Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Every year thousands of medical malpractice claims are filed. Why? The answer is simple. The practice of medicine is complex, and, as advanced as our medical sciences are, mistakes are made, false diagnosis are given, and new conditions emerge. Since there are so many complexities, the fact that a patient is misdiagnosed or suffers from a condition that the doctor missed does not necessarily guarantee a successful medical malpractice claim. As illustrated by Cheramie v. Norem, in order to succeed on such a claim, a plaintiff must establish that the doctor did something or failed to do something that fell below the appropriate standard of care which resulted in harm to the patient.

In most medical malpractice cases, including Cheramie v. Norem, the most contested issue regards the standard of care. Typically, healthcare providers are held to a reasonable care standard, requiring them to use diligence and their best judgment in applying their skills. General practitioners are held to local standards which are the standards that prevail in the area they live or a similar location. Specialists, on the other hand, are held to a single national standard that applies to the entirety of that particular specialty. Regardless of which locale's standard applies, all standards are comprised of a number of elements which the failure to comply with can give rise to a medical malpractice claim.

Cheramie v. Norem provides a glimpse into one of these standard of care elements. In this case, a doctor provided post-operative treatment to a patient after repairing a hernia. After the hernia operation, a small hole opened in the patient's small intestine, requiring permanent sutures. As time passed, the patient's body began rejecting the sutures and the question arose as to whether or not the doctor should operate to remove them. After years of the doctor's recommendation that the sutures should remain, the patient was forced by his insurance company to get a second opinion. This second doctor operated to remove the sutures, resulting in a full recovery by the patient. Afterwards, the patient filed suit against the original doctor for malpractice.
In this case, the standard of care element the court looked to was informed consent. Louisiana statutes provide that doctors are required to provide their patients with sufficient information to permit the patient to make an informed decision on whether or not to pursue a course of treatment (Hondrouis v. Schuhmacher, 553 So.2d 398, 411 (La. 1988)). This information includes the nature of the patient's condition, the nature and risks involved with a proposed treatment, the likelihood of success of a particular treatment, and the risks of foregoing any treatment. When an issue of informed consent is raised regarding a general practitioner's standard of care, local medical experts and doctors will often testify as to the defendant doctor's actions. If these testifying doctors make statements indicating that certain medical practices or advice was reasonable and appropriate, then malpractice likely has not occurred.

At trial, a jury found that the doctor in Cheramie's case acted within proper standards of providing informed consent. This informed consent included informing the patient of treatment options and the risks, in addition to alternative medical treatments. Dispute arose concerning whether or not the doctor conceded, in a timely matter, that a second opinion was needed. However, when there are conflicting opinions concerning compliance with a standard of care, a reviewing court gives deference to the trier of fact's conclusion. Thus, since the jury found the doctor to be in compliance with the suitable standard of care, the appellate court upheld that decision.

Since the standard of care a general practitioner is required to adhere to correlates to where the doctor practices, rural areas may have a lower standard of care than those in urban settings. The reasons for this are varied, but may include limited access to equipment and technological resources. Therefore, a rural doctor would not be expected to have conducted tests that require an expensive piece of equipment only owned by large urban hospitals. Yet, this same rural doctor would likely be expected to have at least notified the patient of that opportunity, if the doctor knew of such a test. On the other hand, the doctor who practices in a technologically advanced hospital would be held to a higher standard of care because he would have more access to such equipment and specialists. For this reason, when an individual is deciding whether or not to file a medical malpractice claim, she must be aware of the standard of care a doctor is required to give in that location.

Medical malpractice claims are complex, incorporating several elements that may change the legal analysis based on things as simple as the doctor's location. These matters are best left to a practicing attorney with knowledge and experience in this field. If you have any questions regarding a medical malpractice claim, please contact the Berniard Law Firm.

When an auto accident results in an injury and is taken to court, one of the most important issues a judge must decide is causation. If a plaintiff can show that an injury was directly caused by the accident, then the judge will determine the amount of damages to be awarded. However, the determination of causation can be difficult. This is especially true when figuring out whom exactly caused the accident. For example, if a car on the interstate swerves into a lane and slams into another vehicle it may appear that the driver of that car directly caused the accident. If this were true, then the driver would be liable for any injury damages. Yet, there are several factors that must be considered. Consider, was any part of the car defective? Was there a problem with the road that caused the car to swerve? The various answers to these questions can change what actually caused the accident and the injury, thereby shifting liability to differing parties.
When making a personal injury claim, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove both that the defendant caused the accident and that the injuries resulted from that accident. The plaintiff need only prove these elements by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that it is more likely than not that the defendant caused the accident and that the injuries resulted from that accident. If causation is proved, then the judge will determine the damages that are to be awarded.

Damages awards may be found in several different areas. The most obvious is damages via costs accrued through medical treatment. Costs for medical transportation, doctor visits, prescriptions, and other hospital services are likely to be awarded as damages once causation has been proven. In addition to medical costs, a plaintiff may make claims for pain and suffering. These awards are highly discretionary, and are dependant upon the plaintiff's ability to show that he has suffered disfigurement, impairment of ability to work, anxiety attributable to the injury, and mental distress. Pain and suffering damages cover a broad area, but to succeed on such claims it is imperative that the pain and suffering is proximately related to the accident and/or injury. A plaintiff may claim other damages such as loss of wages, loss of enjoyment of life, and loss of consortium. However, all must be a result of the accident and injury that serves as the claim's foundation.

In Mouton v. Old Republic Insurance Co., the plaintiff sued an electrical company, its insurer, and its driver when the driver backed his truck into the plaintiff's car. At trial, Mouton filed claims against the electrical company, its insurer, and the driver, seeking damages to recoup his medical expenses and to receive compensation for his pain and suffering and his loss of enjoyment of life. The trial judge denied Mouton's claims because he did not believe that the injuries and the accident were causally related. On appeal, however, the judge looked to Mouton's medical history and activities prior to the accident to determine if there was causation. Since Mouton did not have any prior medical conditions that could have caused his injuries, the appellate judge found that the injuries more likely than not resulted from the accident. Therefore, the plaintiff's burden of proof was satisfied.

The appellate judge then turned to damages. First, the medical bills were examined to see if they pertained to the accident injuries, and if so, whether or not the costs were reasonable. In Mouton's case, the judge found the medical costs to be reasonable and thus worthy of award. Mouton's claims for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life, on the other hand, were not supported by any evidence that such claims were causally related to the accident. These claims were therefore dismissed. General damages of $2,500 were awarded, which accounted for the minimal inconvenience Mouton experienced from his injury. This finding provides an example of the importance of the causal link between an accident and the injuries from which one is seeking damages.

Auto accident cases may seem clear cut at first glance, but they are often more complex than one presumes. Several different factors related to causation and damages must be examined closely to determine if a suit should be brought, and if so, against whom, and precisely what claims should be filed. Such a process is best left to an experienced attorney.

Continue reading "Crowley Auto Accident Gives Rise to Causation Examination in Louisiana Auto Case" »

Class actions are a type of action that most people have heard of but that may not be well understood. In Klier v. Elf Atochem North America, Inc. a class action was initiated against the operator of an industrial plant in Bryan, Texas. The class was divided into three subclasses for the purposes of settlement. Members of each class were granted specific remedies for their disparate injuries.

Class actions are a useful tool when a large number of people have been harmed by a single defendant but none or few of them have suffered sufficient harm to warrant filing an independent claim. Class action proceedings have res judicata power over plaintiffs who do not opt out. That means that if a plaintiff does not opt out of a class action, the verdict or settlement that results will be binding on that person and prevent them from filing that same claim in the future. If a plaintiff feels that his or her injury warrants a separate claim, that person is free to do so only after opting out of the class action.

In order to certify a class for a class action under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the first place, a court must find that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, that there are questions of law or fact common to the class, that the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims and defenses of the class and that the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Each of these requirements must be met in order for an action to go forward as a class action.

A class action necessarily requires a great deal of people to be involved. No hard number is found in the Federal Rules but joinder rules exist that are capable of incorporating many parties into a lawsuit before it becomes impracticable. Joinder rules lead to cases that are somewhat confusing from time to time but more people have to be involved to make certifying a class appropriate.

The people in the class must also be similarly situated. If there are not common issues of law or fact, a class action is not appropriate. In Klier v. Elf Atochem North America Inc. the court certified three subclasses. The people in each subclass were similarly harmed. There were questions of fact common to each subclass, as well. Each set of plaintiffs alleged that they had been harmed by the same plant. These subclasses were created so that the case could be settled instead of going to trial. One of the subclasses did not exhaust the resources allotted to it so the court utilized the doctrine of cy pres to distribute the remaining funds. That was determined to be a mistake and is the subject of another post on this blog.

Class representatives necessarily must represent the class. If the claims or defenses they present are atypical of the class, they are not accurately representing the interest of that class. This is likely the reason that the court split the Klier v. Elf Atochem North America, Inc. into three subclasses for the purposes of settlement. The representatives of each subclass likely had slightly divergent interests. In order to avoid a conflict of interest, the court split the class.

The fourth aspect of certifying a class to pursue a class action suit is part and parcel of the third aspect but requires something more. The representatives have a duty to the other members of the class to hire competent attorneys and to pursue claims that are in the best interest of the class as a whole. In order for a class action to be successful, someone must step up and take the lead. Without adequate representation, a class cannot be certified. Furthermore, it is unlikely that anyone would even begin a class action if nobody planned to step up and become the class representative.

The Klier v. Elf Atochem North America, Inc. opinion can be read here. The duties and obligations of the class representatives continued after the trial in that case. The rights of the class members were not fully realized after the initial settlement so the work continued. You can read more about the Fifth Circuit's determination in the opinion and this blog post.

Continue reading "Class Action Goes to Federal Court in Texas Plant Release Case" »

Happy Holidays from the Berniard Law Firm! We will resume blog posting on Tuesday.

Under Louisiana law, the plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit may file his complaint with the court by fax. However, the plaintiff must, within five days of transmitting the fax, forward to the clerk of court the original, signed complaint and any fees that are due. If the plaintiff fails to forward the original document, the faxed copy will "have no force or effect." La. R.S. 13:580. The fax option can potentially help preserve an action that is facing the expiration of its prescriptive period. However, as we will see with the recent case of Taylor v. Broomfield, the courts do not take lightly the requirement that the original complaint must be submitted to the clerk within the time frame outlined in the statute.

On September 17, 2009, Jarred Taylor was involved in a serious car accident in Jackson Parish. The other party to the collision was Brandon Goss who was driving a Mack truck owned by Broomfield, Inc. Taylor suffered various injuries including two broken ribs, multiple contusions, and lacerations to his face. Taylor's lawyer initiated a lawsuit against Broomfield and its insurer on September 17, 2010 (exactly one year after the accident and the last day of the prescriptive period) by transmitting a faxed complaint to the Jackson Parish Court. The faxed complaint was not notarized. Although Taylor's counsel had, according to Louisiana statute, until September 24, 2010 to send the original complaint to the court's clerk, the original document was not filed until October 5, 2010. The original complaint filed with the clerk on October 5 included a verification notarized by one Donna Kay Tucker on September 20, 2010.

On November 12, 2010, Broomfield filed an exception of prescription requesting that Taylor's suit be dismissed because it was filed after the one-year prescriptive period had elapsed. A hearing was held on January 13, 2011. In opposition to Broomfield's exception, Taylor’s attorney argued that when his office faxed the complaint on September 17, 2010, his staff immediately mailed the original complaint, along with the filing fees, to the clerk of court. Several staff members from the law firm testified to this effect, but none of them could explain who the notary, Donna Kay Tucker, was or why the complaint's verification reflected a date after the day the firm put the document in the mail. Ultimately, the trial judge denied the exception of prescription and held that the notary date was "merely harmless error" and that the complaint had been timely forwarded by Taylor's counsel per state law. Broomfield appealed.

The Second Circuit began its analysis by reviewing the burden of proof: it noted that
"[a]lthough the party raising a peremptory exception of prescription ordinarily bears the burden of proof, when prescription is evident from the face of the pleading, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing the action has not prescribed." Cooksey v. Heard, McElroy & Vestal, L.L.P. This means that the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the original complaint and fees were mailed to the clerk; this proof can take the form of affidavits or receipts that show the date and time of mailing or delivery. The court noted that Taylor’s attorney and office staff "testified that they executed their duties on September 17, 2010 with regard to the petition." Yet, when questioned, "no one could confirm that the envelope [containing the complaint] was actually forwarded from the firm to the post office nor could anyone explain the September 20, 2010 date affixed by the notary," who was unknown to the office staff. Also, no witness could explain why the faxed complaint was not notarized, while the purported "original" delivered to the clerk (late) was notarized. The court reasoned, "Taylor has neither postage proof nor any other form of time-stamped evidence to prove that his counsel timely forwarded the petition for damages. Without such proof of mailing to counter the missing and conflicting evidence, this court cannot agree that Taylor met his burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence." Accordingly, the court concluded that the trial court was clearly wrong in denying the exception of prescription, and reversed its decision.

The Taylor case makes plain the critical importance of meeting filing deadlines in litigation. A plaintiff must choose his counsel carefully to ensure his case is not lost before it begins due to a technical error like failing to properly and timely file the complaint with the court. I

Continue reading "Lawsuit Over Jackson Parish Car Wreck Dismissed Due to Late Filing" »

A recent case decided by the Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit of Louisiana demonstrates the legal principle of respondeat superior. In Cote v. City of Shreveport, the plaintiff’s house was broken into and she and her daughter were held captive at knifepoint by the intruder. The intruder had apparently become familiar with Cote’s house through his employment with the city’s water department. Based on this fact, Cote brought suit against the City of Shreveport under the theory of respondeat superior.

Respondeat superior is a common law doctrine that makes an employer liable for the actions of an employee when those actions take place within the scope of employment. The policy behind this doctrine lies in the notion that in an employment relationship, the principle or employer has the ability to control his agent or employee. This control includes which employees to hire as well as the time, space, and method in which work is conducted. Since the employer retains so much control, it only seems fair to hold it responsible when these choices result in injury.

