Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Timing is everything in civil litigation. The difference of a day or two can determine whether a suit is timely or not timely, meaning if the court will even hear the case being filed. As such, the difference between a suit that is timely and one that is not timely can make the difference between a plaintiff receiving full compensation for their claims and a plaintiff (or his or her surviving family members) receiving nothing.

Mr. Jerry Bozeman dedicated his life to protecting others from fire-related disasters. Sadly, while carrying out his duties he was exposed to asbestos due to improperly built and maintained facilities. As a result of the City of Shreveport failing to protect their employees, including Mr. Bozeman, from the hazardous material in the fire station where he spent a great deal of time, the loyal fireman suffered from asbestos,-related mesothelioma. Mr. Bozeman's two children, Corey Bozeman and Matthew Bozeman, brought suit under theories of negligence and strict liability under a claim of wrongful death in addition to survival benefits.

The primary issue before the Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit State of Louisiana on appeal was whether the case was actually able to be appealed to the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana. There was some contention as to whether the plaintiff could appeal the trial court's granting of the City's exception of no cause of action as to the plaintiffs' wrongful death claims and non-intentional torts. The City was denied motion for summary judgment and its request for another exception to intentional tort claims and executive officer liability; the plaintiffs did not want to appeal these parts of the trial court's judgment.

Under Louisiana law, an appeal cannot be taken from a partial final judgment until it has been designated as a final judgment. This means that a court must designate a partial final judgment in order for an appeal on that ruling to be made. The appellants, the plaintiffs at trial, urged the appellate court to consider their appeal timely. The appeal came less than two weeks after the partial final judgment was certified by a court as a final judgment. This was well within the time that a plaintiff has to appeal a final judgment and, as such, the appellants won their appeal.

Since the appellants were successful in arguing that they in fact had the right to appeal the decision because it was final, the appellate court also had to weigh their case on the merits. The appellate court determined that the trial court has erred in not revising the grant of an exception of no cause of action to the City of Shreveport. Specifically, the appeals court ruled that the lower court failed to match a superseding Supreme Court decision that directly impacted the case.

While the trial court made its initial decision in 2007 based on a 2005 holding by the Supreme Court, this higher court ruling was specifically abrogated. As such, the appellate court in this case determined that holding that decision not to apply retroactively would be unfair to the appellants and ruled in their favor.

Mesothelioma and asbestos litigation is a constantly evolving area of the law. The trial court's decision was not incorrect at the time it was initially rendered due to the fact the Supreme Court is considered to be the overarching law of the land. However, due to the fact that the law changed during the time that the partial final judgment was not an entirely final judgment, a change in ruling took place. When this decision was replaced with a newer one, the lower court's decision both could and should have been changed to comply with the most recent Supreme Court ruling. Because the trial court failed to change its ruling when appropriate, it was found to be in error. You can read more about the case here.

If you or a loved one is suffering from mesothelioma or a loved one has died from mesothelioma, you may be entitled to benefits and awards. Contacting an attorney is crucial to preserve your legal rights before the timing no longer allows it.

Continue reading " Fireman's Survivors File in Time in Shreveport " »

Louisiana Woman's

This latter part of the discussion regarding the McGlothlin v. Christus St. Patrick Hospital case is based upon the difference between issues of fact and law, and to who or whom such issues are to be determined. In this case, the issue gets blended with the difference between a lay person's opinion and the opinion of an expert. This difference, though most commonly an issue during a jury trial, where the rules of evidence permit certain statements and opinions specific to either a lay person or an expert witness. A lay person may make statements as to observations based upon the common five senses (sight, sound, tough, taste, and smell) and may not make a statement as to one's opinion regarding a material fact in question, that is the job of the jury. Similarly, an expert is permitted to make statements and observations based upon scientific, scholarly, or professional opinion regarding the facts, but as with lay person testimony, an expert may not make an opinion of the material fact in question, as it is the job of the jury. Thus, the job of the jury is to observe and digest the testimonies and facts presented, scrutinizing and determining whose is most credible, and thus determine, within the parameter of the law, the material fact or facts at issue.

Referencing back to the discussion in Part I regarding the medical review panel, the sole purpose of the medical review panel is to review all evidence and examinations of either party, and then "to express its expert opinion as to whether or not the evidence supports the conclusion that the defendant or defendants acted or failed to act within the appropriate standards of care." Specifically, the doctors on the panel would determine whether, in their expert opinion as doctors in the field of medicine, and even more specifically orthopedics in this case, if the hospital, doctors, nurses, etc. failed to act according to the proper standard of care owed to patients. Here is where the blur between such an issue between fact and law arises. It appears that the doctors, in their expert opinions, are making a statement to the determination of a material issue of fact, which as discussed is reserved to the jury, however, statutorily, the medical review panel is given the purpose to determine this issue and make its opinion and give reasons, in short, according to whether the evidence supports or does not support the conclusion that the defendant(s) (hospital, etc.) failed to comply with or meet the applicable standard of care. This is very similar to the question a jury would be asked if determining whether a hospital or doctor, etc. committed medical malpractice.

The problem here, and the difference between the ability of the medical review panel to make a decision versus a jury to decide, is in what luxuries each has in examining and analyzing the facts and law to make its decision. The medical review panel, through statute, is allowed only to examine and analyze the facts to make a determination based on an expert opinion, that in its expert opinion, both as a whole and individually, the medical review panel believes that there has, or has not been, an instance or instances of a breach of the duty of care owed to a patient or patients. However, a jury may take into account the mannerisms and demeanor of witnesses, as well as the credibility of those witnesses and testimony, and weigh the facts in accordingly. This ability to utilize judgment in the credibility of witnesses and testimony is not given to the medical review panel. What happened in this case is that the medical review panel came to its unanimous opinion because it did not find the testimony of the injured party (plaintiffs) credible, and thus determined that there was no breach of duty. This, of course, is not an expert opinion then, which violates the statute regarding the medical review panel's authority and role.

