Choosing litigation counsel calls for more than a list of client names. These published court records document the firm’s involvement in healthcare defense, employment class-action litigation and public-entity disputes. Each case study identifies the attorneys named in the record, explains the decision being discussed and distinguishes a defense judgment from a settlement proceeding or a mixed appellate result.
The records below identify the firm under its historical name, Thomas, Kennedy, Sampson & Patterson. Each case identifies the participating attorneys named in its published record. These are historical matters, not statements of current representation or client endorsement.
Healthcare defense · Appellate practice
Miranda v. Fulton DeKalb Hospital Authority
Documented result: Directed verdict for the defendants affirmed on appeal.
Court and date: Court of Appeals of Georgia, March 14, 2007. Citation: 644 S.E.2d 164. Docket: A06A1879.
The dispute and the firm’s role
The lawsuit concerned allegations that healthcare providers failed to adequately monitor a patient who left an Atlanta hospital and died the following day in North Carolina. The patient’s parents and estate brought a medical-malpractice wrongful-death action. The published opinion lists Thomas G. Sampson II and Jeffrey E. Tompkins, of Thomas, Kennedy, Sampson & Patterson, as counsel for the appellees—the defendants seeking to preserve the trial court’s judgment.
The appellees included the Fulton DeKalb Hospital Authority, doing business as Grady Memorial Hospital and Grady Health System, together with university, medical-care and physician defendants identified in the opinion. The case illustrates litigation involving several healthcare participants rather than a claim evaluated against one isolated act or one organization alone.
Why causation determined the appeal
At the close of the plaintiffs’ evidence, the trial court directed a verdict for the defendants. The appeal challenged that decision and certain evidentiary rulings. The Court of Appeals focused on whether the plaintiffs had supplied the required causal connection between the alleged failure to monitor and the later death.
The court distinguished a possible connection from proof sufficient to support medical causation. It examined the expert testimony together with the sequence of events, including the patient’s departure from the hospital and subsequent travel. On this record, the court found the connection too remote. It also rejected the attempt to characterize the claim as ordinary negligence because the causal question required medical expertise.
What the result establishes—and its limits
The appellate court affirmed the defense judgment. It did not need to decide whether the providers breached the standard of care, and it did not reach the remaining evidentiary issues concerning that standard. The successful defense rested on the evidence of causation. The opinion should be understood within that specific holding.
For healthcare organizations evaluating counsel, the decision demonstrates the importance of separating allegations about treatment from the evidence connecting the alleged conduct to an injury. A careful defense must account for both. That assessment can require an integrated review of the chronology, clinical records, expert opinions and issues preserved for appeal.
Read the published Miranda opinion and counsel listing. Related capabilities: Medical Malpractice Defense and Appellate Practice. The opinion names Thomas “Woody” Sampson II and Jeffrey E. Tompkins.
Employment defense · Class-action litigation
Abdallah v. The Coca-Cola Company
Documented proceeding: Court-approved notice of a proposed class settlement and fairness hearing. This order is not a defense verdict.
Court and date: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, January 16, 2001. Citation: 133 F. Supp. 2d 1364. Docket: 1:98CV3679RWS.
The allegations and the defense team
The litigation concerned allegations of racial discrimination in compensation, promotions and performance evaluations, including challenges to employment policies and practices affecting African-American salaried employees. The notice describes claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Coca-Cola denied wrongdoing and liability.
The published record lists Thomas G. Sampson and Jeffrey Emery Tompkins, with the historical firm, among counsel for Coca-Cola. Other counsel also represented the company. The record supports describing the firm as part of Coca-Cola’s defense team; it does not establish that the firm was sole counsel, lead counsel or individually responsible for every stage of the litigation.
Why the class-action setting matters
The notice describes discovery addressing class certification, review of employment documents, management depositions, employee accounts and statistical analysis of human-resources data. Those features show how an employment class action can extend beyond a single employment decision to questions about policies, decision-making patterns and the proposed group of employees.
From an organizational perspective, that scope can require coordination across legal, human-resources, records and management functions. The published record is useful evidence of involvement in a complex corporate dispute. The order identifies the participating defense counsel and describes the litigation’s scope; confidential advice and negotiations are outside the published account.