Another policy reason for permitting respondeat superior claims is to allow claimants to pursue a responsible party that has the means to compensate the injured. While the employee him or herself may be responsible, the victim of a tort may not be able to recover suitable compensation for an injury from this individual. The employer, on the other hand, has a greater pool of resources to draw from to settle the wrong. This justification not only allows injured parties to be remunerated properly, but also places an additional financial incentive on employers to take care when hiring and implementing work practices.

In most of these respondeat superior claims, the outcome turns on whether or not the employee was within the scope of his or her employment when the injury occurred. In the Cote case, for example, the employee broke into Cote’s home well after midnight, a time during which the employee was no longer acting on behalf of his employer. Thus, in this case the individual was found to be acting outside his scope of employment and, as a result, the city was not found liable for his actions.

One rule of thumb with regards to scope of employment is to ask whether or not the injury occurred during an act that is necessary or might be reasonably expected to complete an employer assigned task. Minor detours and delays from the assigned task, such as going to the bathroom, are typically viewed as being within the scope of employment. On the other hand, frolic, or major detours that are solely for the benefit of the employee, are seen to be outside the scope of employment and will not cause an employer to be held liable. If an injury is found to have occurred within the scope of employment, the employer may be held liable for the employee’s actions even if such actions were reckless, accidental, or intentional.

When applying these standards to the Cote case, the court made it clear that the employer was outside his scope of employment. The employee had no reason to be at Cote’s house at that time of night and was not even on the clock. Cote also claimed that she had complained about the employee's prior inappropriate actions towards her and the city failed to take action. However, the court found no such complaint on the record. Therefore, the city could not be held liable for retaining the employee, as they could not have been considered to have been on notice.

If you have been injured by someone who was working at the time, you may be able to bring suit against both the employee and the employer. However, several difficult questions, including those involving scope of employment, require careful consideration. These analyses are best suited for an experienced, practicing attorney.

Continue reading "Shreveport Liability Tested in Respondeat Superior Claim After Home Invasion" »

A school district can be like a parent as it takes care of students who are underage and needing supervision. That attention is greater when the student is more vulnerable. However, the school district's duty is absolute but, instead, limited to those who are in the district's custody, even when the incident is tragic. A sexual assault by one student against another 14-year-old student did not result in liability to the school district because the students had left the school bus and were outside of the school district's control. ln BL v. Caddo Parish School Board (La. Ct. App. 2 Cir. 9/21/11), the court of appeal affirmed dismissal of the case by the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo.

KKG, the son of BL, had learning disabilities caused in part from his premature birth. His mother enrolled him in "special education classes" at Caddo Learning Center when he was 14. Both KKG and another student, LNG, rode on the same school bus. LNG had a record of disciplinary problems. School records noted 60 reported offenses.

On October 19, 2006, KKG and LNG were friendly. They normally got off the bus at the same stop, and that day they did. KKG went to LNG's house to swap video games, but when they got to the house, LNG said he forgot that the games were at his aunt's house. "On the walk to his aunt's house, LNG threatened to hit KKG with a brick if he did not do as he was told. LNG then sexually assaulted KKG." KKG ran to his grandmother's house, where he reported the assault. DNA provided a positive match to LNG, who was adjudicated a delinquent in juvenile court.

BL, KKG's mother, sued Caddo Parish School Board. She alleged that the school district could have prevented the assault with proper supervision. She also argued that KKG's mental limitations required the school district to provide a heightened level of supervision, which it failed to do. The district court disagreed, however, and granted the school district's motion to dismiss the case.

The court of appeal established the boundaries of school district liability from previous cases. The duty is of reasonable supervision while in actual custody of the children. A 2010 Louisiana Supreme Court case said, "The school board is not the insurer of the safety of the children, and constant supervision of all students is neither possible nor required."

The case had weaknesses in its evidence. KKG's testimony was contradictory. At one time, KKG said that he told the assistant principal "that LNG made sexual gestures toward him," but at another time, KKG said that he did not feel threatened by LNG. Other testimony led to mixed conclusions. KKG's mother told the Caddo Learning Center principal about disruptions on the school bus, but never attributed them to LNG. She did mention LNG specifically to the bus driver about the problems. LNG has a school disciplinary record of profanity, "willful disobedience, leaving school without permission, and fighting." There was no indication that LNG would exhibit sexually aggressive behavior. Most importantly, the incident happened after KKG and LNG left the bus at their regular stop and were off school premises. The court of appeal concluded that the school district was not liable.

Similarly, KKG was not a special education student, according to the school district's Director of Special Education. KKG attended a "remediation program" because of poor math and reading skills. In two years, "KKG made up three grade levels." His mental capacity and social behavior also would not qualify him for special education services. The court of appeal decided that the school district did not owe KKG a heightened duty of supervision.

School districts have duties to care for the youths under their supervision. School activities, extracurricular activities, and other day-to-day events like transporting students in a school bus, make uncertain where the district's duty ends. These distinctions are not always easily recognizable. A skilled lawyer will know where to look to determine whether the facts show that the school district may be liable, improving the chances of success in a lawsuit for damages.

Continue reading "Caddo Parish School Board Held Not Liable for Sexual Assault Involving Students" »

In a medical malpractice lawsuit, the plaintiff faces a three-part evidentiary burden. First, she must present evidence to establish the applicable standard of care. Next, she must show that a breach of that standard of care occurred. Finally, she must demonstrate a link between that breach and the injury that resulted. In nearly all cases, the opinion of a medical expert is an essential element of the required evidence. Without a qualified medical expert's opinion, the plaintiff risks losing at summary judgment due to a lack of material issues of fact to be determined at trial. The availability of an expert's opinion was at the center of the recent case in the Third Circuit, Dupree v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Co.

Katie Dupree became a patient of Dr. Jose Dorta, an OB/GYN specialist, in 2008 when she was pregnant. On January 9, 2009, Dupree went to the ER at Opelousas General Hospital with facial swelling, vomiting, and a severe headache. She was told to stop working and rest at home due to elevated blood pressure. Two weeks later, Dupree again went to the ER with elevated blood pressure and other symptoms that suggested pregnancy complications. Dr. Dorta did nothing to treat these issues and did not suggest an early delivery of Dupree's baby. In fact, Dr. Dorta merely sent Dupree home with the suggestion of bed rest. Two days later, Dupree was found face down and unconscious. Tragically, her baby was stillborn the following day, at which point Dupree was then taken off life support and died. Dupree's parents requested review by a Medical Review Panel in June 25, 2009. The panel rendered its finding of no malpractice on Dr. Dorta's part on May 12, 2010. Sixteen days later, Dupree's parents filed suit against Dr. Dorta and his medical malpractice insurance carrier, Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Co. After overcoming a series of exceptions filed by the defendants, the plaintiffs requested a status conference to schedule a trial date. Immediately thereafter, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial judge granted the defendants' motion based on the plaintiffs' "failure to submit an affidavit from an expert showing a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment." At the hearing, plaintiffs' counsel argued that he had obtained an expert but did not submit an affidavit because the trial scheduling order called for expert reports to be exchanged several months later. The trial court disregarded this argument. It then denied the plaintiffs' request for a new trial after they produced an affidavit from Dr. James Tappan, a board certified physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeal, mindful that a "trial court is imbued with great discretion in both pre-trial and post-trial matters," ultimately concluded the this denial of a new trial was an abuse of that discretion. "[T]he Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure provides that a 'new trial may be granted in any case if there is good ground therefor, except as otherwise provided by law,'" the court reasoned, and "after reviewing the record before us, we find good and valid reasons for a new trial." Namely, Dr. Tappan's affidavit included "three specific acts of medical negligence ... : failure to diagnose, failure to warn, and failure to timely deliver the baby." The court noted that Dr. Tappan reported that "Dr. Dorta failed to warn Ms. Dupree and/or her family of her condition and what to look for with respect to further symptoms,” which was at odds with the Medical Review Panel's finding that “we are sure a lengthy discussion ensued” when Dupree sought treatment. These conflicting views presented a genuine issue of material fact. Yet, the trial court "ruled on the motion for new trial without reference to the affidavit, choosing to rely instead on the fact that plaintiffs failed to take advantage of their one opportunity to present evidence." Being careful not to "condone or legitimize the actions of plaintiffs' counsel in failing to timely file an expert affidavit," the court concluded that "the facts, the law, and plaintiffs' prudence and initiative in prosecuting this case compel a finding of an abuse of discretion by the trial court," and reversed the denial of a new trial.

The court admitted that "[r]are is the case where we find an abuse of the trial court's great discretion." But the Dupree case shows that a negative result at the trial level can still be overcome on appeal. Moreover, the case demonstrates the need for a skilled attorney for every step of a medical malpractice dispute.

Continue reading "Third Circuit Reverses Trial Court in Rare Finding of Abuse of Discretion in Med Mal Action" »

On behalf of the Berniard Law Firm, we'd like to wish all of our clients and employees a Happy and Safe Holidays and New Years.

The blog will resume postings in 2012!

It is not uncommon in casinos for patrons to become intoxicated to the point that they are unsuitable for public. For this reason, casinos implement security procedures to deal with intoxicated patrons. Most of these procedures involve cutting the patron off from alcohol and, in some cases, even removing the patron from the premises. Sometimes, however, intoxicated patrons who are confronted by casino security become unruly. In these situations, when patrons are forcibly removed from the establishment, the amount of force that can be justified in the removal becomes an issue.

In Miller v. L'Auberge Du Lac Casino, two intoxicated patrons were cut off from alcohol by casino security.Since the patrons were not allowed to gamble if they were unable to drink, the two patrons were asked to leave. When one of the patrons tried to take a picture with her cell phone in a photography prohibited area, a security guard took the phone away, resulting in a scuffle. Both patrons shouted profanities at the security guards and one patron grabbed a security guard by the neck, resulting in cuts and scrapes. In response, the security guard took the patron to the ground and handcuffed him.

The plaintiffs, the two patrons, took the confrontation to court, claiming that the security guards had used excessive force in the removal. The patron who was taken down claimed to have been punched in the face and that one of the security guards jumped up and down on his legs. Video shown at trial, however, showed no evidence of such conduct. Based on this video and expert testimony, the jury found for the defendants.

On appeal, the plaintiffs sought to have the jury's verdict set aside. However, when a case is being heard on appeal the court will not disturb the fact finder's ruling where there are conflicting testimonies. In these instances the court of appeals will only consider whether or not the fact finder's conclusion was reasonable, not whether that conclusion was right or wrong. The only way for an appellant to get around this manifest error standard is to seek de novo review. De novo review occurs when an appellate judge allows independent appellate determination of issues of fact or law, or both. Typically de novo review is only granted if the trial jury fails to follow the court's instructions or there is a clear error of fact or law. De novo review, therefore, is in essence a rehearing of the case before the appellate judge.

The plaintiffs in the Miller case sought de novo review on appeal. In deciding whether or not to grant such a review, the court of appeals looked to the evidence presented at trial. Review of the tape and testimony revealed that the jury's finding was reasonable, and was therefore not so erroneous to justify a de novo review.

The plaintiffs in Miller also sought judgment notwithstanding the verdict. A judgment notwithstanding the verdict occurs when a judge reverses a jury's verdict because there were insufficient facts to support the verdict or that the law was erroneously applied to the facts. Like a de novo review, the granting of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict is tied to the reasonableness of the jury's finding. However, in judgment notwithstanding the verdict, if no reasonable person could come to the conclusion of the jury, then the judgment is completely reversed without another hearing. The conflicting testimony in Miller's case allowed a reasonable person to come to the same conclusion as the jury. Therefore, the plaintiffs' movement for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied by the appellate court.

The decision to appeal a judgment is important and should not be taken lightly. Cases that are arbitrarily appealed create inefficiency within the court system and increase costs to both the state and plaintiffs. Therefore, if you are considering appealing a judgment it is important to consult an experienced attorney. If you find yourself in this situation please contact the Berniard Law Firm.

When an individual files a claim for negligence several factors must be proven to succeed against a defendant. These factors state that, in order for negligence to exist, a defendant must owe the plaintiff a duty, breach that duty, be the actual cause of that breach, be the proximate cause of that breach, and the breach must result in actual harm to the plaintiff. Often, however, questions arise in negligence disputes when the cause of a plaintiff's injury cannot be proven. One of the most controversial of these issues is presumption; whether or not the injury should be assumed to have occurred from the defendant's breached duty. This was the main issue contended in Jones v. Brookshire Grocery Co.

In this case, Jones suffered from gastrointestinal afflictions after eating chicken strips that contained metal flakes from the defendant's store. At trial, the court found that although Mr. Jones's condition did not appear until after his consumption of the contaminated food, it was just as likely that his condition, which usually takes several years to develop, was already present prior to the incident. Therefore, Jones was awarded damages for his anxiety, but nothing for damages related to the gastrointestinal condition. On appeal, Jones contended that Housley, a leading negligence case, should apply in support of his position. Housley states that:

A claimant's disability is presumed to have resulted from an accident, if before the accident the injured person was in good health, but commencing with the accident the symptoms of the disabling condition appear and continuously manifest themselves afterwards, providing that the medical evidence shows there to be a reasonable possibility of causal connection between the accident and the disabling condition.(Housley, 579 So.2d 973 at 980)

The Court of Appeal, however, found that Housley actually provides support for the argument against Jones. In order for there to be a presumption in favor of the plaintiff, the Housley rule requires there to be a "reasonable possibility of causal connection between the accident and the disabling condition." Yet, Jones's condition could have been present for years without any symptoms, and according to one of Jones's doctors, the condition was unlikely to have developed in the three months between the metal flake consumption and the diagnosis of the condition. Therefore, since Jones failed to provide further evidence establishing that there was a reasonable possibility of causation, the Court of Appeal denied Jones's plea for damages related to his gastrointestinal affliction.