To summarize the result of the appeals in this case, the plaintiffs brought an action against the hospital and the findings of the medical review panel were admitted as evidence, which statutorily they are permitted to be, however, the judge allowed the findings into evidence through testimony and documents, but with the language that involves the credibility of the witnesses out. The Trial Court found for the Hospital (defendants). The Appeals Court however, found that the admittance of the findings of the medical review panel was improper and thus reviewed the case de novo, meaning the appeals court reviewed the case as though it was the first Court to hear the case, and found for the plaintiffs. On appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court, the Court determined that the Appeals Court erred in vacating the judgment of the Trial Court and reinstated its finding in favor of the Hospital (defendants) stating that, although the medical review panel superseded its authority and thus its findings are not mandatorily admissible, the Appeals Court erred in finding that the admission was tainted and in its de novo review, when the Trial Court fixed this problem by not allowing the credibility information in the findings of the medical review panel into evidence.

If you or a loved one feels as though you are victim to the malpractice of doctors and other health professionals, contact the Berniard Law Firm to determine the validity of your claim.

Most people's fear of hospitals is usually justified in that one does not usually go to a hospital unless there is something wrong, or something negative has occurred. Everyone who seeks medical treatment, whether in a hospital or private doctor's office, is seeking an expert's diagnosis and treatment to prevent future, or cure current, ailments, or to have one's body 'fixed' in some way, as in a broken bone. Unfortunately, problems arise and the treatment one seeks does not always fully help, or even makes the issue worse. But sometimes, whose fault it is, that the problem does not subside, or that the problem only gets worse, is up for debate. That is where a medical malpractice issue arises, and the topic that shall be explored here.

The factual and legal basis of this discussion comes from the Louisiana Supreme Court case McGlothlin v. Christus St. Patrick Hospital, decided July 1, 2011. The issue in this case is, "whether [the Louisiana statute in question] mandates the admission of a medical review panel opinion when the panel exceeds its statutory authority and renders an opinion based on its determination of plaintiffs' credibility, not on the medical standard." The following questions must be asked first to clarify the terms and substance of this discussion: What is 'medical malpractice'? And what is a 'medical review panel?'

The term 'medical malpractice' gets thrown around more than it should. It is a specific legal negligence term devised to describe a cause of action that may be brought by a patient of a doctor and/or hospital claiming that the doctors, nurses, and anyone involved with the care and safety of the patient was negligent, and through this negligence, that a harm came to the patient that otherwise would not have occurred. More specifically, 1) a duty of care exists in which those that are employed to care for a patient must maintain the proper diligence in their medical and professional duties, 2) a doctor or nurse, or other individual employed in a professional and medical sense has breached this duty of care through his or her actions, or in the case of a hospital's negligence, through that actions of its employees (doctors, nurses, etc.), 3) that this breach of duty is the cause of the resulting harm to the patient, a harm that otherwise would not have happened and can be linked to the action(s) or inaction(s), of those who owe a duty of care to the patient, and 4) that a harm is the result of that breach that would otherwise not have occurred, and is something not reasonably foreseen so that there is no other cause than the breach of the proper duty of care owed to the patient.

A medical review panel is made up of three doctors and an attorney to hear a claim of medical malpractice in an attempt to curb costs of litigation for both parties involved, patients and hospitals, and more specifically, to curb health insurance costs. The statutory creation of the medical review panel prevents any litigation in matters of medical malpractice unless the complaint was initially submitted to the panel. It is the medical review panel's purpose to hear both sides' case, and issue its expert opinion as to whether it is an instance of medical malpractice. The hope here, is that the medical review panel will filter frivolous claims and potentially foreshadow successes or failures in litigation and lead to settlements outside of court. The sole purpose of the medical review panel is to review all evidence and examinations of either party, and then "to express its expert opinion as to whether or not the evidence supports the conclusion that the defendant or defendants acted or failed to act within the appropriate standards of care."

What will be further explored, and what is the major issue in this case, is what is the authority of this medical review panel and what happens if and when the panelists overstep their authority and begin to make judgments of fact, stepping into the realm of the juror. This will be discussed in Part II.

Continue reading " Louisiana Woman's Knee Replacement Leads to 'He Said, She Said' Confrontation (Part I) " »

Louisiana crawfish are farmed in rice ponds and, beginning in 1999-2000, farm raised crawfish crop allegedly suffered a dramatic decline caused by the pesticide ICON. The pesticide, manufactured and sold by Bayer CropScience L.P., coated the rice seed used in the rice ponds. The plaintiffs resell the crawfish or process them for tail meat and claimed that they suffered economic loss when ICON rice drastically reduced the number of crawfish they could buy and process.

As crawfish buyers and processors, the plaintiffs asserted that they played "an essential and necessary role in the creation, preservation and perpetuation" of the Louisiana crawfish industry. In fact, they supported this contention with evidence indicating that, among other things, they create a market for all "peeler" crawfish, sell bait to crawfish farmers and provide loans to crawfish farmers. Plaintiffs filed suit in federal court and, on appeal, the Court analyzed whether a third party could recover for their economic losses.

The "economic-loss rule" bars recovery in tort when a party suffers economic loss unaccompanied by harm to his own person or property in most jurisdictions. However, Louisiana courts have adopted a modified version of the "economic-loss" rule. Louisiana courts adhere to the traditional rule but use policy considerations to determine the reach of the rule. The courts consider if there is an "ease of association" between the "rule of conduct, the risk of injury and the loss sought to be recovered." This inquiry is done on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, in such negligence cases, the court applies a duty-risk analysis in determining whether or not to impose liability. In order to prevail under the duty-risk analysis, the plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant had a responsibility to conform his conduct to a specific standard, (2) the defendant failed to adhere to that standard, (3) the defendant's conduct actually caused the plaintiff's injuries, (4) the defendant's conduct was the legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries and (5) actual damages.

