck Cases and Why They Are Important! A History on Georgia’s O.C.G.A. 9-11-67.1.

In almost every car wreck case it is important to send the at-fault insurance company a pre-suit demand. In Georgia, the law that controls pre-suit demands for car wrecks is found at O.C.G.A. § 9-11-67.1. 

This statute was first enacted in 2013 and set out the requirements needed to send a valid pre-suit demand in a car wreck case. 
Those requirements (or material terms) were as follows:

  1. State a time which such offer must be accepted, which shall not be less than 30 days
  2. The amount of the monetary payment
  3. The party or parties the claimant(s) will release if accepted
  4. The type of release, if any, the claimant(s) will provide to each releasee; and
  5. The claims to be released.

The code section also stated that the recipient could seek clarification regarding terms, liens, subrogation claims, medical bills, records, and other relevant information, and such clarification would not amount to a counteroffer.

This law was enacted in response to what were traditionally called “Holt demands.” These Holt demands were sent to insurance companies giving them typically no more than ten days to respond to a policy limits demand, along with other conditions the offeror deemed fit. Failure by the insurance companies to comply with Holt Demands would then lead to a bad faith claim against the insurance company for failing to pay the policy limits in a timely manner, and situations where insurance companies were potentially paying well above their policy limits for acting in bad faith by failing to settle per the conditions of the Holt demand. O.C.G.A. § 9-11-67.1 was enacted to bring clear rules to these demands.

Like most laws, once the initial statute was enacted there were some things that needed to be further refined. Thus, the law was amended in 2022, which modified the material terms and required clarity with what type of release was being offered (whether a full or limited release), and an itemization of what was to be provided to each releasee.

Some additional changes required:

  • The demand to include medical or other records in the offeror’s possession to allow the adjuster to evaluate the claim;
  • If a release was not provided in the demand, sending a proposed release by the adjuster was not considered a counteroffer;
  • Limiting the material terms of a demand to those listed in the code section; and
  • If payment was required by a certain day, that date could not be less than 40 days from the receipt of the offer.

The biggest impact of the 2022 amendment was confirming that the only material terms that could be included in the demand were those listed in the code section, and any other stated material term had to be agreed upon by both parties. It also allowed the recipient to provide a proposed release when accepting a demand, and that by doing so did not amount to a counteroffer.

In 2024, however, the statute was amended for a third time. Unlike the prior amendment, this amendment made some notable changes to the material terms. Specifically, the material terms were amended to include the following:

  • You must include a specific date by which such an offer must be accepted, which shall not be less than 30 days.
  • You must include a specific date by which payment shall be delivered, which shall not be more than 40 days from the offer.
  • A requirement that in order to settle the claim, the recipient shall provide the offeror a statement under oath regarding whether all liability and casualty insurance issued by the recipient that provides coverage or may provide coverage has been disclosed, along with a date in which such disclosure must be made, but not less than 40 days from receipt of the offer.

The newest amendment also clarifies that any disagreement with an immaterial term does not subject the recipient to a civil action from an alleged failure to accept an offer. However, seeking to modify any of the material terms would not be deemed a clarification.

Importantly, and as stated above, this type of demand only applies to death or injury resulting from a motor vehicle collision and must be sent prior to the filing of an answer. There are other types of demands that are sent in other personal injury cases, including premises liability, medical malpractice, and product liability cases, to name a few.

As you can see, this law has had some significant changes over the years, which is why it is important to consult with a knowledge personal injury attorney when you or a loved one has been injured in a car wreck.  In this video, Attorneys Joel Williams and Chase Elleby discuss the steps involved in settling a car wreck case to ensure you receive the compensation you deserve.

Williams, Elleby, Howard, & Easter serves clients throughout the State of Georgia. If you or a loved one suffered a personal injury as a result of a car wreck, the attorneys at Williams, Elleby, Howard, & Easter can help you understand what possible claims you may have and work to get you the compensation you deserve. To schedule a free consultation, call 833-534-2542 today.

Autonomous Vehicles and Georgia Personal Injury Law

young woman reading a magazine in a autonomous car. driverless car. self-driving vehicle. heads up display. automotive technology.