The second issue that Jones appealed was the denial of loss of consortium damages for his wife. In order to succeed on a loss of consortium claim the plaintiff must prove the spouse's damages, the defendant's liability, and the consequential loss of consortium. Loss of consortium is typically defined as a loss of benefits of a family relationship. In addition to overall happiness, loss of consortium may apply if other aspects of the relationship are damaged including love, affection, sexual relations, and the right to support, aid, and assistance. Therefore, if one's husband is injured or killed because of a defendant's liability, the wife may be entitled to the husband's lost future wages as a loss of consortium. In the Jones case, the plaintiff succeeded in showing loss of consortium because Mr. Jones suffered anxiety which was caused by the defendant, and Mrs. Jones had been put through hardship because of that anxiety.

If you have been the victim of an accident caused by another but it is unclear whether or not your injuries are a direct result of the accident, ask yourself whether or not the injury appeared after the accident. If it has, it may be best to consult with a doctor to determine if it is possible that the injury developed before the accident. If pre-accident development is unlikely or impossible, then a court will presume the injury to have resulted from the accident. Likewise, if a family member's injury has affected your relationship with that person, and another is responsible for that injury, you may be entitled to loss of consortium compensation. Consortium incorporates a broad spectrum and should not be forgotten when making a claim. Remember, avoidable injuries hurt not only the victim, but those closest to him or her.

Negligence claims are often complex, requiring deep legal analysis of the facts and the law. This analysis is best left to a licensed practicing attorney.

Continue reading "Alexandria Man's Gastrointestinal Injuries Not Presumed To Have Developed From Defendant's Negligence" »

Previously on this blog, we have discussed at length the importance of filing a lawsuit within the period of time required by law. For medical malpractice actions, Louisiana statute

“sets forth two prescriptive limits within which to bring a medical malpractice action, namely one year from the date of the alleged act or one year from the date of discovery with a three year limitation from the date of the alleged act, omission or neglect to bring such claims.” Campo v. Correa.

Determining the date of discovery is based on a test of reasonableness: “[p]rescription commences 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.” Constructive knowledge is considered whatever notice is sufficient to "excite attention and put the injured party on guard and call for inquiry.” However, even when the victim is entirely reasonable, it cannot be later than three years from the date of the original incident that the suit is filed.

Another topic we have often explored on this blog is the need for expert counsel to navigate the myriad of strategic and procedural challenges in litigation. This theme was evident in the recent case of Patin v. State of Louisiana. In 2006, Rita Patin sought treatment from Dr. Charles Norwood at the LSU Family Practice Center in Alexandria. During one or more visits in 2006, she believed that Dr. Norwood "administered inappropriate treatment which resulted in a stroke, heart attack, and other serious injuries." Patin sent a letter requesting a medical review panel to the Commissioner of Administration on December 11, 2009. The letter contained no details beyond her cursory allegation of wrongdoing by Dr. Norwood. LSU Center filed an exception of prescription in the district court. Patin, who represented herself, filed an answer that explained Dr. Norwood had “consistently mislead” her during telephone calls in 2008 in which he claimed her symptoms were a normal part of the healing process. The answer also alleged that Dr. Norwood administered excessive electromagnetic shocks which caused a stroke and heart attack. However, the answer included "nothing about when Patin became aware that she may have been the victim of malpractice." She did not indicate when she experienced the stroke and heart attack, or when she discovered that these conditions were related to Dr. Norwood's treatment. As a result, the court concluded that "Patin submitted no sufficient evidence upon which the ... court could determine whether her actions/inactions were reasonable." Thus, the Third Circuit upheld the trial court's judgment granting an exception of prescription in favor of LSU Center.

Continue reading "Self-Represented Plaintiff Waits Too Long to File Medical Malpractice Action " »

Under Louisiana law, a defendant has no specific duty to protect a person against the harmful acts of a third party unless the defendant has a “special relationship” with the victim or some independent accountability for the third party. The concept of respondeat superior refers to the legal construct that an employer is responsible for the actions of its employee, so long as the actions occur in the course and scope of employment. This legal principle can be extremely valuable to plaintiffs who are unable to recover much if anything from an individual employee who commits harm; the vicarious liability of the employer can allow a plaintiff to recover from a presumably deeper-pocketed employer, as well.

Establishing vicarious liability can prove tricky, however: liability does not attach when the "employees" is an independent contractor. Under Louisiana law, "determining whether [an employer-employee] relationship exists, the major consideration is the control or right of control which one party exercises over the other." See Savoie v. Fireman Fund Ins. Co. Thus, the court "may examine the economic relationship of the parties and the right of one party to control the time and physical activities of the other."

Blanchard v. Ogima. In the recent case of Irving v. Rubens, for example, the plaintiffs attempted to establish an employer-employee relationship to reach an additional defendant. In 2008, Ray Manning engaged Richard Rubens to repair flood damage to his house on Prieur Street in New Orleans. Rubens was working on several other houses in the area at the time, and so he hired Robert Irwin as a foreman to oversee his several construction crews. Over the weekend of June 28, an altercation between Rubens and Irwin occurred at Manning's residence. Ultimately, Rubens shot and killed Irwin.

Irwin's family filed a wrongful death action against Manning alleging that he was Rubens's employer and therefore vicariously liable for the harmful acts of Rubens while in the course and scope of his employment. The Fourth Circuit, in reviewing the trial court's granting of Manning's motion for summary judgment, found "no evidence of any special relationship between Ray Manning and Robert Irving that would impose a duty upon Manning to protect Irving from being shot and killed by Rubens in Manning’s home." There was, in the court's view, "no evidence indicating that Manning could be found vicariously liable as Rubens’ employer for Rubens’ killing of Irving." The plaintiffs failed to offer sufficient evidence to show that Rubens was an employee, rather than an independent contractor. In fact, the evidence showed that Rubens "was overseeing construction jobs for other homeowners at the same time he was doing Manning’s house," and that "Rubens selected, hired and directed his own crew."

These facts did not support the conclusion that "Manning had the right to control the time or activities of Rubens." Moreover, the court noted, the plaintiffs certainly did not prove that "the shooting of Irving was within the course and scope of Rubens’s employment," which would have required a showing that Rubens was "acting within the ambit of his assigned duties and also in furtherance of [Manning's] objectives."

Continue reading "New Orleans Shooting Leads to Wrongful Death Action" »

Early in the morning of August 25, 2006, Angela Brignac visited a McDonald's in Baton Rouge. While she was stopped at the drive-thru's menu board, her car was struck from the rear by a truck operated by Brian Mumphrey. The collision occurred because Mumphrey's foot slipped off the brake pedal when he bent down to retrieve his wallet from the truck's floor. Brignac did not call the police, but did exchange information with Mumphrey. She then ordered breakfast and went on her way. Later that evening, after Brignac went home and discussed the accident with her boyfriend, she called the police to report the accident and went to the hospital to be examined.

Approximately a year later, Brignac filed a lawsuit against Mumphrey and Farm Bureau, his insurance carrier. Brignac's complaint alleged injuries to her right shoulder, back, neck, head, mouth, and jaw as a result of the collision. The trial court awarded Brignac $3,587 in damages for past medical expenses she incurred treating her jaw injury. It also awarded her general damages in the amount of $6,000, but denied her claims for past and future medical expenses for her shoulder injury. Brignac appealed this judgment, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to award medical expenses related to her shoulder injury. Brignac alleged that she had consistently complained of right shoulder pain from the date of the accident. She testified at trial that she reported both shoulder and jaw pain in the emergency room on the evening of the accident, but the shoulder issue was not documented in the ER records which were completed by both the ER doctor and the triage nurse. The first documented complaint of shoulder pain did not come until six weeks after the accident when Brignac was seen by Dr. Johnston who diagnosed her with a strained rotator cuff. Johnston prescribed pain medications, physical therapy, and exercise, and also administered cortisone injections in Brignac's shoulder. He testified at trial that while he believed Brignac's shoulder injury was related to the car wreck, his opinion was "based on history and what she tells me solely." Brignac did not follow Dr. Johnson's physical therapy recommendations and was eventually discharged as a patient from the therapy center for failing to show up for appointments. The First Circuit observed that "the trial court was not convinced that Ms. Brignac proved that her shoulder injury was related to the accident." And, after reviewing the record, the court could not say that the trial court's factual determination on causation was "manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong." The court held,

"Noting other possible causes for Ms. Brignac's shoulder injury, including the repeated lifting of her child, and considering the lapse of time between the accident and Ms. Brignac first seeking treatment for the shoulder problem, the [trial] court was not convinced that Ms. Brignac proved that her shoulder injury was related to the accident. We find no manifest error in this conclusion."

The court's conclusion reveals an important fact that all accident victims should keep in mind: in order to recover fully for an injury, it should be well documented by a medical professional. Ideally, the initial report of injury would be made immediately following the accident. Also, the courts generally take a dim view of plaintiffs who do not follow medical advice related to the treatment of an injury, so careful adherence to a doctor's orders is essential to maximizing the financial recovery.

Continue reading "Plaintiff Learns Painful Lesson About Treating Injuries Without Delay " »

On August 7, 2002, James Wilson was driving his car southbound on Essen Lane in Baton Rouge. When he attempted to make a left turn onto the on-ramp for I-10, Wilson pulled into the path of an oncoming car driven by Barbara White northbound on Essen. The crash left Wilson with serious injuries. Following the incident, Wilson filed suit against the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development ("DOTD"). His complaint alleged that the DOTD negligently installed lane delineators on Essen Lane at the intersection with I-10; Wilson's negligence theory was based on his assertion that the lane delineators blocked drivers' view of oncoming traffic. Wilson asserted that the DOTD's negligence caused his accident because he couldn't see White's car when he attempted to turn onto I-10. After a trial the jury returned a verdict in favor of the DOTD. It found that the DOTD was not negligent and that its installation of lane delineators did not cause the accident. Wilson filed a motion requesting a JNOV which was denied by the trial court. Wilson then appealed on the basis that the jury's verdict was not supported by the evidence.

The First Circuit began it analysis with a recitation of the standard of review for a challenge based on the jury's alleged manifest error. Because the determination of negligence is a factual one, an appellate court must apply a two part test to reverse the jury's finding. Part one involves the appellate court's deciding that a "reasonable factual basis" does not exist in the record for the jury's finding; part two requires the appellate court to determine that the record establishes that the jury's finding is "clearly wrong." Additionally, when
factual findings are based upon the jury's weighing of witness credibility, "great deference" must be given its decision. The rule of thumb is that where there are two or more permissible views of the evidence, the jury's choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous.

The court, in reviewing the record, discovered that conflicting witness testimony was presented at trial. The most significant point of divergence between the witnesses' testimony concerned the presence of traffic in the northbound left-turn lane of Essen Lane which would have blocked Wilson's view of oncoming northbound traffic regardless of the lane delineators. Wilson himself testified that there were no cars in the northbound turn lane. However, an eyewitness to the accident testified that there were several cars in the lane, a fact he was certain of because he had to navigate around them when he entered the intersection to assist Wilson and White following the crash. There was also some dispute among the witnesses' testimony about whether the lane delineators' location obstructed the view of traffic. White asserted that she had no trouble seeing southbound traffic over the delineators, but the police officer who responded to the scene testified that, based on his experience with other crashes at the same location, he considered the lane delineators a hazard and the intersection unreasonably dangerous.

The court, after a "careful review of the evidence contained in the record," found that a "reasonable factual basis for the jury finding that DOTD was not negligent" did in fact exist in the record. Further, the court could not conclude that the jury was clearly wrong: "The jury was faced with conflicting views of the evidence regarding whether a person sitting in a vehicle in the southbound left turn lane could see ... cars in the northbound lanes and clearly chose to believe the testimony that either [Wilson's] view was not obstructed or was obstructed by cars in the northbound left turn lane." Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment and assessed costs to Wilson.

The particularly high obstacle to overturning a jury's fact-findings on appeal reflects the preference for factual disputes to be settled at the trial level rather than by an appellate court. Arguably, the jury has the best opportunity to consider all the evidence, including witness temperament and appearance, when resolving factual disputes. It is essential for a party who encounters an unfavorable jury verdict to retain experienced counsel before filing an appeal that is premised on a jury's commitment of manifest error, given the high level of deference afforded the jury.

Continue reading "Court Explores Standard of Review in Baton Rouge Car Wreck Case" »

This post serves as a concluding piece on the Oliver Medical Malpractice case reviewed in our previous two entries:

The higher burden in a medical malpractice case requires that the state show that the discrimination furthers a legitimate governmental interest. The Taylors argued that by including nurses in the categories of medical practitioners who have limited liability, those in Taylor's shoes have inadequate remedy. The state argued that it was creating this distinction for the overall purpose of protecting individuals who are in situations just like Taylor.

Ultimately, the state argued that by creating the liability limit for nurses in the act, it had in mind the future consequences of unlimited liability. They argued that by creating the cap the amount of liability is reduced, which means that it costs less overall for a nurse to practice within the state of Louisiana. The state goes on to argue that this reduction in cost insures that there will be a sufficient number of nurse and medical practitioners who practice within Louisiana. This, they argue, ensures people like Taylor that someone will be there to help them. Moreover, the state argues that a lower liability limit means that nurses like nurse Duhon will have at least enough money to cover the costs up to the cap and that with unlimited liability, it would not be guaranteed that nurses would have the sufficient amount of resources to compensate victims of malpractice.

The court did not agree with this. The court noted that its first objective was to see if the clause which includes nurses can be taken out of the act without destroying the acts underlying purpose. If this can be done, the court must save the act by taking that part out. In this case, the court held that removing nurses from the protection of the act will not have such an effect. The court went on to state that nurses like nurse Duhon are allowed to practice in Louisiana without sufficient training and experience required to be a doctor. As a result, nurses are able to give medical advice without jumping through the hoops that doctors have to. The court stated that individuals like Taylor get advice without realizing that they may be getting wrong advice. Further, he court did not see that there was any legitimate governmental interest which could justify leaving Taylor in the state she is in by nurses who give wrong advice. The court argued that those in Taylor's situation would likely be more than happy to take the chance at suing for malpractice without the liability limit rather than be assured that they will get at least $500,000 but no more. In its conclusion, the court ruled the limitation as it applied to nurses to be unconstitutional.