In the case at hand, the Court held that the ease of association between the damaged crawfish and the plaintiff's economic loss was too attenuated since the plaintiffs did not possess an enforceable right to the crawfish. Also, the Court disagreed with the plaintiff's assertion that they were entitled to recover because of the symbiotic relationship between the Buyers/Processor and the crawfish farmers since the analysis is not based solely on foreseeability. Finally, despite the fact that the defendant's negligence cause severely affected crawfish farmers in the industry, a plaintiff's right to recovery is not related to the economic harm caused by the defendant's conduct.

This case highlights the complex analysis Louisiana courts apply in third party recovery claims. It requires balancing the need to impose responsibility on the tortfeasor for damages for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class and the need to limit such liability. Thus, any individual or company involved in this type of litigation should consult seasoned attorneys, such as those at the Berniard Law Firm to assist with claims and help minimize liability or maximize the amount of damages.

Car accidents are never pleasant, but when an accident is worsened by construction debris left on the side of the road, the outcome can be disastrous. Once the pain and suffering has subsided, the question needs to be asked, who’s responsible? Do we look to the construction company, or do we simply chock it up to the terrible luck of the drivers? More importantly, how does the state play into this accident, and when is it the responsibility of the state department to compensate for injuries resulting from construction debris? The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals addressed those issues in the case of Thibodeaux v. Comeaux.

Jennifer Thibodeaux, the plaintiff in this case, was injured in a car accident off of Highway 190 in St. Landry parish. As Ms. Thibodeaux began to cross to the next lane, her car collided with another vehicle driven by Mr. Bill Comeaux. The collision caused Ms. Thibodeaux to lose control of her vehicle and travel off the highway, where her vehicle slammed into a large cement block and other debris on the shoulder of the highway. The cement and debris had been placed there during on-site construction by a contracted construction company, Gilchrist Constriction, hired by the defendant, Louisiana’s Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD). Ms. Thibodeaux was ejected from her car and sustained multiple injuries, including spinal fractures, lower jaw fractures, and a lacerated spleen. Among the others involved, Ms. Thibodeaux filed a claim against the DOTD for their responsibility in the accident. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found that the debris and cement left at the site were the sole responsibility of Gilchrist Constriction, and not the responsibility of the DOTD. Therefore, the court found that the debris and cement created an unreasonable risk of harm and Gilchrist was 40% responsible (with the other 60% of liability ordered to Ms. Thibodeaux herself).

Ms. Thibodeaux’s appeal contends that the trial court erred in finding the cement and debris was not an unreasonable risk of harm caused by DOTD. The assignment of DOTD as responsible for the debris and cement questions the distinction between a factual and legal determination. For legal determinations, as stated in Becker v. Dean, the appellate court must review, de novo, the proper legal analysis to render a judgment on the merits. The appellate court looked to determine whether the factual determination by the trial was actually a legal determination that required a different form of review.

In its review, the appellate court found that the trial court’s determination that Gilchrist created an unreasonable risk, but not the DOTD, was a legal error that should have been viewed in light of the court’s unreasonable risk of harm criterion. The DOTD, as stated in Forbes v. Cockerham, has a legal responsibility to maintain the state’s roadways and highways. The court in Forbes stated that the DOTD has a legal duty to maintain the shoulders of the public roads as well, so as to maintain reasonable safety for the operation of the roads and to prevent any unreasonable risk that may occur. Therefore, the appellate court maintained that the DOTD is not responsible for all accidents on Louisiana road ways and highways, but may be responsible if it is determined that an unreasonable risk of harm existed at the time of the accident. What the trial court failed to realize, and the appellate court considered in its decision, is that the case of Woods v. State determined that the DOTD’s duty to maintain the roadways and highways in a reasonably safe condition is non-delegable. The appellate court determined that if Gilchrist was found to be liable for the unreasonable risk of harm caused by the debris and cement, then it would be legally incorrect to determine that the DOTD was not also liable for that harm.

The appellate court agreed with the court that the debris and cement did create an unreasonable risk of harm to the drivers of the road and reversed the trial court’s decision as to the DOTD’s liability. The debris was determined to hold no social utility in its presence on the shoulder of the road, and the likely harm caused by the debris was enough to consider it unreasonable to be left as it was. Once liability was established, the appellate court determined that the DOTD was to be responsible for 50% of Gilchrist’s damage order (20% liable to the overall award in damages). The court determined that, while it was the DOTD‘s responsibility to prevent unreasonable harm, Gilchrist did have some obligation to inform the DOTD of the possible dangers inherent to the debris on the shoulder of the road.

The DOTD had a duty to maintain a reasonably safe roadway and highway system, and now takes some of the responsibility in Ms. Thibodeaux’s accident. Ms. Thibodeaux’s case highlights the immense responsibility on the DOTD to protect the drivers of Louisiana by maintaining a reasonably safe roadway system, away from any unreasonable risk of harm. When the DOTD fails to meet that responsibility, significant injuries are a realistic and unsettling possibility.

Injuries to yourself or a loved one should not be taken lightly. If you believe that an injury was the result of some defect, you should consult with a lawyer, as you might be entitled to compensation.

Continue reading " St. Landry Parish Accident Results in Reversal and DOTD Responsibility " »

One of the first things that must be determined in a potential medical malpractice claim is whether the statute of limitations bars the claim. An otherwise legitimate malpractice lawsuit may be invalid simply because the injured party waited too long to file the claim. In the State of Louisiana, the statutory period in which a claim must be filed is referred to as the "prescriptive period." If a case is "prescribed", it is beyond the statutory period. Louisiana statutory law (La. R.S. 9:5628(A)) states that malpractice suits must be filed "within one year from the date of the alleged act, omission, or neglect, or within one year from the date of discovery of the alleged act, omission or neglect."