Navigating a New Legal Landscape: Self-Driving Cars and Georgia Personal Injury Law

What once seemed like a futuristic pipedream is now a reality- The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety expects there to be 3.5 million vehicles with self-driving capabilities on the road by 2025. While this technological advancement promises greater convenience and safety on the roads, it also raises complex legal questions, especially concerning personal injury claims.

Understanding Self-Driving Technology

Self-driving cars, also known as autonomous vehicles, utilize advanced sensors, cameras, and artificial intelligence algorithms to navigate roads without human intervention. Tesla, a frontrunner in this field, has been developing its FSD mode, which aims to enable fully autonomous driving capabilities. While most major automakers’ new vehicles provide backup sensors, front crash warning systems, laser-guided cruise control and lane assist features to help cars remain in the correct lane, Tesla is the first to take the next step toward providing a truly autonomous vehicle.

Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) Mode

Tesla’s FSD mode represents a significant leap forward in autonomous driving technology. It incorporates features such as Autopilot, Navigate on Autopilot, and Traffic Light and Stop Sign Control. These features allow the vehicle to practically drive itself. Once engaged, the system will drive the vehicle with virtually no human intervention. It is capable of seeing and reacting to other vehicles on the road, changing lanes, reading road signs, obeying traffic lights, yielding to pedestrians, navigating to locations, and parking itself all without human intervention. While these features offer convenience and enhanced safety, they also pose two major questions: (1) are they safe and (2) what are the legal considerations in the event of accidents or injuries.

Are Autonomous Vehicles Safe?

Determining the safety of autonomous vehicles is difficult because there is currently no reliable way to confirm whether a driver was using the automated driving mode at the time of a crash. However, most safety agencies agree that automated driving systems offer significant potential to reduce traffic crashes. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation reports that 94% of crashes in the United States are caused by some sort of human error, with the leading causes being driving under the influence, distracted driving, and driving while tried. Therefore, the Department of Transportation found that automated driving systems “have the potential to significantly reduce highway fatalities by addressing the root cause of these tragic crashes.”

However, the question still remains as to whether these systems are “safe enough” to rely on for day-to-day use. I have spent the last three months driving a Tesla with Full Self-Driving capabilities and am not ready to say that it is “safe enough.” While I am, by no means, a safety expert, I can definitely say there were moments where, if left unchecked, the car would have caused a crash.

FSD technology does so many things well. However, there are certain situations where it fails miserably and others where it is just annoying. It fails miserably at seeing large white objects on clear sunny days. I have twice been in situations where I was stopped at a stop sign and the car almost pulled out directly in front of a large white vehicle crossing the intersection in front of me. Had I not been paying attention and disengaged the system, the FSD would have caused a crash in both instances. The FSD is annoying in the time it takes to make decisions in certain situations. At times, I can sense the car “thinking” about whether an action is safe. This feels like it takes forever and really slows down other traffic in the area. For example, when the car parks itself, it stops in the middle of the parking lot for a significant amount of time as it measures/plans its path to park. Also, when waiting to pull out from an intersection, the car will wait quite a while when there is no traffic coming to ensure it is safe to go. While these delays are probably safer, it does seem to cause congestion and annoyance to other drivers.

Despite my anecdotal evidence of issues with the technology, Tesla has published data showing that its FSD technology is safer than human driving. Tesla’s data reveals that it recorded one crash for every 7.65 million miles driven using its FSD technology, while the most recent data available from NHTSA reveals that, in the United States, there was one crash approximately every 670,000 miles driven. Thus, Tesla claims that its FSD technology is 1,100% safer than the average American driver.

Legal Implications of Autonomous Vehicles

Determining liability in a crash involving an autonomous vehicle will likely be much easier due to the technology available on the vehicles. All autonomous vehicles are equipped with multiple cameras, which record and store data in real time. Therefore, after a crash, it is much easier for the responding office to pull the video from the car to see exactly what happened in the wreck and determine who was at fault. The driver of the autonomous vehicle is still responsible for the actions of the car; thus, fault would still lie with the autonomous vehicle driver even if the crash occurred while operating in self-driving mode.

The more complicated question involves insurance coverage. Who must pay for the crash? To date, Georgia law has not passed any statutes directly addressing insurance coverage as it relates to autonomous vehicles. Therefore, normal negligence and insurance law applies, which would make the driver of the at-fault vehicle and her insurance company responsible for the damage caused by the crash.