Medical malpractice cases are inherently complicated and require exceptional legal assistance in order to get the financial judgment you deserve. If you believe you have suffered due to the actions of a medical professional, contact an attorney immediately to preserve your legal rights.

In some states, the legislative branch creates certain protections for classes of residents. These protections can come in the form of protective presumptions, statutory liability limitations, or any other form which the legislative branch thinks is necessary for its state. In most states, statutes protect those in the medical field from unlimited liability. The reality is that these protections are necessary in order to protect doctors and hospitals from being involved in numerous civil cases. If doctors could be sued freely, chances are that the cost of liability insurance would sky rocket. If this happens, medical professionals would be wary to establish a practice in that particular state. Needless to say, this would create a huge crisis in the medical field.

These protections generally do not apply if there has been an egregious act by a doctor. Moreover, these protections do not apply if a doctor has intentionally committed an act against a patient. In Louisiana, for a general claim of malpractice, the award of general damages is limited to $500,000. This protection exists for doctors, hospitals, and some types of nurse practitioners. However, if an exception to the statutes application exists, the shield will not be helpful to medical practitioners.

In a recent case Joe Oliver vs. Megnoila Clinic, the protection did not apply to a nurse practitioner. The statute involved was expanded to include nurse practitioners of the type the defendant was. However, one of the requirements was that the nurse practioner consult with a medical doctor on issues before giving medical advice. Susan Duhon, one of the defendants in the case, was a nurse practitioner. She was seeing the Taylor Oliver who was an infant at the time that she was first brought to Ms. Duhon's office. Taylor was brought in because she was crying a lot and the parents could not figure out what the problem was.

Ultimately, Ms. Duhon rendered an incorrect prognosis and sent the Olivers on their way. In fact, the Olivers returned to the office on a number of occasions because Taylor would simply not get better. Every time the Olivers came to her office, Ms. Duhon made a diagnosis without consulting with a medical doctor, as was required by Louisiana law. Eventually, the Olivers took Taylor to the hospital to see the doctor that Ms. Duhon was supposed to be consulting with all along. The doctor referred the case to a children's hospital where the Olivers' learned that Taylor had neuroblastoma which is a form of cancer that originates from the nerve tissue. It was also determined that Taylor showed signs of bruising around the eye, which is a tell-tale sign of the disease. However, this was not diagnosed until much later after the disease began to manifest.

This topic will be continued in our next entry.

As part of our Constitutional right to due process, an individual is allowed to bring grievances before a court. However, certain judicial policies may be enacted to deny plaintiffs from bringing suits that have already been litigated, are being brought with the intent to harass, or are frivolous. The purpose behind such policies is to make courts as efficient as possible by deterring such actions. A recent case out of the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal shines a light on several of these deterrents.

In Mendonca v. Tidewater, Inc., the plaintiff sought to nullify several final judgments made by the district court. Mendonca's list of suits stretched over four years, with multiple appeals and pleas for annulment. However, none of Mendonca's nullity claims or his appeals were successful. In his final appeal for anulment, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down three restrictions that laid Mendonca's long line of cases to rest.

The first of these restrictions was the court's upholding of the defendent's plea of res judicata and failure to state a claim. When res judicata is enacted, the court declares one of two denials. First, that the claim has been subject to a final judgment and thus no longer qualifies for an appeal, or second, that the litigant cannot bring a claim against the same party in a second claim because all claims should have been brought against that party in the initial suit. The policy considerations supporting res judicata is to preserve court resources and protect defendants from being subject to litigation multiple times, with the possibility of having to pay damages more than once. A defendant's plea that a plaintiff has failed to state a claim goes hand-in-hand with res judicata. If res judicata is applicable, then all duplicitous claims cancelled. In Mendonca's case, this means that there were no new claims. Since there were no such claims, the court held that Mendonca's nu
llity actions were a failure to state a new claim.

A second deterrent to brining frivolous, harassing, or duplicitous suits is the possibility of monetary sanctions. Rules of civil procedure require that an attorney make objective inquiries into the facts of a case and the law that pertains to it. These inquiries are held to a high standard as they are seen as an attorney's duty. This means that one's subjective good faith inquiry is not sufficient. When an attorney files a claim, it is important that case history is analyzed to ensure that res judicata does not apply. A failure to inquire about previous claims is a failure to impose the applicable law and is essentially poor lawyering. This was the case in Mendonca's appeal. Any attorney who objectively analyzed the situation would have known that the claim was precluded through res judicata. Yet, Mendonca proceeded. The court interpreted this as an abuse of the judicial system and an attempt to harass the defendant. This abuse justifies the imposition of sanctions.

Sanctions are typically defined as an order to pay to the other party the amount of reasonable expenses through the employment of an attorney. Yet, "reasonable" is not confined to the actual expense accrued by the attorney. Instead, "reasonable" has been interpreted to mean additional costs that act to deter, punish, and compensate. When sanctions are imposed by a trial judge they are unlikely to be appealed. Appellate judges tend to give deference to the trial judge's intimate knowledge of the case, litigants, and attorneys. For these reasons, Mendonca was sanctioned in the amount of $10,000, all of which were upheld on appeal.

A third way that a court can punish an individual as a deterrent is to issue a sanction revoking in forma pauperis status. In forma pauperis is a legal termed used by a judge to allow a poor individual to file a legal case and/or represent oneself at trial. Allowing one to claim this status is to essentially cut most court associated costs for the needy individual in order to ensure due process. Mendonca qualified and was granted this status. However, courts have held that in forma pauperis status is a privilege, not a right. Therefore, any abuse of this status will result in revocation. The most common reason why in forma pauperis status is revoked is because one brings frivolous suits. Mendonca did this in his case and was punished accordingly.

Res judicata, sanctions, and other rules of civil procedure are complicated, requiring a full analysis of the facts and the law. Such situations should only be approached by a licensed practicing attorney.

Continue reading "Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal Punishes For Duplicitous Suits " »

In 2008, Debra Goulas worked as a bookkeeper for Sunbelt Air Conditioning Supply in Baton Rouge. Jessie Touchet, owner of Sunbelt, and Diane Jones, Goulas's manager, accused her of stealing over $500 from the company during February and April that year. Goulas was tried for felony theft and acquitted. Following the criminal trial, she filed suit against Touchet and Jones in July, 2010 alleging defamation. Specifically, Goulas argued that Touchet and Jones "intentionally and negligently inflicted emotional distress" upon her, and that their accusations were "founded in malice to damage her person and reputation." The complaint sought damages for medical expenses, physical and mental pain and suffering, and loss of wages. The defendants filed an exception of prescription. The basis of the exception was that Goulas's claims were based on the defendants' actions that allegedly occurred during February and April of 2008. By the time Goulas filed suit in 2010, more than one year had passed, thereby prescribing the claims. In October, 2010, the trial judge granted the defendants' exception of prescription and dismissed Goulas's claims with prejudice.

Goulas appealed, alleging error on the trial court's ruling that her defamation claim was prescribed. Goulas reasoned that she could not initiate her defamation action until her criminal trial was concluded in March, 2010; accordingly, she argued that prescription did not begin to run until Frederick Jones publicly accused her of theft when testifying at her trial. The First Circuit noted that Louisiana recognizes a qualified privilege that protects parties from charges of defamation related to statements they make during a trial. "It necessarily follows that, during this time, the one-year period that applies to the filing of a defamation action is suspended." However, the court explained, the suspension of prescription applies "only to allegedly defamatory statements made by parties to a lawsuit." In this situation, Frederick and Jones were not parties to Goulas's criminal prosecution, so the prescription suspension did not apply. The court concluded that "since there has been no suspension of the 2008 alleged defamatory statements," the trial court properly granted the defendants' exception of prescription.

This result was no doubt a painful lesson to the Goulas that prescriptive periods and other rules of Louisiana civil procedure can be complex and confusing. At worst, such as here, missing a deadline can prove fatal to a plaintiff's case. Accordingly, it is critical that victims who think they may have a claim should consult a knowledgeable attorney immediately. Time may very well be of the essence in order to secure a day in court.

Continue reading "Baton Rouge Plaintiff Loses Defamation Claim Due to Prescription " »

A well-written contract can not only solve most problems, it can prevent most problems from becoming problems in the first place. For a contract to have its maximum problem eliminating effect, however, all parties to the contract must agree as to what it mean. Contract law is filled with cases that could have been avoided if the entities involved had simply expressed their terms more clearly or asked the right questions before, during and after the drafting of the contract. While this ambiguity may be intentional by one side or both in the event they think a benefit can be attained, the truth is the best contract is often the one where both parties are simply looking to achieve the main goal fairly. Those instances where ambiguity dominates, however, cause problems. The case of Mendoza v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., discussed in an earlier post, is one such case.

The Mendoza case was two-fold. It involved questions as to whether and when one company assumed liability for another company. Several contract law principles were implicated in this dispute from which this opinion resulted. Contracts get drafted under the assumption that the parties have reached an agreement. This alleged agreement is nowhere to be found when there is a dispute over the meaning of a contract. When adverse parties give contradictory interpretations of the same contract language a suit often ensues. It is because of the relative frequency of this occurrence that the courts have come up with various rules for interpreting contracts when the parties themselves cannot.

The Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit of Louisiana applied Texas contract law in this case. This was due to an agreement between the parties which was most likely part of the contract itself; there was no dispute over this portion of the contract. For guidance, Texas law contains several well-established principles for evaluating disputed contracts:

First and foremost when interpreting the true meaning of a contract comes the intent of the parties. The parties to the contract presumably know best about what the contract was intended to accomplish and how. This cannot be the only factor in the analysis because when there is a dispute about the meaning of the contract, the parties likely had different intentions in entering into said contract.

The language of the contract is also important. Words can have a myriad of meanings in various different contexts. Courts seek to give the words in a contract one meaning that best suits the occasion. Texas courts seek to "harmonize and effectuate" all of the provisions of a contract. This aim towards harmony is shared in many jurisdictions. Disjointed and unwieldy interpretations of contracts serve none well and only exacerbate disagreements between contracting parties. Courts must seek to interpret the contract as a cohesive document in order to best achieve the ends of the parties. The signatories signed the entire contract so it follows that no portion of the contract was meant to be meaningless.

Theoretically, and in common practice, a court should not edit a contract under Texas law but must seek to enforce the contract as it is written. If a court was free to delete or add provisions to a contract it would be exponentially easier for that court to come to a conclusion as to what the contract was supposed to mean. Despite this added ease, the parties to that contract would be robbed of the contract that they intended. They agreed to the words on the pages of the contract, regardless of their current dispute, at one time. A court must come to a conclusion based on the language that was actually included within a contract, not the language that a court thinks, feels or believes should be included.

It might seem like it would not have to be expressed that a court should seek to avoid a construction for a contract that is "unreasonable, oppressive, inequitable or absurd" but the Texas Court of Appeals made it official. The law of contracts is, at its core, a law of fairness and equity. All language in a contract is supposed to be given its normal grammatical meaning unless otherwise stated in the contract. This too may seem like a meaningless pleasantry that should not bear expressing but in a world where jargon and technical terms are becoming increasingly common, words do not always mean the same thing. One particularly amusing contract dispute once arose out of the meaning of the word "chicken" for purposes of a contract for the sale of certain poultry products.

Our next entry will conclude coverage on this Mendoza principle as well as fleshing out the need for close review of contract provisions and stipulations.

Continue reading "Texas Contract Law Informs Second Circuit Decision" »

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" »

In order for a court to have jurisdiction over a person, proper service of process must be employed, giving legal notice to the party of the suit and enabling them to timely prepare in anticipation of the suit. If proper service is not performed, a court may not have jurisdiction over such person. In a recent Louisiana Supreme Court case, the requirements of proper service were explored in order to determine whether the proper steps were employed. proper service of process is one of the most important parts of a law suit, without proper service, the defendant may not be forced to participate in the case. Thus, the importance of proper service cannot be emphasized enough.

The case at issue involves the plaintiff, who fax-filed suit against several defendants, including the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD), seeking to recover damages arising from an automobile accident. In the plaintiffs petition, requested service on DOTD though the attorney general was made. The issue became whether the plaintiff's service of process was insufficient based on the fact that he did not request service on the secretary of DOTD. Citing to Louisiana Revised Statute 13:5107(A) which provides in part:

"In all suits filed against the state of Louisiana or a state agency, citation and service may be obtained by citation and service on the attorney general of Louisiana, or on any employee in his office above the age of sixteen years, or any other proper officer or person, depending upon the identity of the named defendant and in accordance with the laws of this state, and on the department, board, commission, or agency head or person..."

The plaintiff has 90 days from filing the complaint, to properly serve the named defendant(s). Here, the defendant argues that the plaintiff failed to request proper service within 90 days of the filing of his suit pursuant to La. R.S. 13:5107(A), entitling DOTD to the dismissal of the plaintiffs claims. the issue is whether or not litigation involving two state agencies requires double service, i.e., service on the agency head and the attorney general. The appellate court relied on jurisprudential interpretation to dismiss the plaintiffs claim, stating that the interpretation of LSA-R.S. 13:5107 mandates service of citation on the state agency must be made upon the attorney general and on the agency head for the department against whom the action is filed. However, upon the Louisiana Supreme Court's grant of supervisory writ, the court specifically explored whether an actual "double service" was indeed required. The Court held that a double request for service is not necessary. Clearly, the plaintiff's request for service on the attorney general alone satisifed the service requirements of LSA-R.S. 13:5107(A). This is supported by LSA-R.S. 39:1538 which neither imposes a time constraint on the service required by the plaintiff nor provides for dismissal for the failure to effectuate service. In fact, the plaintiff's failure to request service on the department head and the office of risk management within 90 days of commencement of his action did not entitle DOTD to the dismissal of his claims against it. Since there are no time periods set forth nor a requirement for dismissal, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the incomplete service can be cured by the plaintiff simply requesting and obtaining service of process on DOTD's secretary and the office of risk management, and the appellate court had erred in failing to allow him the opportuity to so do.