In a recent Louisiana Court of Appeals Case, Amos v. Crouch, the court addressed the issue of what constitutes "discovery" of the alleged negligent act or omission. In the Amos case, Dr. Crouch, a Jackson Parish general surgeon, diagnosed a patient with severe hemorrhoids when in fact the patient had colorectal cancer. After receiving the hemorrhoids diagnosis from Dr. Crouch, the patient decided to see another doctor for a second opinion. After a brief examination, the second doctor ordered tests that ultimately revealed the colorectal cancer. The Court of Appeals concluded that it was at the time of his cancer diagnosis that the statutory period began to run. The Court declared, "Prescription begins when a plaintiff obtains actual or constructive knowledge of facts indicating to a reasonable person that he or she is the victim of a tort." It is important to note that knowledge only refers to "such information that ought to put the alleged victim on inquiry." Therefore, in certain circumstances, a correct diagnosis from a second physician can equate to "discovery" of the doctor's negligent act, triggering the prescriptive period.

However, the court refused to treat a correct secondary diagnosis as a per se reasonable belief that the original doctor committed malpractice. Instead, the court declared, "it depends on the particular circumstances of each case." But, the Amos case does infer that a correct secondary diagnosis, although not conclusive, acts as strong evidence toward proving that a reasonable person would have discovered the possibility of malpractice at that time.

Of course, a secondary diagnosis that proves a previous diagnosis to be erroneous does not necessarily equate to malpractice. It is certainly possible for doctors to maintain their duty of care while reaching an ultimately erroneous diagnosis. Even so, there is always the possibility that an erroneous diagnosis may have been caused by negligence. Therefore, it is important for all patients to be weary of the short prescriptive period in Louisiana (one year), and to understand that a correct secondary diagnosis may start the clock on the one year timer. Therefore, if you believe you may have been the victim of medical malpractice, your best chance of compensation is to contact an attorney as soon as possible to ensure the statute of limitations does not expire.

Continue reading " Statute of Limitations on Medical Malpractice Claims in Louisiana: Information Every Patient Should Know " »

With the vast criticisms that surround medical malpractice cases, it is no wonder why many keep a close eye on these types of cases. While it is very rare for an appellate court to do so, once in a blue moon an appellate decision will overturn a jury verdict of a medical malpractice judgment. Patten v. Gayle is one of those cases in which the plaintiff appeals the court’s verdict that malpractice occurred, but resulted in no injury and thus awarded no damages.

The plaintiff, Ms. Charlotte Patten, was the patient of her OB-GYN, Dr. Christopher Gayle, the defendant. Dr. Gayle had scheduled Ms. Patten for a laparoscopic evaluation after Ms. Patten complained of severe pain that was believed to be related to an abdominal hysterectomy she received from Dr. Gayle in 1997. In performing the procedure, Dr. Gayle placed multiple operative trocars (a medical instrument used to gain access into the abdominal cavity) throughout the abdominal area in order to insert a laparoscope, which enabled Dr. Gayle to see within Ms. Patten’s abdominal cavity. While performing the procedure, Dr. Gayle moved the trocars to gain better visibility of Ms. Patten’s abdominal cavity, and inadvertently punctured Ms. Patten’s abdomen. Initially, Dr. Gayle did not believe that the abdomen cavity had been compromised, but after further investigation later in the procedure, Dr. Gayle discovered that the trocars had penetrated through Ms. Patten’s small bowel. The result of the injury required Dr. Gayle to have the hospital’s general surgeon perform an emergency surgery on Ms. Patten to correct the error. In addition, feculent material was found to have leaked into Ms. Patten’s abdominal cavity a few days after the surgery had been completed, resulting in an abdominal infection known as peritonitis and pneumonia. After her recovery, Ms. Patten filed a medical malpractice suit against, among other individuals, Dr. Gayle. The jury determined that Dr. Gayle had in fact deviated from the required standard of care and had committed malpractice, but found that his actions did not result in the injuries sustained to Ms. Patten and awarded no damages. Ms. Patten appealed stating that the jury manifestly erred in finding a lack of causation between Ms. Patten’s injuries and Dr. Gayle’s malpractice.

In medical malpractice cases, the appellate courts apply the manifest error standard of review when ruling on issues of causation. The manifest error standard, as stated in Johnson v. Morehouse General Hospital, mandates that an appellate court may not overturn a trial court’s ruling, unless it is determined that the court’s factual determination is clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. The court in Johnson states that it is not enough that the appellate court disagree with the trial court’s decision, it must find that there is no reasonable factual basis for the trial court’s conclusion. The court in Lovelace v. Giddens requires the appellate courts to pay close attention to medical malpractice cases when it comes to conclusions of causation, as great deference must be given when medical experts make differing conclusions as to medical causation.

While the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s conclusions about the causation of Mr. Gayle’s performance, the court did reverse the finding that the injuries to Ms. Patten’s bowel and the time and expense of its repair were not related to Dr. Gayle’s negligence. The appellate court determined that additional costs were directly incurred because of Dr. Gayle’s puncturing of Ms. Patten’s bowel. The appellate court explained that Ms. Patten’s placement under anesthetic gases for a longer period of time to repair the punctured bowel, for instance, was a direct result of the negligently punctured bowel. Such additional costs would not have occurred had Dr. Gayle properly performed the procedure, concluding that the trial court’s decision that no causation existed between some of the injury and Dr. Gayle’s negligence was manifestly erroneous. Because of the conflicting testimony from medical experts, the lack of damages awarded for the post-surgery illnesses sustained by Ms. Patten was not reversed. Based on the direct medical expenses to the repair of Ms. Patten’s bowel and some pain and suffering related to her injury, the appellate court awarded just over $14,000 in damages.

The small amount of damages awarded to Ms. Patten as a result of her appeal highlights the very difficult and technical nature of medical malpractice cases. Full of medical jargon and expert testimony, it is a rarity that one would see a reversal in judgment for such a case as Ms. Patten’s. However, medical accidents do happen, and it is always important to consult a lawyer if you believe to be the victim of any medical procedure believed to have gone wrong.