What the January 2001 order actually decided
Judge Richard W. Story approved the form of notice and directed that it be mailed to identifiable settlement-class members. The attached notice explained a proposed settlement and a later fairness hearing, including procedures for participating, objecting or opting out. It also described proposed monetary and programmatic relief, such as employment-practice oversight and review.
This is an important procedural distinction: approving a notice is not the same as entering a defense judgment or issuing final approval of a settlement. The linked order documents the proposal and the notice process at that point in the case. This case study does not characterize it as a trial victory or rely on it to establish final payments.
Relevance to employers evaluating litigation counsel
For an employer, litigation may involve evaluating evidence, addressing the scope of a proposed class and assessing a negotiated resolution alongside continued defense of the claims. The record reflects experience with the institutional and procedural demands of employment class-action litigation. The January 2001 order documents a step in the proposed settlement process rather than a decision on liability.
Read the Abdallah court order, settlement notice and defense-counsel listing. Related capabilities: Employment & Labor Defense and Class Action Defense. Learn more about Jeffrey E. Tompkins.
Public entity defense · Employment litigation
Dixon v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
Documented result: Affirmed in part and reversed in part. The opinion does not establish the ultimate disposition of every claim.
Court and date: Court of Appeals of Georgia, February 7, 2000. Citations: 242 Ga. App. 262; 529 S.E.2d 398. Docket: A99A2221.
How an employment dispute became broader civil litigation
The case arose from the termination of two MARTA employees after allegations that they had taken agency property. An arbitrator concluded that MARTA had not met its burden of proving theft and ordered reinstatement with back pay and benefits. The employees returned to work and later brought civil claims involving MARTA and another defendant.
The opinion describes claims including malicious prosecution, slander, damage to reputation, alleged breach of the arbitration award and constitutional issues. Those were allegations in litigation, not a statement that each alleged wrong had been established. Jeffrey E. Tompkins and Thomas, Kennedy, Sampson & Patterson appear among counsel for the appellees.
The employment-rights analysis
One issue was whether the collective bargaining agreement created a protected property interest in continued employment that entitled the employees to a hearing before termination. The Court of Appeals examined the agreement’s actual terms, including management’s reserved authority and the grievance process.
The court concluded that this agreement did not change the employees’ at-will status in the way they asserted. A procedure through which a discharged employee could later seek reinstatement did not, on the language before the court, establish the claimed pre-termination entitlement. The appellate court therefore upheld the denial of the employees’ request for partial summary judgment on that basis. It also upheld the denial of their requested declaratory and injunctive relief.
Why part of the judgment was reversed
The trial court had also eliminated several claims on its own initiative on preclusion grounds. The Court of Appeals found that the record did not show the employees had received a full and fair opportunity to address those grounds. It reversed that portion of the order. The reversal left those issues outside the scope of the rulings upheld on appeal.
The result was mixed, reflecting different conclusions on different issues. This was public-entity employment litigation; the opinion does not determine the eventual resolution of all remaining civil claims.
Relevance to public institutions and transportation organizations
The case illustrates how an institution’s employment relationships, grievance procedures and civil litigation can intersect. It also underscores the need to read the governing documents precisely and to distinguish a substantive defense from the procedure used to obtain a ruling. For an organization assessing a new matter, the questions include which agreements apply, what each proceeding resolved and which issues remain open.
Read the published Dixon v. MARTA opinion and counsel listing. Related capabilities: Public Entity & Transportation Defense, Employment & Labor Defense and Appellate Practice. The firm’s separate historical legal-services listing also appears in MARTA’s official 2023 MARTOC report.
What these past cases tell an organization about counsel
Together, these records document involvement in institutional healthcare defense, corporate employment litigation and public-entity disputes. They offer a concrete starting point for discussing relevant experience. They do not establish that a new matter will produce the same result or that the same legal rule applies to different facts.
A useful conversation begins with the organization, the parties involved, the claim and the deadline. TKST can then assess conflicts, relevant experience and the proposed scope of representation. Explore our litigation and advisory capabilities or contact the firm about a proposed matter.
How to read these summaries
The accounts above summarize the identified published decisions and orders. They do not claim to reconstruct a complete case file, confidential advice or later proceedings absent from those sources. Historical opinions may have been affected by later developments in the law; they are presented here as records of experience, not current legal advice. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Published October 12, 2026. Sources are linked within each case study. Historical representation does not imply current engagement or client endorsement.