In summary, proper service is monumentally important in allowing a case to go forward against a specific defendant. If proper service is not effectuated the complaint may not be heard. However, if the plaintiff has properly served named defendants according to the revised Statutes, than his complaint may not be dismissed for a mere technicality that requires him to further serve specific parties within a state agency. As a result, a plaintiff who properly does perform service on the "main" defendants as named in the revised statutes will be permitted to remedy the incomplete service by permitting extra time to obtain service on the additional enumerated parties.

When making a legal claim against a person or entity, time is of the essence. Prescription bars certain legal actions after a specified time period. If the specified time period has lapsed, the action is thereafter prohibited. The Fifth Circuit recently explored the issue of prescription, demonstrating how prescription operates to effectively bar actions if they are not timely brought.

The facts of the case are disturbing; the plaintiffs alleged that they were sexually abused by a Roman Catholic priest who was ordained by the Catholic Church. The complaint alleges very serious accusations of abuse. However, abuse turned out not to be the dispositive issue, rather, prescription was the focal point for the Fifth Circuit. Specifically, the Fifth Circuit had to determine whether the suit, based on molestation allegations that occurred over twenty-five years ago, was timely under Louisiana law. It was uncontested that the plaintiff's claims had indeed expired and that they were as a result, barred, unless prescription was tolled under the Louisiana law doctrine of "contra non valentem." This is an exception that was judicially created to statutory prescription, it applies only in exceptional circumstances. In particular, the Louisiana Supreme Court in Eastin v. Entergy Corp., held that the "prescriptive period commences on the date the injured party discovers or should have discovered the facts upon which his cause of action is based" if contra non valentem applies. The plaintiffs alleged that exceptional circumstances were present, as a result of their memories of the abuse they suffered being repressed, preventing them from knowing about their cause of action. However, depositions that the plaintiff gave showed otherwise. Rather, the plaintiffs unequivocally stated that they actively remembered the abuse after it occurred. Thus, their memories were not repressed and the concept of contra non valentem would not apply. Prescription would instead, govern the issue.

The plaintiffs thereafter contended that they should have the opportunity to obtain additional evidence on the subject of their repressed memories and would obtain an affidavit from a professor of psychology that would support their contentions. This affidavit would be used to rebut the defendant's Rule 56 summary judgment motion, such motions are generally favored and should be liberally granted, but the plaintiffs must demonstrate two things. First, they must demonstrate why they need additional discovery and second, how the additonal discovery will likely create a genuine issue of material fact. Thus, even if the plaintiffs were granted additional time to obtain the affidavit in their support, it would not suffice to defeat a summary judgment motion. The plaintiffs already admitted in their depositions that they could remember the abuse right after each encounter, thus, the affidavit would not help defeat summary judgment since they already have demonstrated a lack of exceptional circumstances to qualify for prescriptive tolling.

In summary, time is exceedingly important in being able to bring a legal action against another person or entity. If the specified time period has lapsed, the action will be barred. However, under the legal concept of contra non valvalentem, an exception may be made and the time period may be extended if exceptional circumstances exist. However, the plaintiffs defeated the exception when they admitted that they never repressed the memories of the abuse, thus, the exception would not apply to them. As a result, even as horrific as the abuse may have been, their lawsuit was dismissed.

Continue reading "Time is of the Essence When Understanding Prescription and Timing of a Case" »

Numerous prior posts on this blog have examined Louisiana's system for helping plaintiffs who have been the victim of medical malpractice. Although the state's medical review panel is in place to screen potential claims before they get to court, a plaintiff must still rely on competent legal counsel to see the case to resolution. So important is the lawyer's role that the courts have consistently held that when a litigant loses his day in court solely due to his attorney's negligence, strictly enforcing a technical rule should not result in the miscarriage of justice. This principle was recently relied upon by the Second Circuit Court of Appeal in the case of Sims v. Hawkins-Sheppard to avoid an unjust outcome for the plaintiff.

Rebecca Sims was admitted to the maternity ward of the Glenwood Regional Medical Center in Ouachita Parish on April 2, 2007 for the delivery of her baby. She requested a delivery by Caesarean section due to complications she experienced with her first child. Sims's doctor, Tonya Hawkins-Sheppard, nevertheless decided to perform a surgical vaginal delivery
with the use of forceps. Sims's baby suffered permanent eye injuries from the use of the forceps, and Sims herself suffered injuries that required a hysterectomy. Sims submitted her claim to the state's medical review panel. She alleged that she was heavily medicated and in great pain, and therefore did not give consent for the delivery as performed by Dr. Hawkins-Sheppard; further, Sims asserted that Dr. Hawkins-Sheppard breached the applicable standard of care in the delivery of her baby. After receiving the review panel's opinion that Dr. Hawkins-Sheppard did meet the standard of care, Sims filed a lawsuit. Dr. Hawkins-Sheppard filed a motion for summary judgment when Sims's counsel responded to discovery requests with a statement that Sims did not have a medical expert who could offer an opinion. Sims's counsel then filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion for summary judgment which contained an unsigned physician’s affidavit. Sims's lawyer assured both Sims and the court that the unsigned affidavit would be replaced with a valid affidavit before the scheduled hearing on the motion. But Sims's lawyer failed to obtain the signed affidavit because he did not present it to the physician, Dr. Kimberly Hess, before she left for vacation out of state. Sims learned of this only the day before the hearing, at which time she fired her attorney. At the hearing, Sims explained the situation to the court but the judge refused to grant a continuance so she could obtain new counsel. Instead, the court granted the motion for summary judgment. Sims found new counsel about a month later, who immediately filed an appeal of the court's granting of summary judgment for Dr. Hawkins-Sheppard.

The Second Circuit noted that under La. C.C.P. art. 966(B), affidavits to oppose a motion for summary judgment must be filed eight days prior to the hearing on the motion, which Sims's original counsel clearly failed to do. However, "the trial judge retains great discretion regarding the time of filing. The court shall give the adverse party additional time to file a response, including opposing affidavits, if good cause is shown." Furthermore, it is entirely within the trial judge's discretion to "continue the hearing to enable compliance with the eight day filing requirement." Citing the principle for ensuring the proper carriage of justice, the court noted that Sims was not aware of her attorney’s failure to obtain a valid affidavit and that, even though the doctor would have been able to correct the problem simply by signing the affidavit, the trial court "rendered judgment..., closing its doors to a trial on the merits of [Sims's] case." Yet, it is the court's duty "to permit litigants all reasonable opportunity to place before a court all facts bearing on the issues involved." The court concluded:

"When weighing the options of giving a litigant, who was misled by her attorney, more time to obtain the necessary documents that are, based on the record, easily attainable versus shutting the doors to litigation, we find that the trial court abused [its] discretion... The trial court should have allowed [Sims] a reasonable amount of time to obtain new counsel and secure the signature of Dr. Hess rather than cutting off [Sims] at the summary judgment phase, which was a clear and direct result of her being misled and deceived by her former counsel."

Thus, the court reversed the trial judge’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

One cannot help but sympathize with a plaintiff whose physician inflicts serious injuries to her and her baby and who then encounters an astonishingly ineffective lawyer. Although Sims presumably will have her day in court following the Second Circuit's decision, other plaintiffs may not be so fortunate if they put their trust in an attorney who is not experienced in medical malpractice litigation.

Continue reading "Ouachita Parish Medical Malpractice Case Reveals Second Circuit's Interest in Allowing Plaintiffs Their Day in Court" »

The ABA (American Bar Association) has called upon lawyers and non-lawyers alike to submit blogs from across the internet as exceptional examples of legal advice and content. With content about the law ranging widely across the internet, the ABA recognizes the value of those blogs that wish to educate the public about a wide range of issues as examples of how attorneys can help bring an understanding of public policy to the masses.

Through a form, located here, ABA members and/or the public can nominate the efforts of attorneys whose work helps explain the complexities that the law has to offer. While the competition prevents bloggers from nominating themselves, the ABA has requested that the work of their peers be showcased. Due by September 9th, blog suggestions can cover any topic of the law, whether maritime, personal injury, civil or criminal in nature. This possibility of diversity makes the Top 100 list all the more interesting because of the wide variety of content the selected are sure to cover.

If you know of a blog that wishes to discuss legal issues of interest to lawyers (and perhaps those outside of the field), click here to fill out the ABA's form. Limited to 500 words, nominations should explain why the blog, obviously, deserves to be included in the list as well as its value as a whole. Nominated sites should avoid the regurgitation of content from other sites (copy and pasted quotes of news items, etc.), showing that the main focus of the content is original discussion of those issues of law that affect professionals as well as the public.

We will undoubtedly be checking out this list as it is sure to contain content that is of interest not only to residents of Louisiana but across the country. For a directory of 'blawgs,' as categorized by the American Bar Association, you can click here to tour the spectrum of content available by state or topic.

This blog was started as an effort to not only showcase the knowledge of our law firm but to also provide people, whether residents of New Orleans, Louisiana, the Gulf Coast, or throughout the country, a resource that explains how the law is important to their everyday lives. Blogging is a powerful tool not only in the legal profession but as a medium of empowering people who may not realize that an instance of tragedy or harm comes with it legal recourse. We hope that the content we have provided over time has helped people find an answer to legal issues or simply gain a little bit of knowledge about how this country's system of law works. This is said not to shill for a nomination to the aforementioned contest but, instead, to note that this ABA-sponsored contest highlights something we feel strongly about, that being the power of legal blogs.

We hope you continue to enjoy your weekend and will have new content available Monday.

Recently, Louisiana’s 2nd Circuit heard a civil suit in which the court examined the possible affirmative defenses for defendants of intentional tort cases when the actions of that defendant resulted from an aggressive plaintiff. In the case of Griffith v. Young, Mr. Young appealed the 26th district decision to grant Mr. Griffith a motion for partial summary judgment for his battery case against Mr. Young. After arriving at the plaintiff’s home, the defendant kicked down the plaintiff’s door and physically attacked him using a stun gun, which resulted in multiple injuries to the plaintiff. While these actions alone are shocking, the details are even more strange.

The defendant claimed that the attack stemmed from the plaintiff boasting about past sexual relations with the defendant’s wife and openly distributing provocative photos of her to others. The defendant claimed that the partial summary judgment was ruled in error because his behavior was the result of the plaintiff’s conduct. Further, he claimed that learning of the extramarital affair and the distribution of the pictures was enough provocation by the plaintiff to question the proportion of liability between the two parties, making summary judgment inappropriate. This appeal brings up questions about how liable an individual who is provoked to engage in a physical altercation is relative to the other participant, and how the law handles these “overly aggressive plaintiff” theories by defendants in intentional tort claims. We look at how the 2nd circuit views Louisiana’s current precedent on the issue.

One avenue found within the Louisiana courts, as discussed in Young, is the use of “provocation” as an affirmative defense. Louisiana jurisprudence follows a comparative fault principle for civil claims. Under such a principle, as enacted in La. C. C. art. 2323, the amount of damages recoverable by a plaintiff for any action resulting in injury or loss shall be made in proportion to the degree of fault attributable to that plaintiff. In an effort to promote such a doctrine, Louisiana no long utilizes the "aggressor doctrine." Under such a doctrine, a plaintiff would be unable to file a claim if it was determined that the plaintiff’s immediate actions sufficiently provoked the defendants attacked. The Louisiana Supreme Court in Landry v. Bellanger eliminated the use of the traditional "aggressor doctrine" and now allows defendants to assert a defense of provocation, utilizing comparative fault principles to proportion liability, when the plaintiff's actions toward the defendant or a third party immediately provoked the actions of the defendant. The more the plaintiff immediately provokes the defendant, the less liable the defendant would be for any attack that may follow. La. C. C. art. 2323(c) does create an exception to the provocation rule, where a defendant’s intentional tort that arose from a negligent plaintiff does not use the comparative proportionately reduction.

In addition, Louisiana still continues to allow defendants to claim “self-defense,” which operates as a privilege to committing the accused intentional tort. To prove self-defense, a defendant must show that there was a reasonably apparent threat to the defendant’s safety and the force employed cannot be excessive in degree or kind (See Landry v. Bellanger). In addition to proving all the elements of self-defense, the Louisiana’s 2nd circuit in Young also highlighted the requirement that the reasonably apparent threat of physical harm to the defendant must be immediate and does not apply if deadly force is involved.

Unfortunately for Mr. Young, the 2nd circuit determined that the evidence of infidelity by his wife and the plaintiff's attempt to spread pictures of her occurred over 20 months prior to the attack, and the failure to provide adequate evidence as to when Mr. Young learned of the plaintiff's conduct did not create the necessary immediate provocation needed to raise a legitimate issue of material fact, affirming the district court’s decision. Though such a defense did not work in the favor of Mr. Young, those involved in an intentional tort claim should be aware of their right to proportion liability when they feel they were adequately provoked by another or the right to claim self-defense when such an attack was done to prevent a reasonably apparent threat.

While the events in this case are extreme, the legal rhetoric and overall sentiments relating to an appeal and causation for a successful legal claim remain viable. The fact remains that the courts hold specific concepts all the more true, regardless of how distasteful they find the circumstances. By speaking to an attorney about your rights, anyone damaged in a manner similar can hopefully determine their legal options.

Continue reading "Battery Appeal from Wester Parish Examines Precedent for Intentional Torts" »

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), disabled employees are protected from discriminatory treatment by their employers. The Act protects disabled employees from discrimination with regard to hiring, promotions, termination, compensation, training, and various other conditions of employment. Unfortunately, the Act's protection is limited - only "qualified employees" are protected from those employers covered under the Act.