A lawsuit can be resolved in many ways. Prior to formal court proceedings, the suit may be dropped voluntarily for one reason or another, or the parties might come to an agreement in mediation. If the case goes to trial, it may be resolved with the judge or jury entering a verdict after a full trial. It may also be resolved before the close of proceedings by way of dismissal. If a case is dismissed it can have serious repercussions for a suit, and often destroys the likelihood of recovery if a dismissal is entered against a plaintiff. There are many types of possible dismissals that can end a proceeding including the involuntary dismissal of a claim.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1627 governs involuntary dismissal. The plaintiff presents their case first, and upon the completion of the presentation of the plaintiff’s case, the defendant may make a motion for involuntary dismissal. The judge then reviews the evidence presented. If he finds the plaintiff has shown no right to relief, he may grant the motion for involuntary dismissal. On a motion for involuntary dismissal, the plaintiff’s testimony should generally be accepted as true. So long as the plaintiff has presented enough evidence to establish his argument by a preponderance of the evidence, a fairly low burden of proof, the case should be allowed to proceed and the motion denied. If the motion is granted, the plaintiff can appeal the decision. A decision granting involuntary dismissal is difficult to overcome on appeal but it is not impossible. The 2011 case of Settle v. Paul illustrates what can happen where a plaintiff successfully appeals an involuntary dismissal.

In 2009, James Settle sued Brenda Michelle Paul, his ex-girlfriend, in a dispute over the existence of a partnership agreement between the parties. Mr. Settle and Ms. Paul formed a construction company and took on several small projects in the company’s infancy. In 2003, Ms. Paul filed the necessary paperwork to have the company incorporated in Louisiana, forming the limited liability corporation Landmark Construction Company of Coushatta (Landmark). She was listed as the sole member of Landmark. Mr. Settle agreed that the parties decided Ms. Paul would be the sole member of the corporation because they wanted the company protected from seizure against Mr. Settle’s child support obligations. The company was profitable throughout the duration of its operation.

Mr. Settle and Ms. Paul’s personal relationship deteriorated, and they separated in 2008. Mr. Settle left the company, and Landmark ceased all operations. Ms. Paul refused to give Mr. Settle access to Landmark records or funds and took the position that she was the owner of the company and that Mr. Settle was merely an employee. Mr. Settle filed his suit seeking recognition as a co-owner of Landmark and a partition of the company’s assets. He argued that, as business partners, he and Ms. Paul each owned one-half of the company. The case proceeded to trial where Judge Peyton Cunningham of the Judicial District Court of Red River Parish granted Ms. Paul’s motion for involuntary dismissal of the case. The court held that Ms. Paul was the sole owner of Landmark based on documentation presented to the court.

Mr. Settle appealed the decision arguing that the court erred in granting the motion, because he had presented enough evidence to establish that a partnership had existed between himself and the defendant. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals of Louisiana agreed. It reversed the dismissal citing evidence presented by the plaintiff that Ms. Paul was listed as the sole owner of the company only to protect it against Mr. Settle’s child support obligations and that there was evidence of intent that the company be owned equally between the parties. The matter was sent back to the trial court for a completion of the trial on the merits. In other words, Mr. Settle was awarded a chance to have the case fully heard in court.

To ensure you receive a full and fair trial based on the merits of your case you need representation with knowledge of the possible outcomes of litigation. If you have a claim for personal injury or an insurance dispute, you need the services of an effective legal team to help you with your case.

Continue reading " The Complexities of the Involuntary Dismissal of a Claim " »

"Plaintiff Lost at Seaman Claim"

Robert Teaver may have fancied himself a man of the sea but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana that there was no way he could establish his status as a "seaman" for purposes of the Jones Act.

When dealing with litigation, especially when making a claim under a premise, words mean everything. To clarify, words mean specific things and those specific definitions are everything. Robert Teaver attempted to sue his employer under the Jones Act. The Jones Act was crafted to protect seamen who are injured in the course of their employment. This statute lays out the elements that must be met in order for a potential plaintiff to file a successful suit under it. Robert Teaver was a crane operator and installer for Seatrax of Louisiana, Inc. This company makes and installs cranes for offshore drilling platforms. Mr. Teaver's work took him over water but he was not employed on a maritime vessel.

Mr. Teaver's first assignment put him on the M/V Chermie, a boat owned by L&M BoTruc Rental, Inc. Mr. Teaver and his brethren were to eat and sleep aboard this vessel during the three days that they were out on this assignment. The team was to disassemble a portable crane on an oil platform 90 miles of the coast of Louisiana. The platform was owned by Mariner, Inc.

Mr. Teaver received injuries that left him permanently paralyzed less than 24 hours into his employment with Seatrax. He fell about 19 feet on to a gangbox, a type of toolbox. Mr. Teaver filed a claim in Louisiana state court under the Jones Act. This would prove to be a mistake. Mariner removed the suit to federal court under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Federal question jurisdiction was invoked. Mr. Teaver tried to remand the action to state court with no success.

Mr. Teaver was not a seaman as defined in Chandris, Inc. v. Latis, 515 U.S. 347, 369 (1995). The court in Chandris held that to qualify as a seaman under the Jones Act a plaintiff must establish that "(1) his duties 'contribute to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission,' and (2) he has 'a connection to a vessel in navigation (or an identifiable group of such vessels) that is substantial in terms of both its duration and its nature.'"

The seaman must be a member of a vessel's crew and not just a land-based employee who happens to be on the vessel. The coincidental nature of Mr. Teaver's presence on the M/V Chermie is not enough to qualify him as a seaman. Louisiana case law prevents a person whose relationship with a given vessel or set of vessels is simply "transitory and fortuitous" from filing suit under the Jones Act. Mr. Teaver did not contribute to the function of the Chermie. He did not take direction from its captain. The Cheramie was simply a supply vessel. The Seatrax workers were not "borrowed servants" under any agreement between Seatrax and Mariner or L&M. No such agreement existed.

Mr. Teaver tried several reaching arguments in an attempt to distinguish his case from the cases that set the precedents in this area of law. The trial court did not agree with his arguments nor did the appeals court after reviewing his arguments de novo. Mr. Teaver may have done himself a disservice by attempting to file suit under the incorrect statute. Had he been successful, having his case defined as a Jones Act case would prevent it from being removed to federal court. There must have been some reason that Mr. Teaver wanted to keep the litigation in state court. Hopefully he has not wasted his chance for justice and compensation by trying the wrong legal maneuver for the situation.