However, in a crash involving serious injuries where a malfunction of the autonomous driving software caused the crash, an injured party may be able to pursue a products liability claim against the manufacturer of the car/software. These cases can be complex; nevertheless, it is most certainly an avenue that an experienced personal injury attorney would explore should the facts warrant it.

The Rise of Robo-Taxis: What You Need to Know

Beyond individual ownership, the concept of Robo-taxis, or autonomous ride-hailing services, is on the horizon. Companies like Tesla and Waymo are exploring the potential for deploying fleets of self-driving vehicles for on-demand transportation. While this promises greater accessibility and efficiency, it also raises questions about insurance coverage, regulatory compliance, and passenger safety. Deploying these types of vehicles on Georgia’s roads will most certainly require new laws to determine what types of insurance coverage is required and who would be responsible for providing that coverage. Only time will tell how this plays out in the Georgia Legislature.

How to Protect Your Rights in a Self-Driving Future

In the face of rapid technological advancement, it’s crucial for individuals to stay informed and proactive about their legal rights. If you’re involved in an accident involving a self-driving car, here are some steps to take:

   1. Seek Medical Attention:

           Your health and safety should always be the top priority. Seek medical attention for any injuries sustained in the accident.

   2. Document the Scene:

           Gather evidence, including photographs of the accident scene, vehicle damage, any relevant road conditions, and check with the autonomous vehicle driver to see if there is video of the crash.

   3. Contact Law Enforcement:

            Report the accident to the police and obtain a copy of the accident report.

   4. Consult with an Attorney:

            A skilled personal injury attorney can help preserve evidence, assess your case, advise you on your legal options, and represent your interests in negotiations or litigation.

Conclusion

Self-driving cars hold the promise of a safer and more efficient transportation future. However, as with any technological innovation, there are legal considerations that must be addressed. By understanding your rights and seeking knowledgeable legal representation, you can navigate the complexities of personal injury claims in the age of self-driving cars. The experienced personal injury attorneys at Williams Elleby Howard & Easter work hard to get accident victims the compensation they deserve.

Located in Kennesaw, Georgia, Williams Elleby Howard & Easter serves clients throughout the State of Georgia. If you or a loved one suffered an injury as a result of a autonomous vehicle, Attorney Jared Easter at Williams, Elleby, Howard, & Easter can help you understand what possible claims you may have and work to get you the compensation you deserve. To schedule a free consultation, call 833-534-2542 today.

Distracted Driving is a Real Problem in Kennesaw, GA

distracted driving accidents deadly

Automobile Accidents are a Real Problem in Cobb County, GA

According to Georgia Automobile Crash Data published by the Georgia Department of Transportation (“GDOT”) on its crash data portal, there were 25,716 accidents in Cobb County, Georgia during 2022. 10,603 people were injured in those accidents and 77 died.  These statistics are alarming but they are down right scary when we break them down further. These statistics suggest that in 2022, on average, 70.45 accidents occurred every day in Cobb County. Again, on average, 29.04 people are hurt in these accidents every day and someone died every 5.18 days.

Distracted Driving is a Dangerous Habit for Many Georgia Drivers

A major cause of deadly traffic accidents is distracted driving. In today’s high paced world, drivers can be distracted by many things ranging from cell phones to kids arguing in the back seat. 52,149 of the 57,605 distracted driver convictions reported to the Georgia Department of Driver Services in 2021, were for violations of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-241(c) Unlawful Use of Wireless Device. Of all the counties in Georgia, Cobb County had the third most convictions for violations of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-241(c). The only Georgia counties with more convictions for Unlawful Use of a Wireless Device were Fulton and Gwinnett Counties. Detailed distracted driver data reports for Georgia can be found on the Georgia Department of Driver Services website.

Despite extensive research showing just how big of a problem distracting driving is, drivers continue to engage in behavior that causes them to lose focus on the road. People often underestimate the risk of talking on the phone, text messaging, eating while they drive, or overestimate their ability to multitask. But with lives at stake, practicing safe driving habits is crucial.