For an employee to be successful against their employer for a violation of the ADA, the employee must establish the following elements. First, the employee must have a disability. Second, the employee must establish that they are a "qualified individual" able to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation. Lastly, the employee must establish that the employer discriminated against him or her because of the disability. Each of these requirements sound simple enough to meet; however, the U.S. courts have defined and interpreted each of the requirements even further.

"Disability" is a specific term of art. Not every "disability" or impairment, in the ordinary sense of the term, will qualify under the ADA. A "disability" is defined as A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; B) a record of such impairment; or C) being regarded as having such an impairment. Importantly, it is the first type of disability, i.e. one that substantially limits a major life activity, that has been extensively litigated upon.

The complexity of determining whether a disability substantially limits a major life activity is illustrated in a recent Fifth Circuit decision, Picard v. St. Tammany Parish Hospital. Picard, an employee of St. Tammany Parish Hospital, brought a claim against the hospital claiming they failed to make reasonable accommodations for her Charot-Marie Tooth disease ("CMT"). The plaintiff's case alleged CMT disease hindered Picard's ability to work as a transcriptionist, and as such, Picard requested a special computer program to help her transcribe work. The hospital declined to provide the program requested, but did offer other alternatives. Soon after, Picard quit her position with the hospital and filed suit, claiming a violation under the ADA.

Picard established that she had a disability - CMT disease; however, she failed to establish that the disease substantially limited a major life activity. Major life activities include performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, learning, working, and various other activities. Picard testified at trial that she had difficulty working, walking, and shopping. However, she failed to establish that her CMT disability substantially limited her major life activities. To determine whether a limitation is substantial, courts will consider 1) the nature and severity, 2) the duration, and 3) the short or long-term impact of the disability on the employee. The jury heard evidence that Picard could ameliorate the impact of her disability by concentrating, that she could still perform various functions of her job, and that she continued to excel in her position at the hospital. Based on this evidence, the jury concluded that Picard's disability did not substantially limit her work or other life activities.

The Picard case emphasizes the complexity and interpretation required of various vague terms within the ADA. Each claim brought under the American with Disabilities Act is determined on the facts alone. Violations of the American with Disabilities Act are viable claims; however, in order to navigate through the many complex layers successfully, it is advisable to obtain legal help.

Continue reading "The Difficulties Abound in a Discrimination Case Regarding the Disabled" »

Louisiana jurisprudence recognizes the concept of the interlocutory appeal, which is an appeal of a ruling by the trial court before the verdict is ultimately rendered. An interlocutory appeal is available only for issues that would directly affect the trial's outcome or that would not be reviewable except by immediate appeal. Thus, not all interlocutory judgments made by a trial court are eligible for appeal. For instance, a trial court's judgment granting a party's motion for new trial is an interlocutory judgment that is ineligible for appeal because it does not decide the merits of the case. This very rule was at the center of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal's recent unpublished opinion in the case of Dauzat v. State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development.

On March 10, 2008, Christine Dauzat boiled several batches of crawfish in a large, heavy pot on the patio of her home located in Avoyelles Parish. When she was finished cooking, Dauzat and her adult son carried the pot of still-boiling-hot water to the roadside ditch that ran the length of her property. While attempting to dump out the pot, Dauzat slipped on a ramp that crossed over the ditch. The hot water from the pot poured over her as she fell into the ditch, burning her severely. Dauzat sued the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) alleging that the ramp and ditch were located within the DOTD's right-of-way and that the DOTD failed to properly maintain the ramp. At trial, a jury returned a verdict finding Dauzat to be 100 percent at fault for the accident. Dauzat filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial judge granted after a hearing. Then the DOTD filed a suspensive appeal in the Third Circuit Court of Appeal that sought to delay the commencement of the new trial. Dauzat countered that the DOTD's appeal was improper "because a judgment granting a motion for new trial is an interlocutory judgment." The Third Circuit agreed: "The judgment granting [Dauzat's] motion for new trial does not decide the merits of this case and, thus, is interlocutory." Louisiana jurisprudence has expressly held that "a judgment granting a motion for a new trial is a non-appealable interlocutory judgment.” Thus, the court found that the trial court’s ruling was a "non-appealable, interlocutory ruling," and Dauzat was able to proceed with her new trial.

At the center of this judgment was the fact that the trial court's granting of a new trial did not directly resolve the ultimate issues in the case - whether the DOTD had a duty to maintain the ramp and ditch in front of Dauzat's property, and whether it failed to do so. The trial court's judgment simply permitted the matter to be brought before a second jury for resolution, and that ruling was therefore not appealable. The policy of limiting appeals is based on the preference of handling matters at the trial court level whenever possible, as the trial court offers the most direct means by which to resolve factual disputes.

Continue reading "Avoyelles Parish Cooking Accident Leads to Court's Review of Interlocutory Appeals " »

Under Louisiana jurisprudence, daycare workers and other temporary custodians of children are required to exercise the "highest degree of care" toward their charges. However, they are not "insurers of the children's safety" with unlimited responsibility. Rather, the law requires custodians to follow a standard of care that is appropriate for the age of the children and the particular circumstances. This duty does not require "individual supervision of each child at all times and places," when such level of attention is not warranted. If a child happens to sustain an injury while under the care of a daycare provider, courts apply the traditional "duty/risk" analysis to determine whether the provider met the applicable standard of care.

The recent case of Wade v. Miniworld Daycare turned on the court's analysis of whether the defendant daycare facility "failed to conform to the appropriate standard" of care. The action arose after Ta'Marrion Wade, who was two years, nine months at the time, fell and broke a tooth while running around the Monroe Miniworld Daycare Center's designated outdoor play area. The boy's mother, Kassandra Wade, filed suit against the daycare alleging negligent supervision. The trial court entered a verdict for Wade and awarded her damages; Miniworld
appealed. The Second Circuit Court of Appeal noted that the daycare unquestionably met the state's required standards for the ratio of caretakers to children at the facility. It also examined the record for evidence of the circumstances surrounding the incident: Ta'Marrion was engaged in a running game with his peers in the play area. The children were not "running crazy," and they did not "fight," "hit," "push," or engage in any other prohibited behavior that would have caused a worker to intervene. In fact, a teacher observed Ta'Marrion fall "face down" at one point, but he immediately "got up and started running ... some more." It wasn't until Ta'Marrion and the other children lined up to go indoors that the teacher noticed the child's missing tooth. Ta'Marrion appeared to be in no pain, so the teacher cleaned out his mouth, called Ms. Wade, and filled out an incident report. The court reasoned that "under [these] circumstances, defendant daycare was furnishing and maintaining adequate supervision." Further, while "daycare professionals have a duty to attempt to prevent ... injuries, sometimes it is impossible, as in the situation" described by Ta'Marrion's teacher. "Just because a child is injured while in the custody of a daycare does not mean that the daycare was acting negligently." Accordingly, the court concluded that the trial court "committed manifest error by finding the daycare liable," and reversed the judgment.

This result reflects the practicality inherent in the duty/risk analysis. Although it is reasonable for parents to demand a safe environment for their children while at daycare, Louisiana jurisprudence recognizes that it is impossible for caretakers to prevent every possible injury. If your child has been injured while at daycare, an experienced attorney can help you review the specific circumstances of the incident to determine how the duty-risk analysis would apply and counsel you on the likely outcome of a lawsuit.

Continue reading "Court Confirms: Daycare Center's Liability has Limits" »

Roxane Montgomery was hired in October of 2001 as an assistant manager for a video store owned by C & C Self Enterprises, Inc. in Lake Charles. She was 41 years old. Five months later, on April 8, 2002, she was terminated.

Ms. Montgomery sued C & C Self Enterprises claiming that she was terminated because of her age. The Louisiana Age Discrimination Employment Act makes it unlawful for an employer to "fail or refuse to hire, or to discharge, any individual with respect to his compensation, or his terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of the individual's age." Included in her claim that her employer violated LADEA, Ms. Montgomery alleged that she suffered "severe emotional distress resulting in physical complications due to her wrongful termination." C & C Self Enterprises answered by denying that Ms Montgomery was fired because of her age, but was instead fired because of her "inadequate job performance." They followed up their answer to the complaint by filing a motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment and awarded the plaintiff $50,000.

Roxane Montgomery v. C & C Self Enterprises, Inc., was appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals from the Fourteenth Judicial District Court of the Parish of Calcasieu. The purpose of this article is to identify and discuss the necessary elements of a successful age discrimination claim and to identify why the trial court erred when it denied C & C Self Enterprises' motion for summary judgement. The Third Circuit court looked at Federal case law to assist in making their decision because LADEA is "nearly identical" to the Federal statute prohibiting age discrimination: the court looked at the U.S. Supreme Court decision McDonnell Douglas v. Green 411 U.S. 792 (1973) because this decision "set forth the basic allocation of burdens and order of presentation of proof in an unemployment discrimination case."

ELEMENTS OF AN AGE DISCRIMINATION CLAIM

In this case and any case involving an age discrimination claim, the plaintiff has an initial burden to establish a prima facie case ("a case in which the evidence presented is sufficient for a judgment to be made unless the evidence is contested") of discrimination. To establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff "must show that: (1) she is in the protected age group between the ages of 40 and 70 years (2) her employment with the defendant was involuntarily terminated, and (3) she was qualified to perform the job she was employed to perform." By fulfilling these three requirements a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, which results in the creation of "a presumption that the defendant unlawfully discriminated against the plaintiff."

In addition to the creation of this presumption, the defendant then is subjected to a burden of production: the defendant must produce evidence of a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its actions. If the defendant succeeds in doing so, the presumption of discrimination ceases to exist. Also, if the defendant provides these reasons, the burden shifts again to the plaintiff. Now the plaintiff has to prove "by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's proffered reasons were merely 'pretext', or in other words, not the true reason for the alleged discrimination."

It is not enough for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant's reasons were pretext. The plaintiff must prove that "age must actually have played a role in the employers decision making process and had a determinative influence in the outcome." In other words age must have "motivated the employers decision."

To summarize, when residents like Ms Montgomery of Calcasieu Parish make a claim based on age discrimination, she first has to establish a prima facie case. If she does so, a presumption is created that the defendant has impermissibly discriminated against her. Next, the defendant must now give reasons for its conduct: reasons that are legitimate and non-discriminatory. Then the plaintiff has the opportunity to prove that the defendant's reasons are not the true reasons for the alleged discrimination. The plaintiff must prove that these reasons are pre-textual, and she must prove that her termination was caused by age discrimination.

This is the process for making an age discrimination claim. There were some issues in this process during the trial court phase of the present case. The Third Circuit identified some of the issues with the plaintiff's claim and concluded that the trial court erred in not granting summary judgement to the defendant.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS APPROPRIATE AT TRAIL COURT LEVEL

Before summary judgment can be granted two requirements must be met 1) there must be no genuine issue of material fact 2) the moving party must be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The trial court did not grant C & C Self Enterprises' motion for summary judgment. The Third Circuit reversed the trial court's decision. The Third Circuit opinion revealed that the trial court should have granted summary judgment.

Seemingly (the rhetoric of the opinion is not quite clear) the trial court's decision was based on the fact that the judge did not believe the reasons provided by C& C for the termination of Ms. Montgomery. The judge explained: " So as I understand it, if I find a prima facie case of unemployment; if I find that the employer was not truthful in the reason for termination, which I do in this case. I don't think they gave me a good reason or a truthful reason for terminating Ms. Montgomery..So I find for the Plaintiff, that she was terminated because of violation of the termination -- the law under 23:311 et seq."(LADEA). The Third Circuit concluded that the trial court erred in ruling for the "plaintiff based upon a finding of 'pretext' without evidence of an intentional act as required by law...It is not enough that the trial court simply disbelieves the employer's 'proffered reasons', the plaintiff must establish by preponderance of the evidence that age was the 'but for' reason the employer terminated the plaintiff, as opposed to merely a motivating factor."

The Third Circuit went further and claimed that "We find that the record does not permit a reasonable fact finder to conclude that the plaintiff proved the defendant terminated her employment because of her age." The trial court overweighed the importance of disbelieving the defendant's reasons for terminating Ms. Montgomery. "Because an employer's proffered reason is unpersuasive or even obviously contrived, does not necessarily establish that the plaintiff's assertion of age discrimination is correct." Also, the trial court "must believe that the plaintiff has proven its explanation of intentional discrimination." None of the reasons that Ms Montgomery gave for being fired were sufficient to "prove that the defendant acted with discriminatory animus in terminating her employment."

Perhaps even more importantly, the Third Circuit noticed that Ms Montgomery was hired and fired by the same person, who was also over 40 years old. They cited Proud v Stone (945 F.2d 796) for the following point: "in cases where the hirer and firer are the same individual and the termination of employment occurs within a relatively short time span following the hiring, a strong inference exists that discrimination was not a determining factor for the adverse action taken by the employer...There is nothing in the record to rebut this inference." The ultimate conclusion reached: "There was no sufficient showing that the plaintiff's age actually played a role or had a determinative influence in the defendant's decision to terminate the plaintiff's employment."

Summary judgment could have been granted in this case because the plaintiff failed to satisfy the elements required by LADEA in establishing a successful age discrimination claim. Ms. Montgomery did not establish that the defendant's proffered reasons for her termination were pre-textual. Nor did she establish that there was a causal relationship between the defendant's reasons and her termination: a relationship that is required by the statute. Because Ms. Montgomery did not meet any of the legal elements required for an age discrimination claim, C & C Self Enterprises is entitled to judgement as a matter of law; and thus, summary judgment would have been appropriate.

As we have explored in numerous prior posts, a doctor or other healthcare provider owes his or her patient a duty to meet the standard of care applicable to the patient's situation. The failure to follow the standard of care points to the doctor's negligence which, in the case of the death of the patient, can give rise to a claim of "lost chance of survival" for the spouse or children of the deceased. In a lost chance of survival action, the plaintiff "does not have to shoulder the unreasonable burden of proving that the patient would have lived had proper treatment been
given." Rather, the plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the doctor's negligent conduct "denied the patient a chance of survival." In other words, a lost chance of survival claim will not be successful if the patient would have died anyway due to causes unrelated to the doctor's actions; the plaintiff must tie the doctor's negligence to the death of the decedent. Whether a plaintiff carries this burden is a question of fact reserved for the jury.