To read more about Mr. Teaver's ill-fated nautical journey read the case here.

Continue reading " Jones Act Lawsuit Fails Under Seaman Claim " »

Plaintiff Sherrie Lafleur was injured in an April 2007 rear-end collision on Ambassador Caffery Parkway in Lafayette. Mrs. Lafleur was waiting for a traffic signal when Brenda Nabours drove her vehicle into the rear of Mrs. Lafleur's vehicle. The low-impact collision caused no damage to Mrs. Nabours' vehicle and no structural damage to Mrs. Lafleur's car.

Mrs. Lafleur filed suit against Mrs. Nabours (and Mrs. Nabours' insurer Shelter Mutual Insurance Company) claiming that she suffered a severe neck injury as a result of the accident. Shelter admitted liability for the collision and the case proceeded to trial without a jury on the issues of causation and damage. The trial court found the debilitaing injuries claimed by Mrs.Lafleur were not a result of the collision and actually predated the accident by many years. The trial court awarded the medical damages incurred by Mrs. Lafleur from the date of the accident through August 2007 in the amount of $5,457.97. The court found Mrs. Lafleur failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her remaining medical treatment was necessitated by the Collision. The trial court also awarded general damages of $10,000. Mrs. Lafleur appealed the award claiming both the calculations for special and general damages were abusively low and contrary to the evidence.

Special damages are awarded to repay you for financial losses you have suffered. In Lousiana, the amount of special damages awarded is a finding of fact subject to the manifest error standard of review. Under this standard, the appellate court looks to whether the factfinder's conclusion was a reasonable one not whether the trier of fact was right or wrong. If the conclusion was reasonable, a reviewing court may not reverse even though convinced it would have weighed the evidence differently. Where the factfinder's determination is based on its decision to credit the testimony of one of two or more witnesses, that finding can virtually never be manifestly erroneous.

The appellate court found the evidence at trial showed that since 1990 Mrs. LaFleur complained of neck pain, headaches and tingling in her left arm -- the same complaints she had after the collision. At trial, Mrs. LaFleur attempted to minimize similar symptoms she experienced before the collision. The trial court did find that Mrs. LaFleur did have a degenerative neck condition that was temporarily aggravated by the collision, however, this aggravation was resolved by August 2007 when Mrs. Lafleur traveled to Italy for ten days.

Mrs. LaFleur argued the trial court erred in dismissing the testimony of Dr. Appley that Mrs. LaFleur's symptoms were caused by the accident as there was no evidence of record to rebut that claim. The appellate court held it was not manifest error to dismiss Dr. Appley's testimony as it was based on the incomplete medical history provided by Mrs. LaFleur. The appellate court found no manifest error in the trial court's award of special damages.

Mrs. LaFleur's argument that the court erred in awarding only $10,000 in general damages was also found to be without merit. The trial court is vested with great discretion in awarding general damages and the appellate court will not inacrease such an award absent a finding of abuse of discretion. No such abuse of discretion was found in this case. Therefore, the appellate court upheld the trial court's damage awards.

The trial court has great power in weighing evidence and awarding damages, therefore, it is vital when involved in a car accident to immediately contact an experienced attorney so you can recover the money you deserve. If you have been injured in a motor vehicle accident that may have been caused by someone else, call the Berniard Law Firm today.

Continue reading " Third Circuit Court of Appeals Shoots Down Lafayette Woman's Claim Damages Were Too Low " »

Though Mr. Herbert's primary argument was that he was outside the scope of his employment, he argued in the alternative that, even if the injury occurred within the scope of employment, the Defendants committed an intentional tort. Such a tort is the only recourse available to defeat a workers' compensation defense when the injury occurs within the scope of employment. When making an intentional tort claim one must prove that the act that resulted in the injury was intentional. An intentional act requires the actor to either consciously desire the physical result of the act or know that the result is substantially certain to occur from his conduct. "Substantially" in this context requires more than a probability that an injury will occur and "certain" alludes to inevitability. Negligent, reckless, or wanton action is not enough to satisfy an intentional tort. These high standards make it difficult to succeed in a suit for intentional tort within the workplace.

Mr. Herbert was unable to succeed in his alternative argument because no proof was provided that either Industrial or GMI desired to harm Mr. Herbert or that the companies were substantially certain that the injury would occur from the companies' acts. The court concluded that there was no evidence to prove that safety modifications made to the helicopter were an intentional cause of the injury. Neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendants felt that the safety harness used was unsafe, which defeated any claim that the Defendants knowingly acted to cause harm to Mr. Herbert.

In addition to the intentional tort, Mr. Herbert also claimed that the Defendants were responsible for spoliation of evidence. Spoliation of evidence is an intentional tort that impairs a party's ability to prove a claim due to negligent or intentional destruction of evidence. In essence, the ability to make a claim for spoliation of evidence protects not only the claimant's rights to suit, but also the court's ability to provide justice. The key question in these claims is whether or not the defendant had a duty to preserve the evidence for the plaintiff. A duty of preservation may arise through contract, statute, special relationship, agreement, or an already acted upon undertaking to preserve the evidence. Because spoliation of evidence can be satisfied by an act under a negligence standard, this claim is easier to succeed on than one for any other intentional tort.

For the above reason, the trial court's ruling in favor of the Defendants in the Herbert case was reversed on appeal. The 3rd circuit found that defendant Richards did not seek out a missing piece of lanyard and a carabineer attached to Mr. Herbert's safety harness that fell out of the helicopter with Mr. Herbert. Though it is indeterminable whether or not Mr. Richards failed to seek out the missing safety components in an attempt to sabotage Mr. Herbert's claim, a question of fact remained that required the issue to be remanded.

When an injury occurs in the workplace, it is important to consider whether or not the injury was a product of the employment. If not, then you may sue your employer for a variety of torts. However, even if the injury happened while within the scope of employment, a suit may lie if the tort was intentional. When within the scope of employment, this is the only way to defeat workers' compensation tort immunity.