Careless Tractor Trailer Drivers Drive While Distracted

Just a few years ago, this author was contacted by a potential client after he was rear-ended by a tractor trailer driver on Interstate-285 outside of Atlanta. At first glance, the case seemed to be fairly routine but things got interesting when I filed suit and obtained the tractor-trailer driver’s cell phone records.

During the lawsuit, I served written discovery on the tractor-trailer driver, his employer, and his insurance company. Initially, they vehemently denied that he was using his cell phone at the time of the crash. Specifically, the driver claimed he was checking his mirrors as a safety measure prior to the crash:

His cellular provider’s records told a different story. The driver was, in fact, engaged in a lengthy text messaging conversation during his trip and at the time of the crash. This was easily proven by comparing the Georgia Crash Report – Crash Date & Time to the driver’s cell phone records as shown below:

When this tractor trailer driver was texting and driving, he knew that his actions were dangerous. He said so in his deposition testimony:

6         Q.  Did you know at the time of this
7.    wreck and did you believe at the time of this —
8.    that this wreck occurred that texting and driving
9.    was, as on this video we just watched, one of the
10.  most dangerous things you can do while driving a
11.  vehicle?
12.       A.  Yes, I was aware.
13.       Q.  And did you it anyway?
14.        A.  Yes.

This driver’s dangerous choice to text and drive caused significant injuries to my client that resulted in a very expensive and risky neck surgery. As a consequence of this driver’s choice to text and drive, my client will never be the same. He has internal hardware to stabilize his spine and he will never again be the same father and husband he once was. In addition to my client’s serious injuries, this driver’s employer had to pay a large amount of money to settle this claim.

Nobody “won” in this situation. A man’s life was forever altered and a company lost a lot of money due to its driver’s dangerous choice to text and drive. We should all keep this lesson in mind so we don’t make the same dangerous mistake.

Common Bad Habits to Avoid While Driving in Georgia

  1. Texting. This is a bad and dangerous habit in Georgia and throughout the country. Texting while driving is extremely dangerous. Some research shows that the dangers of texting and driving can be as profound as those associated with drinking and driving. Texting and driving should always be avoided for safety reasons. Moreover, it is illegal to do so in Georgia and punishable by a fine. 
  1. Using apps or other phone functions. Equally dangerous is using your phone to access apps, music, or any other functions. For instance, one study suggested that the rising popularity Pokemon Go was causing more accidents on the road because game-obsessed drivers sometimes try to play as they drive. Like texting, using smartphone applications while driving should always be avoided.
  1. Talking on the phone. Some studies show that even hands-free cell phone conversations present a significant risk. Although hands-free calling is a safer way to communicate than texting, you should be aware that it still presents a risk on the road.
  1. Eating and drinking. Some people eat and drink when they drive. In fact, at one time or another most people have probably tried to grab a bite or sip on a soda while behind the wheel. While there are some circumstances where this might be safe, you should never eat or drink anything that takes both hands, is messy, or can be easily spilled.
  1. Any other multitasking. There are countless other ways a person can be distracted trying to multitask as they drive. Anytime you are taking attention away from your driving to do something else, it can be a problem and a safety hazard.

Distracted Driving Poses Significant Financial Risks

Distracted driving poses significant financial risks, impacting individuals and society at large. Lets explore some financial consequences that may arise from this dangerous behavior:

  1. Increased Auto Insurance Premiums: Traffic violations related to distracted driving lead to higher automobile insurance premiums. When you receive a citation for distracted driving, your automobile insurance costs can increase significantly. According to The Zebra, a 2024 cell phone violation can increase your insurance premiums by 21.56%. Repeated offenses can compound these costs resulting in prohibitively expense automobile insurance premiums. 
  1. Insurance Claims and Payouts: Insurance companies are in the business of making money. Distracted driving accidents result in property damage and personal bodily injury payouts. An “at-fault” distracted driving accident will almost certainly increase the at-fault driver’s premiums. However, the financial fallout does not stop with that driver. When more distracted driving accidents occur, automobile insurers will have higher overall claims expenses. This means that those increased expenses will be passed along to the public in the form of higher premiums.
  1. Property Damage and Repairs: Distracted driving often results in crashes, leading to property damage. Repairing or replacing damaged vehicles can be expensive, especially in the modern world where vehicle maintenance and repair costs continue to rise.
  1. Medical Expenses: Distracted driving accidents can result in injuries to drivers, passengers, and pedestrians. Medical expenses, including hospital bills and doctor visits can quickly add up.
  1. Legal Fees and Fines: Most states have enacted laws that impose monetary fines on individuals who plead guilty or are convicted of distracted driving. For example, in Georgia, the monetary fines can be found at O.C.G.A. § 40-6-241(f)(1).
  1. Lost Wages and Productivity: When distracted driving leads to accidents, the accident victims often miss time from work to deal with car repairs, doctor’s appointments, etc. This can result in lost income for the victims and lost productivity for employers when their employees are unable to perform their job duties efficiently.
  1. Vehicle Depreciation: Most of us know that the resale value of a damaged vehicle is much less than a non-wrecked vehicle. Even after repairs, potential buyers may hesitate to purchase a car with an accident history.
  1. Business Costs: When commercial vehicles are involved in distracted driving accidents, the businesses often face repair costs, insurance claims, and lost revenue. For example, when a tractor trailer driver is involved in a distracted driving accident, the trucking company will likely face several claims that include damaged cargo, property damage, worker’s compensation, and even third-party bodily injury. It may not end there. If the company has a history of distracted driving accidents caused by its drivers, it may face regulatory penalties and lose business from customers that hire it to transport goods.

Distracted Driving is a Top Concern for Automobile Accident Lawyers

Personal injury automobile accident lawyers are usually interested in whether the at-fault driver was distracted at the time of the wreck that injured their client. There are many reasons for this but the primary reason is that injury claim and lawsuit awards are usually larger when the are aggravating circumstances that contribute to the wreck.

So, why are monetary awards typically larger when someone causes a wreck while they are distracted? In this author’s experience, it is because the distracted driver is less sympathetic than an attentive driver who simply made a mistake.

In most situations, a conscious choice must be made to take whatever action caused the distraction. For example, someone must choose to use their cell phone. They must choose to wear earbuds. They must choose to check their email. They must choose to play a game. They must choose to apply makeup. A conscious choice is much different from an innocent mistake where someone, for example, misjudges the distance between themselves and another driver.

Additionally, drivers that violate a distracted driving law may be negligent per se. This means the law presumes that the distracted driver breached their duty of care and is negligent as a matter of law. In negligence per se cases, the injured party (usually the Plaintiff) only needs to prove that the negligent acted “caused” their damages (and of course, what those damages are).

The lesson here is quite simple. Distracted driving exposes drivers to significant financial burdens so don’t do it.

Be Safe: Focus on the Road When Driving

Driving isn’t a time to lose focus. Every day, most Americans drive and it is easy to get complacent. Distracted driving not only jeopardizes lives but it also results in substantial financial burdens. By staying focused on the road, we can mitigate the risks of driving and promote safer driving practices for everyone.

If you’d like more information, or if you’ve been injured by a distracted driver, feel free to contact the personal injury lawyers at Williams Elleby Howard & Easter at (833) 534-2542 in Kennesaw, Cobb County, Georgia today.

Animal Bite Injuries

A dog with sharp teeth aggressively barking.

WHAT IS GEORGIA’S DOG BITE LAW?

In Georgia, there is a statute regarding injuries caused by animals, including dogs. This is found in O.C.G.A. § 51-2-7. According to the 2024 version of this statute, a negligent owner of a violent dog that causes unprovoked harm can be held liable for damages. Specifically, the statute states:

A person who owns or keeps a vicious or dangers animal of any kind and who, by careless management or by allowing the animal to go at liberty, causes injury to another person who does not provoke the injury by his own act may be liable in damages to the person so injured. In proving vicious propensity, it shall be sufficient to show that the animal was required to be at heel or on a leach by an ordinance of a city, county or consolidated government, and the said animal was at the time of the occurrence not at heel or on a leash.

Dogs can be loyal and loving members of the family. But with ownership comes responsibility, and the potential for liability from a dog bite or attack if you are not careful. According to an article written by Peter Tuckel and William Milczarski that was published in 2020, dog bites are a common cause of emergency room visits in the United States each year.

Dog bites, as you could imagine, can cause serious injuries and even death. When dangerous or vicious dogs cause harm, or when dog owners negligently permit dogs to attack others, dog bite victims may be entitled to compensation for the damages and injuries they suffer.