Third Circuit Court of Appeal recently reviewed a jury verdict on this question in the case of Skinner v. Christus St. Francis Cabrini Hospital. Robert Skinner was admitted to Christus Hospital in Alexandria on August 17, 2000 for an elective hemorrhoidectomy and partial sphincterotomy. He died the following morning after spending the night in the hospital. His wife, Pamela Skinner, filed suit against the hospital and Stephen Ford, the nurse who had charge of Mr. Skinner from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM during the night of his stay. At the trial, various witnesses from the hospital explained that the surgery had gone well. The only reason Mr. Skinner stayed overnight was because of his high level of anxiety over the procedure. Mr. Skinner had a history of mental and physical problems, and was taking numerous prescription medications to address his depression, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and heart burn. Several members of the hospital staff reviewed Mr. Skinner's medication list on separate occasions, and each time he neglected to mention that he had taken a particular antidepressant prior to coming to the hospital. In fact, the toxicology screening that was conducted as part of an autopsy revealed dangerously high levels of the drug in his system--a concentration which the medical experts in the case agreed was "known to kill." Nevertheless, the jury found that the evidence supported the conclusion that the hospital and Nurse Ford failed to properly monitor Mr. Skinner after the surgery, Therefore, the defendants "deviated from the appropriate standard of care in the medical treatment of Mr. Skinner," causing a lost chance of survival. The jury awarded Mrs. Skinner $250,000 in general damages. The defendants appealed, arguing that the jury erred in finding the plaintiff had carried her burden.

The Third Circuit reviewed the record at length and found that Nurse Ford and other hospital staff had properly checked Mr. Skinner's vital signs per the hospital's established schedule throughout the night. It also noted that Mr. Skinner was given several doses of pain medicine to provide him comfort after the surgery. These drugs were administered with the hospital staff's knowledge of the other medications Mr. Skinner had identified that he had taken. It was undisputed that no one at the hospital knew or could have known about the anti-depressant Mr. Skinner had taken but not revealed during several pre-op interviews. The autopsy further revealed that Mr. Skinner's death was caused by heart failure, which the defendants' experts linked to the exceedingly high level of the anti-depressant in his blood. One of the defendants' experts explained that death would have been sudden and without warning, such that an examination only 15 minutes prior to death would likely have revealed nothing unusual even to a careful and experienced practitioner. Another expert opined that "Mr. Skinner would have looked absolutely fine five minutes before he died." In light of this evidence, and Mrs. Skinner's "fail[ure] to produce a scintilla of evidence" that pointed to the hospital's negligence, the court concluded, "we are convinced that the jury manifestly erred in its determination that Christus Hospital/Nurse Ford’s negligence caused Mr. Skinner a lost chance of survival." Accordingly, the court vacated the trial court's judgment that awarded Mrs. Skinner $250,000 in general damages for the lost chance of survival.

The Skinner case, while tragic, offers a reminder to plaintiffs that their burden in a lost chance of survival action is not a light one. The theory of recovery can only be employed where a healthcare provider's negligence played a direct role in denying the decedent the treatment that could have saved his life. As the Skinner case demonstrates, healthcare providers are not held to a standard that requires them to respond to complications about which they could not have known or reasonably discovered.

Continue reading "Court Vacates Jury's Award in Rapides Parish Lost Chance of Survival Case" »

For those wishing to be kept abreast of the latest products to receive governmental warnings regarding the safety surrounding their use, feel free to check out SaferProducts.gov. With a list of incident reports from other consumers, this effort by the government hopefully will help enable people to make conscious decisions regarding the products they put in their homes.

The plaintiff in this case, Suzanne Hammond, was the mother of Latousha Tillman and the grandmother of her stillborn child, Ladaizya Tillman. On March 31, 2004, Ms. Tillman arrived at the St. Francis Hospital emergency room complaining of pain, nausea, and vomiting. She was 25 years old and 23 weeks pregnant. Dr. Joiner treated her and found her heart rate, liver enzymes, and glucose to be elevated, with decreased kidney function. Ms. Tillman was then transferred to another hospital, where problems with her unborn child were discovered. The fetus was found to have no heartbeat and labor was induced 3 days later, on April 4, 2004.

After the birth, Ms. Tillman’s condition dramatically declined and she was placed on life support. She then went into a persistent vegetative state and was pronounced dead on January 24, 2005, after the medical staff was unable to resuscitate her. Ms. Hammond sued St. Francis and Dr. Joiner for a survival action and a wrongful death action with regard to her daughter, and a wrongful death lawsuit as to her stillborn granddaughter.

A survival action compensates the survivors for the damages suffered by a victim from the time of injury to the moment of his or her death. The cause of action is “inherited” – it belongs to the victim and is passed on at death. If there is even a tiny amount of evidence showing any pain of suffering by a victim before her death, damages are warranted.

A wrongful death action, on the other hand, compensates the beneficiaries, usually family members, for their own injuries which they suffer from the moment of the victim’s death on. The wrongful death action belongs to the survivors (in this case, Ms. Hammond), not the victim.

On January 20, 2006, Ms. Hammond filed a request for a medical review panel, alleging that St. Francis Hospital and Dr. Joiner had committed negligence. This was more than a year from the death of the stillborn child and more than a year after Dr. Joiner last treated Ms. Tillman. Under LSA-R.S. 9:5628, a plaintiff may bring a medical malpractice action within one year from the date of the alleged act or one year from the date of discovery, with a three-year total limit.

With respect to the survival claim as to Ms. Tillman, the trial court found that the claim had prescribed, that is, Ms. Hammond filed her claim too late. Article 3492 of LSA-C.C. clearly states that prescription runs against people who are absent or incompetent, including minors and interdicts (those who have been ruled incompetent to care for themselves). There is an exception for products liability cases, but that exception did not apply here.

Ms. Hammond tried to argue that the three-year limit applied, but did not show in the court-filed pleadings that there was some reason for her not to file within the one-year limit. Instead, she should have filed any survival action for Ms. Tillman within a year of the date of discovery of the malpractice, and any wrongful death action for the stillborn child within a year of the child’s death on April 1, 2004. It is the plaintiff’s burden to show that the time limits have not run, and in this case, Ms. Hammond did not state the date of discovery. Therefore, the survival claim with regard to Ms. Tillman and the wrongful death claim with regard to the stillborn child were dismissed.

The wrongful death action with regard to Ms. Tillman had not prescribed, however, because it arose on January 24, 2005, at Ms. Tillman’s death, and Ms. Hammond filed for a medical review panel on January 20, 2006. The case was affirmed and remanded for the wrongful death action with regard to Ms. Tillman to go forward.

Continue reading "Prescription Runs on Ouachita Parish Medical Malpractice and Wrongful Death Survival Action Claim" »

According to the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, a defendant can file an "exception of prematurity" to challenge whether the plaintiff's cause of action has "matured to
the point where it is ripe for judicial determination.” A classic (mis)application of the exception is found in the 1999 case, Steed v. St. Paul's United Methodist Church. In that case, the church's choir director sued the minister for sexual harassment. The minister filed a counter-claim for defamation, arguing that the choir director's false allegations damaged his reputation in the Monroe community. Before the appellate court, the choir director asserted that the minister's defamation claim was premature because the trial court had not yet entered a judgment declaring that her harassment allegations were false (truth being an absolute defense to defamation). However, because the choir director never filed an exception of prematurity in the trial court, she could not raise the issue on appeal. This is because, as a "dilatory" exception, it is waived if not specifically pled and a court cannot "supply an exception of prematurity on its own motion."

A similar failure to plead the exception plagued the plaintiff in the more recent case of Moreno v. Entergy Corp.. Daniel Moreno was badly shocked while working around overhead power lines in Jefferson Parish. Moreno sued Entergy Corporation, the owner of the power lines. Entergy filed a cross-claim against Moreno's employer, Stewart Interior Contractors, LLC. Entergy argued that, if it were found liable for Moreno's injuries, the Act would create a right of indemnity against Stewart because the contractor violated the Overhead Power Line Safety Act (the "Act") by working near the power lines without first contacting the owner of the lines (Entergy) and making the necessary safety arrangements. The trial court ruled against Entergy, finding that the Act "does not create an independent right of indemnity for damages incurred as a result of injuries suffered by third parties." When Entergy appealed this judgment, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed on the grounds of prematurity, though the exception had not been raised by any party. The Fifth Circuit declared that because no fault had yet been allocated to any party, no cause of action for indemnity had been created. The court entered an “exception of no cause of action on the basis of prematurity,” a judgment which had not been seen previously in Louisiana jurisprudence. Upon review, the Louisiana Supreme Court found that the Fifth Circuit erred as a matter of law in supplying the exception to prematurity on its own motion. "Although the court of appeal claimed it was entering an exception of no cause of action, the judgment was not truly based on the legal insufficiency of the allegations [for which it was permitted to raise an exception on its own accord]. It is clear that the court based its ruling solely on the theory that Entergy’s indemnity claim was not ripe for adjudication, which is properly raised only via dilatory exception." Accordingly, the court reversed the Fifth Circuit and remanded the case.

The complexity of dilatory exceptions like prematurity reinforces the importance of retaining a competent attorney in any legal action.

Continue reading "On Prematurity and a Plaintiff's Case for Damages" »

To win a case, a plaintiff must prove the elements of his or her legal claim, or cause of action. Each cause of action is comprised of certain required elements. For example, in a breach of contract claim, a plaintiff must prove the following elements: duty, breach, causation, and damages. In Louisiana, a resident can sue a municipality for failing to repair a defect in a public street or walkway. In a recent case, the Third Judicial District Court for the Parish of Union (“Court”) discussed the elements required to prevail in such a claim.

At issue in Carol Smithwick and Glenn Smithwick, Individually and as the Administrators of the Estate of the Minor Child, Carsen Smithwick v. City of Farmerville, Community Trust Bank, CTB Financial Corp. and First United Bank, was whether the plaintiffs proved that the City of Farmerville (“City”) had actual or constructive notice of a public way defect - an essential element of the cause of action. Plaintiff Carol Smithwick waited one afternoon for her son at a school bus stop, which encompassed an intersection between two city streets. Ms. Smithwick sustained injuries when she stepped onto the shoulder of one of the streets and tripped on a shallow depression. Seeking $6.2 million in damages, Ms. Smithwick claimed the injury to her right ankle from the fall caused a medical complication in her right knee.

In dismissing the suit, the trial court concluded that the plaintiffs could not prove that the City had constructive or actual notice of a defective condition even though the hole, which caused Ms. Smithwick's injuries, presented an unreasonable risk of harm. On appeal, the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. According to the Court, a municipality will be held liable for injuries from a defect in the condition of a public way if it had actual or constructive notice of the defect. A municipality has actual notice of a defect or condition if one of its agents or employees had a duty to keep the area in good repair or to report defective or dangerous conditions. Constructive notice is proven if a plaintiff can show a defective condition existed for a considerable amount of time and reasonable diligence by the municipality would have resulted in its discovery.

The plaintiffs argued that the City had actual notice of the depression because one of its maintenance personnel, who trimmed the area at issue, stated at a deposition that he knew of the shallow depression. However, the hole described by the employee was in an area different from the location of the depression in question. The plaintiffs also argued that the City had constructive notice of the defect because the City's personnel trimmed and/or mowed the area during the growing season twice a month. However, the Court disagreed and found the argument speculative since the area had not been trimmed since 2004 and there was no evidence establishing that the hole existed since that time.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to show the City had actual or constructive notice of the defective condition. Moreover, the Court reasoned that throughout the school year, the area was used as a school bus stop and no other parent or child noticed or was injured by the depression.

Smithwick v. City of Farmerville illustrates how important it is to seek competent legal counsel to discuss whether you have a viable claim, which includes whether there is evidence proving each element of a cause of action. Our lawyers can help save you time and money.

Continue reading "Municipality Must Have Notice of a Defect in a Public Walkway to be Liable for Injuries " »

Many families in America have had to move their loved ones into a nursing home. Whether the reason is that they don't have the room to care for the elder, they don't have the time or money to provide adequate care, or their elder wishes to be in the nursing home, the decision to send them to a nursing home is a difficult one. Families may be concerned about the level and amount of care their elders receive at the nursing home. Continuous stories of abuse at nursing homes may also be a cause of concern for families. Nursing homes are given a high level of trust in the care of their patrons. When this level of trust is broken, the results can be horrific and unacceptable. The law provides for levels of care that nursing homes and medical practitioners have to live by. Once these levels of care are ignored, the law steps in to provide relief for families.

In Braud v. Woodland Village, LLC, the issue was whether the trial court instructed the jury to view the case under the right legal standard. Mr. Braud was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and Pick's dementia. This combination of diseases left Mr. Braud with many issues including an eating disorder and a higher chance of heart attack. Mr. Braud was moved to Woodland Village nursing home (Woodland). After his arrival at Woodland, Mr. Braud began showing signs of aggression towards staff. He was prescribed anti-psychotic medication as part of his treatment. After some time, Mrs. Braud reported to her husband's physician that Mr. Braud seemed very zombie-like. The physician instructed the Woodland staff that they were to check on Mr. Braud every 15 minutes for signs of distress. This was carried on for some time. The method used to check on Mr. Braud was to look through the window into his room to observe whether he was under any distress. The Woodland staff were never instructed to enter the room to check close-up. On September 2, 2004, after a 45 minute period of no Woodland staff checking on Mr. Braud, he was found to be unresponsive. Woodland staff called paramedics who arrived to the scene to find that Mr. Braud was likely dead for at least an hour before their arrival from a heart attack. At no point did any member of the Woodland staff attempt CPR on Mr. Braud. Mr. Braud's family (collectively "plaintiff") filed suit against Woodland for wrongful death and were awarded an amount of $1,650,000. After trial, defendants argued that (1) there was no harm from alleged medication errors (2) there was no evidence that Mr. Braud could be resuscitated (3) the award of $1,650,000 was far above the $500,000 statutory amount (4) there was no evidence that Woodland caused the heart attack and (5) evidence presented proved, at most, that there was a loss of chance of life, not that there was wrongful death. Woodland lost on all of these claims except that the amount of damages was reduced to $500,000. Woodland appealed the decision stating that the trial court's refusal to include jury instructions for the "loss of a chance of survival" claim was a grounds to reverse the jury decision. The plaintiff appealed the decision to reduce the damages to $500,000.