Though the above article may be helpful in deciding a course of legal action, it should not in any way replace the advice of a practicing attorney. If you have questions about your personal injury claim, please contact the Berniard Law Firm.

The issue of injuries within the scope of employment is not always black and white. Two concepts have somewhat complicated the matter: the borrowed employee and joint employment. Under the borrowed employee doctrine, a permanent employer may loan an employee to another, temporary employer. While under the temporary's employ, the employee's actions are that of the temporary employer. This doctrine means that if an employee is injured while working for the temporary employee, the questions regarding scope of employment apply only to the temporary employer. If the injury falls within the scope of the temporary employment, then the temporary employer may invoke workers' compensation as an affirmative defense to tortious liability.

Figuring out whether an employee is borrowed or not is not always easy. Several questions can be asked to help classify the employment: Who has control over the employee? Who is paying the employee's wages? Who has the right to terminate the employment? Who furnished the necessary tools and location for the employee's work? How long was the temporary employment? Whose work was being done at the time of the injury? Was there an agreement between the permanent and temporary employers? Did the employee agree to the new temporary employment? Did the permanent employer relinquish control over the employee? The answers to these questions should paint a clear picture of whether or not the employee was in fact a borrowed employee. As in the Herbert case, if an employee agrees to do work for a temporary employer only because he is afraid of being fired by his permanent employer for refusal and is paid by the regular employer, then the employee has not fully acquiesed to the new job and the permanent employer has not relinquished control over the employee; it is still responsible for paying the employee's wages. If this were the case, an injury that occurred while conducting the temporary employer's work would fall outside the scope of employment because the employee is not a borrowed employee and the work would not be consistent with typical work conducted by the employee for the permanent employer. However, remember that the answer to each question proposed above is not determinative but rather should be analyzed within the totality of the circumstances.

In Herbert v. Richards, the court found that because GMI had no payroll, no equipment, and no contracts for leased land where the deer netting took place, the company was not an entity separate from Industrial. Since GMI was not a separate entity, it was not possible for GMI to have borrowed Mr. Herbert from Industrial. Thus, the court of appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants with regards to the issue of borrowed employee status.

The second concept to keep in mind is "joint employment." Joint employment occurs when two or more employers work together under a common enterprise and control an employee for the benefit of all the employers. It is important to distinguish joint employment from a borrowed employee. If an individual is injured while a borrowed employee, a suit may still exist against either the permanent employer or the temporary employer. However, if an injury occurs during joint employment and the activity that caused that injury is found to be within the scope of that employment, then all joint employers will be immune from tort liability through each employer's workers compensation insurance. In order to distinguish the two concepts, revisit the questions posed above. If the answer to several of the questions is more than one employer, than there is a likelihood that there was joint employment. In the Herbert case, the court simply points out that joint employment is a possibility because Industrial provided resources, such as helicopters, that could be argued to have made the excursion a joint effort for the benefit of both companies. The issue was remanded to the trial court.

While the court of appeal's ruling on the scope of employment helped clarify the issue, it still had to deal with Mr. Herbert's alternative arguments.

3rd Circuit Uses Helicopter Injury Case to Clarify "Injury Within the Scope of Employment"

Injuries in the workplace occur frequently and thus many states have forced employers to purchase workers' compensation insurance. Under workers' compensation, the employer's insurance agrees to pay for any lost wages and medical bills as a result of the employee's injury. In exchange for this security the employer may use workers' compensation as an affirmative defense with the burden of proof on the employer to insulate the employer from tort liability. This essentially minimizes an injured's claim. However, as Herbert v. Richard illustrates, it is vital that one consider whether or not the injury occurred while within the scope of employment. Depending on the answer to this question, an employer may be barred from using workers' compensation as an affirmative defense to protect itself from tort liability, resulting in a potentially greater claim by the injured.

In Herbert v. Richard, an employee fell from a helicopter while netting deer in Mexico on behalf of a game management company, Game Management Inc (GMI). Though the deer netting enterprise was GMI's, the employee worked for Industrial Helicopters, Inc., a company owned by the same family that owned GMI. Mr. Herbert, the employee, had been a fuel truck driver for twenty nine years and had only been on GMI's netting excursions once before the injury. Industrial sought to invoke a workers' compensation affirmative defense arguing that Mr. Herbert was either within the scope of his employment, was a borrowed employee from Industrial, or, alternatively, that Industrial and GMI were joint employers.

There are two issues that must be considered when determining if an injury has occurred within the scope of employment. The first gauge is whether or not the employee was engaged in the employer's business at the time of injury. If the injury occurred while acting on behalf of the employer's business, then it is likely that the injury falls within the scope of employment. For example, if an employee at a warehouse is responsible for loading the company truck and making deliveries to regional retail stores, an injury that occurs while loading the truck at the warehouse would fall under scope of employment. However, if the injured occurred while participating in business not related to the employer, then the injury would fall outside the scope of employment.

The second way an injury falls within the scope of employment is if the obligations of the employment caused the employee to be at the site of the accident at the time the accident occurred. Applying this to the example above, we see that if the truck driver was injured while unloading the company truck at a retail store his injury would fall within the scope of his employment because his job requires him to unload trucks at various stores. Even an injury obtained from an accident while in route to the retail store in this example would fall within the scope of employment because the truck driver is en route to the store only as a part of his employment. In these instances the employer would be able to use workers' compensation as an affirmative defense and therefore protect itself from tort liability unless the tort was intentional.

The following questions also may be helpful in determining whether an injury has occurred within the scope of employment: Was I doing the act on behalf of my employer? Had I done that type of task for my employer before? Was I being paid for the work that was being completed at the time of the injury? Is this the type of work my employer regularly asks its employees to take part in? In addition to these questions, it is important to consider whether the injured was a "borrowed employee" or was working under "joint employment."

These issues will be discussed in our next post.