Whether a dog bite claim will be successful depends on a number of factors and are what we like to call “fact specific.” If you have suffered an injury as a result of a dog bite or dog attack, it is important to understand the law and to be aware of your rights. Of course, it is always best to consult with an attorney as soon as possible.

Four elements dog bite victims must prove to win their claim in Georgia:

  1. Vicious propensity. A dog that has a history of aggressive behavior towards people, or has been involved in past incidences of biting, may be considered “vicious or dangerous” under the statute. This element is automatically met if a dog was required by law to be at heel or leashed and was instead running free. S&S Towing & Recovery, Ltd. v. Charnota, 309 Ga. 117 (2020). Most cities and counties have ordinances requiring dogs to be on a leash. For example, in Cobb County, Georgia, dogs must be on a leash not exceeding six feet in length when away from their home. In addition, you can prove vicious propensity if you can gather evidence of prior bites or attacks. This can be done by sending an open records request to your local animal control agency for any and all complaints or incident reports regarding animals at a specific address.
  2. Careless management. Letting a dog off-leash in public or otherwise allowing it to roam free around others could meet this element. If a dog is on its owner’s property, careless management could occur if an owner knows the dog is aggressive to guests yet fails to contain or control it. Careless management could also occur if the owner does not have control of the dog while on leash and knew, or should have known, the dog could lunge or attack. If you undertake to restrain a dog, and do so in a negligent manner, you can be liable for that dog attacking or biting someone else. Myers v. Ogden, 343 Ga. App. 771 (2017).
  3. Unprovoked attack. To meet this element, a dog bite victim must not have provoked the dog into attacking. Unlike other types of torts, the doctrine of comparative negligence will not apply in this circumstance. If a person provokes a dog into attacking by antagonizing it, a dog bite claim will be completely defeated. Teasing, kicking, yelling, throwing objects, and other antagonizing behavior toward a dog that results in an attack or bite will not be recoverable.
  4. Attack causes injuries. As with any personal injury claim, a dog bit victim must prove that any injuries sustained were caused by the dog bite or the attack. This can include an actual bite from the animal, or an attack where the bog chases someone off leash causing that person to fall and become injured. In the second scenario there would be no “bite” but the attack and behavior of letting a dog run off a leash led to the injuries.

The Statute of Limitations for Bringing Dog Bite Claims

Under Georgia law, you have two years from the date of the incident to bring a claim for a dog bite or attack. The two-year period begins the moment that the victim knows that they have been injured by a dog bite. In certain circumstances this two-year period can be “tolled” or delayed, for instance when a victim is unable to bring a lawsuit because of their injury or because the defendant prevented them from doing so. When bringing a claim, the injured party is almost always bringing the claim against the dog owner’s homeowner’s insurance policy. If the dog owner does not own a home, or live in a home where coverage applies, we would look to renters’ insurance to cover any potential claim.

I have handled many dog bite cases in my career, and everyone is different. As an example, a prior client was bitten on the leg by a dog while running on a sidewalk. Not only was the dog off leash and roaming the neighborhood, after an investigation, we discovered that the owner in question had many prior offenses with dogs escaping their property. This was enough to make an allegation for punitive damages. In another case, my client was bitten by a dog at a park while the dog was on a leash. However, the owner knew the dog would lung and bit and failed to properly control their dog which resulting in a serious bite to the face. Finally, in another example, a client was attacked by a god while playing in a neighbor’s yard when the adult supervising the children carelessly let the dog out of the house. The adult was aware the dog was aggressive and had been barking excessively prior to being let outside. As soon as the dog escaped from the house, they attacked our client’s child and drug her into the bushes. In each of these examples, we were able to seek justice on behalf of our clients and secure favorable settlements.

Contact Williams Elleby Howard & Easter Today for More Information

The dog bite personal injury attorneys at Williams Elleby Howard & Easter, are dedicated to vigorously representing personal injury victims throughout Georgia. If you have been bitten or attacked by a dog, the injury attorneys at Williams Elleby Howard & Easter can help you understand your rights and get you the compensation you deserve. Call Williams Elleby Howard & Easter, to schedule a consultation today at (833) 534-2542.