In Louisiana, pursuant to LA.Rev. Stat. Section 9:2794(A), to find medical malpractice, the plaintiff must establish the standard of care applicable to the charged physician, a violation by the physician of that standard of care, and a causal connection between the physician's alleged negligence and the plaintiff's injuries resulting therefrom. The standard attributed to the physician is the standard used in Louisiana, based on the type of field, locale, and community in which the physician or medical practitioner practices. Further, in order for an appellate court to overturn a fact-finder's decision, a two-prong test is used to analyze the result. First, the appellate court must find from the record that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding in the trial court. Second, the court must further determine that the record established that the finding is manifestly erroneous.

The Appellate Court found that the record did not contain evidence sufficient enough to find a reasonable basis for it. Throughout the testimony, every expert refuted the idea that any action taken on the part of the Woodland caused Mr. Braud's heart attack. Even the expert for plaintiff determined that no medication administered, or medication withheld led to Mr. Braud's heart attack. Another expert stated that the heart attack was likely the result of the Pick's dementia. Pick's dementia leaves the victim with an eating disorder, which at Mr. Braud's age could lead to significant damage to the body. Further, there was no action taken by any Woodland employee that caused Mr. Braud to have the heart attack. At most, not following the physician's order of checking on Mr. Braud every 15 minutes, in addition to not performing CPR after calling the paramedics was negligence that allows for a claim of loss of a chance of survival. The issue was, as argued by Woodland, that the trial court did not instruct the jury as to the "loss of a chance of survival" claim. The burden of proof of both the wrongful death claim and the loss of a chance of survival claim are the same. The plaintiff must prove that there was a chance of survival and that this chance was lost due to defendant's negligence. Since the trial court did not instruct the jury as to this claim, this impacted the determination of the jury, which amounted to legal error. For these reasons, the appellate court sent the case back to the trial court at which time the jury should be instructed on the loss of a chance of survival claim.

It may be a harsh decision to reverse a win for a family that lost a loved one. It is clear that there is a chance that Woodland was liable to plaintiff. The Court's decision reminds us that there was more than one claim upon which plaintiff could have based its legal theory. The Court won a battle on behalf of the legal system by emphasizing that even if a defendant is liable, the defendant will not be liable for a claim for which it is not responsible. The correct legal standards should be applied to defendants to ensure the proper determination of justice. If you or a loved one have been injured due to the negligence of a physician or medical practitioner, it is essential that you seek immediate legal advice. As Braud v. Woodland Village, LLC. demonstrates, there are many legal theories upon which your rights are protected.

Continue reading "Court Dissects Nursing Home Wrongful Death Case" »

In June 2010, the First Circuit of the State of Louisiana Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the case of Lena Hebert et al. v. Plaquemine Caring, L.L.C. due to a legal error committed by the Eighteenth Judicial District Court for Iberville Parish. This legal error proved to be a compelling element to the case and demonstrates why a competent attorney is highly important, especially in the case of a loss of a family member or other personal injury element.

The plaintiffs in this case are the survivors of the deceased, Mr. Morgan Hebert. He suffered a fractured hip from falling, but had a heart attack before he was able to undergo surgery. Upon leaving the hospital, Mr. Hebert was discharged to a long-term skilled nursing facility owned by the defendants, Plaquemine Caring, L.L.C. At the time Mr. Hebert was admitted to the nursing facility, he had been diagnosed with several serious conditions, which required him to be dependent upon a ventilator. On October 19, 2001, his family members found him cold and nonresponsive. They notified the staff at once and Mr. Hebert was pronounced dead from respiratory failure, cerebrovascular accident, and cervical neuropathy.

Mr. Hebert’s surviving spouse and children alleged that the defendants’ fault and negligence caused Mr. Hebert’s loss of a chance of survival. After a bench trial, the judge granted the defendant’s oral motion for involuntary dismissal, finding that plaintiffs had not established that a breach of the standard of care was a cause of Mr. Hebert’s death. The First Circuit Court of Appeal reversed and remanded because the trial court used the incorrect legal standard in granting defendant’s motion.

In a lost chance of survival case, the plaintiff does not have to prove that the patient would have lived had proper treatment been given. Rather, the plaintiff has to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that 1) a chance of survival existed in the first place and 2) the defendant’s negligent conduct denied the patient a chance of survival that he or she had before the defendant’s conduct. The defendant’s conduct does not need to be the only cause of death, but the conduct must have increased the risk of harm. The plaintiff can recover even when it is more likely than not that the patient would have died due to a pre-existing condition. In addition, the plaintiff does not have to show that the defendant’s actions led to Mr. Hebert’s death to a “medical degree of certainty.”

At trial, a plaintiffs’ expert testified that Mr. Hebert’s vital signs indicated that he was in distress in the hours leading up to his death. There had been inconsistencies in Mr. Hebert’s chart that were corroborated by sworn testimony by the nursing staff as well as a lack of proper recordkeeping, which meant that no problematic patterns were recorded that might have alerted staff. Another doctor, who was not qualified as an expert witness, testified that Mr. Hebert was in frail health at the time of admission to the nursing facility and that patients with Mr. Hebert’s symptoms commonly experience “sudden death episodes.”

The First Circuit acknowledged that the evidence was not strong, but because an involuntary dismissal in a bench trial is like a directed verdict in a jury trial, the plaintiff must have offered no evidence to support its claims and the facts presented so strongly supported the defendant’s position that no reasonable person could have reached a contrary verdict. Because that was not the case here, the First Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Certain legal rights are transferable. If you owe a debt to some entity, upon your death, there is a chance that the entity will have some rights to your estate in order to satisfy your debt. Another example of a transferable right is a right of survival. If the victim in any circumstance has this right, upon the victim's death, the right would be transferable to the victim's family. The concept is relatively easy to understand but the situation gets complicated when the potential rights belong to an unborn fetus.

Throughout the country, different states have different interpretations of when a fetus becomes a person, and this has a big impact on what rights attach to protect the fetus. In Louisiana, the legislature has decided that an unborn fetus can in fact have rights against other persons or entities. However, Louisiana Civil Code article 26, which discusses a fetus' rights, has some important limitations:

An unborn child shall be considered as a natural person for whatever relates to its interests from the moment of conception. If the child is born dead, it shall be considered never to have existed as a person, except for actions resulting from its wrongful death.

Thus, the Louisiana legislature has codified what rights a fetus has. These rights extend to the moment of conception. However, if the fetus is born dead, all rights that attach to the fetus, except rights that find their origin in the cause of death, are extinguished.

The Louisiana Supreme Court discussed if survival rights attach to an unborn fetus, stating that fetuses can gain rights. However, for most circumstances, the rights attach only if the fetus is born alive. The Court stated that survival action attaches to someone's life. However, under Louisiana law a fetus that is born dead, is considered to never have existed at all. Even though the fetus gained the right to a survival action, because a stillborn fetus is considered to never have existed at all, the survival action, which attaches to a life, is extinguished.

In a recent case, Cari Long v. North Oaks Medical Center, the issue of survival action came up again. Ms. Long was involved in a car accident. She was pinned as a result of the accident. After emergency services arrived, she was taken to North Oaks Medical Center. The ER doctor and nurse contacted her obstetrician because she was pregnant. At the hospital, the heartrate of the baby was recorded at 120 beats per minute. After being taken out of ER, the doctor found that the fetus did not have a heart rate. Subsequently, the fetus was delivered as a stillborn. Ms. Long filed suit and as one of her causes of action, she claimed a survival action on behalf of the baby. All defendants filed exception claiming that there was no survival cause of action on behalf of the baby that was transferred to the parents. Based on Louisiana Civil Code article 26 and the Supreme Court ruling discussed above, there was no basis for the survival action. Under the current law there is no recourse in this type of circumstance. Only by legislative action can a survival action attach for a stillborn fetus.

While this matter is undoubtedly unfortunate and all parties involve wish that things did not go the way they did. However, the case also illustrates how complex the law can be and the ever-changing nature of some claims. Codified law can be extremely important and having an attorney that understands rights as provided by the state is significant in any matter.

Continue reading "Transferable Rights and How They Pertain to a Lost Pregnancy" »

The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, as we have previously explored, occurs when the defendant purposefully engages in extreme or outrageous conduct with the goal of seriously upsetting the plaintiff. A different case is the scenario involving the plaintiff's mental distress that results from the defendant's negligent conduct. Commonly, a plaintiff can successfully recover for a claim of negligent infliction of mental distress when the distress arises out of a physical injury that is related to the defendant's negligence. Without physical injury, however, a plaintiff is far less likely to recover. The case of Taylor v. Novartis Crop Protection, Inc. provides an example.

On the evening of July 18, 1999, Novartis Crop Protection Corporation's facility in St. Gabriel released industrial ammonia into the air for approximately 15 minutes. Following the release, several hundred individuals who were present in or owned property around the St. Gabriel area filed a suit for damages against Novartis. The complaint alleged that as a result of the chemical release, the plaintiffs suffered "burning eyes, itching, burning skin, breathing difficulties, dizziness, nausea, diarrhea, headaches, anxiety, and fear for their physical well being." The complaint also stated that the incident caused considerable fear, anguish, discomfort, and inconvenience to the people in the communities" surrounding the Novartis facility. Novartis filed a motion for dismissal for those plaintiffs who were located outside of the "zone of danger" agreed upon by experts from both sides and who therefore could not have been exposed to the ammonia. The affected plaintiffs responded that their claim was not for physical exposure but for "mental anguish, emotional distress, inconvenience, and fear and fright." The trial court entered a judgment dismissing all plaintiffs who were outside of the "zone of danger," and those plainitiffs appealed.

In its analysis, the First Circuit Court of Appeal reaffirmed that under Louisiana law "a defendant will not be held liable for [damages] where its conduct was merely negligent and caused only mental or emotional disturbance unaccompanied by physical injury." The narrow exception to this rule is where the plaintiff can demonstrate "special circumstances," which must be "more than minimal inconvenience worry." The court noted that the only special circumstances cited by the plaintiffs was a prior release of ammonia that occurred in 1999 and which required the evacuation of a school. But the court concluded that the prior incident did not rise to the level of "special circumstances" as required by Louisiana jurisprudence. (Examples of sufficient circumstances from case law include the negligent transmission of an erroneous message about a loved one's death; the mishandling of corpses; and damaging property while being observed by the plaintiff. See Moresi v. State for further discussion.) Further, the court noted that the plaintiffs failed to offer any evidence to show they had "suffered from genuine and serious mental distress." Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment dismissing the plaintiffs whose claims included only mental distress.

This case further reinforces the fact that courts generally look unfavorably upon claims for mental or emotional distress when there is no physical manifestation of the injury. This may be due to the fact that mental harm is difficult to measure, as well as the potential for false claims.

Continue reading "Court Turns Away Plaintiffs' Mental Distress Claims After Chemical Release in St. Gabriel" »

In August 2007, Dwight Phillips was dropping off his step-son, Joseph Shelvin, at school. The school’s principal, Louella Cook, noticed that Phillips’ vehicle was in the school’s bus-unloading area. After noticing Dwight’s vehicle, Phillips approached Dwight and informed him that he was unloading the child in the wrong area. She then directed him to the car drop-off area. According to Cook, Dwight then began screaming at Cook. During this screaming, Dwight told Cook that he would return and "get her." Cook contacted the police because she feared for her safety as well as for the safety of the staff and visitors of the school.

When the police arrived, the investigating officer interviewed both Cook and Dwight. According to the officer, Dwight admitted that he threatened Cook and Dwight was subsequently arrested for disturbing the peace by threats. Sometime prior to this incident, a bus driver reported that during a bus stop, a man, who was talking loudly, got on the bus and refused to get off. Cook and her staff questioned the students who were on the bus during the incident including Joseph Shelvin, Dwight Phillips’ step-son. After speaking with the students, Cook and her staff learned that the man was Dwight Phillips. After Phillips’ arrest, Shelvin, Phillips and his wife Joy filed suit against the Lafayette Parish School Board and Dr. Louella Cook. On appeal to the fifteenth judicial district court, the court only examined the claims against the Board and Cook for Dwight Phillips’ defamation and Shelvin’s emotional distress.

To successfully assert a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), the person bringing such a claim must show an (1) intent to cause (2) severe emotional distress by (3) extreme and outrageous conduct. According to Louisiana courts, "[t]he conduct must be so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." Because tortious or illegal conduct does not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous, "[t]he distress suffered must be such that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it." Essentially, one cannot be liable for IIED for "mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities." In this case, the Phillip’s and Shelvin failed to successfully assert a claim for IIED. There was no evidence that Cook’s conduct was extreme and outrageous or that she intended to cause Selvin severe emotional distress. In relation to the "drop-off" incident, Cook never spoke to Shelvin about it. When Shelvin and the other students were questioned about the incident where the man refused to get off the bus, Cook was never alone with any of the students. Moreover, none of the interviews lasted over ten minutes.

Louisiana courts have consistently held that IIED claims must deal with extremely outrageous conduct and not just offensive behavior. Thus, it is important for persons interested in pursuing IIED to an attorney to evaluate the viability of such claims and examine the nature of the complained of conduct.

Continue reading "Understanding Claims Involving Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress" »