Previously on this blog, we have explored a number of cases where a party has faced defeat in court because of the failure to follow a procedural rule in litigation. Louisiana's rules of civil procedure are designed to require a timely commencement to a suit and to ensure that the suit is then adjudicated in an expedient manner. Similar rules apply to the procedure for summary judgments. Motions either for or in opposition to summary judgments may be accompanied by affidavits (in fact, in some cases, affidavits are required). An affidavit must be filed no later than eight days prior to the hearing on the motion. La. C.C.P. art. 966(B). A party's failure to observe this time requirement will result in the court's excluding the affidavit from consideration. As the plaintiff in Sims v. Hawkins-Sheppard learned, such a failure can result in a dismissal of the case when the affidavit is critical to opposing summary judgment.

On May 22, 2009, Rebecca Sims sued Dr. Tonya Hawkins-Sheppard alleging medical malpractice after Sims's son was severely injured and disfigured during delivery at the Glenwood Regional Medical Center in Ouachita Parish. During the discovery phase, Hawkins-Sheppard requested the identity of any medical expert who could support Sims's claim of malpractice. Sims responded that she had not consulted a medical expert, and Hawkins-Sheppard filed a motion for summary judgment. A hearing on the motion was set for May 4, 2010. Sims requested, and was granted, a continuance of the hearing until July 7, 2010. Sims then filed an opposition to summary judgment that included an unsigned physician’s affidavit. Sims's lawyer stated that the unsigned affidavit would be replaced with a valid affidavit before the scheduled hearing on the motion. No such substitution was made. On the day of the hearing, Sims explained to the trial judge that she had fired her lawyer and was seeking new counsel. Sims suggested that she had been misled by her attorney. Refusing to permit further delay, the judge went ahead with the hearing and then granted Hawkins-Sheppard's motion for summary judgment. Sims appealed. The Second Circuit found that the trial court had abused its discretion in failing to permit Sims a reasonable amount of time to find new counsel and to substitute the unsigned affidavit with a valid, signed version. Hawkins-Sheppard then appealed to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which reached a different result. "[W]e find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in this case," the supreme court stated. "[Sims] failed to show 'good cause' under La. C.C.P. art. 966(B) why she should have been given additional time to file an opposing affidavit." Consequently, the court concluded, there was no genuine
issue to the material fact that Sims was unable to prove that Hawkins-Sheppard breached the standard of care. A medical malpractice action is one that, on summary judgment, requires a valid affidavit containing a medical expert's opinion on the issue of the doctor's breach of duty. Had Sims's motion been accompanied by a valid affidavit, she could have avoided the trial court's grant of summary judgment. Thus, the court reversed the Court of Appeal and affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Hawkins-Sheppard.

The result in this case, though it may appear harsh to the plaintiff, points up the seriousness with which the Louisiana courts take the rules of civil procedure. For any plaintiff, retaining experienced and competent counsel is essential to ensuring that the case is not lost due to the failure to observe deadlines or the violation of some other procedural rule.

Continue reading " Ouachita Parish Medical Malpractice Case Reminds Litigants of the Importance of Meeting Litigation Deadlines " »

After working at his job as a recruiter for the U.S. Army, Sergeant Sean Fowler went out drinking with friends on the evening of February 4, 2008. He returned to the recruiting station in Covington briefly to pick up some personal belongings before heading home, as he had the following day off from work. At about 12:30 am early Mardi Gras morning, Fowler fell asleep at the wheel of his government-owned vehicle ("GOV").

At the intersection of Harding and Howell Boulevards in Baton Rouge, he collided with a car driven by Fartima Hawkins. Fowler, who submitted to a breathalyzer test at the scene, had a blood alcohol content of 0.112%, which was over the legal limit in Louisiana of 0.08%. Hawkins, who sustained serious injuries in the crash, sued Fowler and the U.S. government in federal district court. Her complaint asserted that Fowler was acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the crash and, therefore, the government was liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The district court granted the U.S. government's motion for summary judgment. Hawkins appealed, arguing that a genuine issue of material fact existed over whether Fowler was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit conducted a de novo review of the district court's decision. Hawkins's case against the federal government was premised on the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which limits responsibility for injury to that which is “caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). Under the FTCA, the question of whether a negligent act occurred within the course and scope of a federal employee’s duty is settled according to the law of the state in which the alleged act occurred. See Garcia v. United States. Thus, the Fifth Circuit applied Louisiana jurisprudence in its analysis. Generally, an employee’s conduct is within the course and scope of his employment if it is (1) of the kind of conduct that he is employed to perform; (2)it occurs within the authorized time and space of employment; and (3) it is initiated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer. See Orgeron v. McDonald. The default approach in Louisiana is the “going and coming” rule: that is, when an employee is involved in a car accident on his way to or from his place of employment, it is considered to be outside of the course and scope. An exception to the rule is when the employee uses an employer-owned vehicle in the "performance of an employment responsibility." Factors that influence the analysis include: (1) whether the employee’s use of the vehicle benefitted the employer; (2) whether the employee was subject to the authority of the employer at the time of the accident; (3) whether the employee was authorized to use the vehicle; and (4) whether the worker was motivated to use the vehicle, at least in part, by the employer’s concerns. Brooks v. Guerrero. The court found "no evidence ... that Fowler’s use of the GOV was related to any employment responsibility or was of any value to the Army." Instead, the court found that "Fowler was going home for the Mardi Gras holiday at the time of the accident" and, accordingly, was not acting within the course and scope of his duties as an Army recruiter. Although the court recognized that Fowler's "permission to use a GOV on the evening of the accident [was] genuinely disputed," it held that the settlement of that issue was not essential to determining the course and scope of employment. Thus, the court concluded that "no genuine issue of material fact exists that might preclude entry of summary judgment in favor of the United States."

This case shows the state's policy of requiring more than the showing of an employee/employer relationship to trigger the employer's liability for the employee's misconduct. Although the concept of respondeat superior is alive and well in Louisiana, the ability of the plaintiff to prove that the defendant's conduct was within the course and scope of employment is essential. I

Continue reading " Court Explores Scope of Employment in Baton Rouge Car Accident " »