Articles Posted in Civil Matter

by

site_truck_vehicle_transport-1024x683The discovery process of litigation is vital to a well-informed judgment rendered by the court. But discovery can be halted, disrupted, or dismantled by various motions. Finding and gathering all the necessary information in a lawsuit is incredibly important for all sides. Still, it requires showing a need for that information and the presence of facts in dispute. Identifying and presenting disputed facts of a case is necessary to help protect your case from a summary judgment dismissal. 

Heniff Transportation, LLC (“Heniff”) was a licensed professional truck driver transporting dangerous chemicals. One of the plaintiffs, Carl Davis, was a self-employed independent contractor working for Heniff. During this work, Carl attempted delivery of a tank of hydrochloric acid to GEO Specialty Chemicals (“GEO”). GEO personnel found defects in the tank, which Heniff owned. To address the defect, Heniff directed Carl to have Bastrop Tank Wash (“Bastrop”) repair the tank. Bastrop allegedly repaired the tank, but when Carl and GEO later began transferring the hydrochloric acid from the tank, the allegedly repaired hose ruptured, hydrochloric acid escaped from the fittings, and Carl’s required protective gear was knocked off his body. As a result, Carl suffered injuries to his eyes, face, and body. 

Carl and his wife, April, sued Heniff, Bastrop, GEO, Sparta Insurance (later replaced by Arch Insurance), ABC Insurance, and DEF Insurance, for damages and loss of consortium. In response, Bastrop filed for summary judgment, arguing that the part of the exploded hose was not a part that Bastrop repaired.

Continue reading

by

the_samuel_young_house-1024x683Owning property is not easy, especially when you have to share ownership with multiple individuals. Co-ownership can present challenging issues, especially when one owner wants to make renovations or sell the property. This case examines a dispute among family members involving property in the Parish of St. Bernard in Louisiana. 

The plaintiffs, including Charles Gettys, Jr., and defendants, including William Gettys, each had a one-fifth interest in the at-issue property. The plaintiffs sued to have the property sold and the proceeds divided among the five co-owners. William responded, claiming after Hurricane Katrina, the defendants said they no longer wanted to have an interest in the property and did not want to spend any more money on the property or repairs.  William claimed he completed a property renovation and moved into the house following Hurricane Katrina. William claimed before Hurricane Katrina that he had agreed with Charles that they would renovate the property together and then sell it. Then, they would split the money they made from the sale. The renovations purportedly cost $46,000. William claimed Charles had agreed to split the renovation costs with him.  

However, Charles had not paid for his share of the renovations. William argued Charles owed him his share of the total cost of the repairs and renovations. After trial, the court ordered the parties to sell the property via auction, at a $50,000 minimum bid, or through a private sale, with the first $48,476 of the proceeds to go to William to reimburse him for the renovations he carried out in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Continue reading

by

medical_appointment_doctor_563427-1024x683In the face of the profound loss that accompanies the passing of a family member, the impact can be particularly agonizing when that loss follows the anticipation of medical intervention, such as a transplant. The immediate inclination might be to explore legal avenues through a medical malpractice claim, yet the determination of whether negligence played a role can be an intricate matter for the average individual. This Louisiana case shows how important it can be to obtain expert testimony to help show malpractice occurred. 

The medical malpractice case brought by Jarrard Green and his sister Bernadine Green arose from complications after a donated kidney failed post-transplant. Jarrard donated his kidney to Bernadine, who suffered from end-stage renal disease. The transplant was performed by one of the defendants, Joseph Buell. Several days after the transplant, the kidney failed and needed removal. Jarrard initiated a Medical Review Panel process which rendered an opinion in favor of the defendants stating there was no breach in the standard of care. 

A medical malpractice and lack of informed consent lawsuit followed. Defendants Dr. Joseph Buell, Dr. Douglas Slakey, and Tulane University Hospital filed a motion for summary judgment stating the Greens lacked the necessary expert testimony to support the allegations. The motion was granted by the trial court dismissing the claims. The Greens appealed. 

Continue reading

by

pregnancy_belly_9_months-1024x685Imagine waking up one day and finding yourself out of a job simply because you are pregnant. This was the reality for Eryon Luke, as she claimed that her former employer, CPlace Forest Park SNF, LLC, fired her due to her pregnancy. This case, which attracted significant attention in legal circles, presents a deep dive into pregnancy discrimination lawsuits, exploring the application of state and federal laws and their impact on the employer-employee relationship.

Luke held a position as a Certified Nursing Assistant with Forest Park before her dismissal. Her employment was terminated during her maternity leave, which she contends was an act of discrimination by her employer. She asserted that Nottingham terminated her because she was pregnant, violating federal and Louisiana state laws.

To explain, under Louisiana law concerning unlawful employment practices, an employee with covered limitations, such as in this case, is allowed to take leave under any leave law or policy of the employer if another reasonable accommodation can be provided to the known limitations for medical needs arising from pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. LA Rev Stat § 23:342. Luke also claimed that Nottingham refused her request for a temporary, less strenuous role during her pregnancy, which she argued was another unlawful employment practice.

Continue reading

by

worker_shoes_shoes_work-1024x768Should an employer continue to pay for work-related injuries even after an employee has “fully recovered”? At issue is a decision that terminated an employee’s entitlement to certain benefits. After the employee suffered a work-related injury and received temporary total disability benefits, her former employer, The Walgreen Company, filed a motion to modify the judgment. This led to litigation and a subsequent appeal.

Former Walgreens employee Alyce Mouton, a resident of Metairie, Louisiana, was injured while performing her duties at Walgreen Drug Stores in that city. Initially, the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) of the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal ruled in her favor, awarding her temporary total disability benefits and ordering Walgreens to pay for all reasonable and necessary medical treatment resulting from her workplace injuries. However, Walgreens later filed a motion to modify the judgment, alleging a change in Mouton’s condition and seeking to convert her benefits from temporary total disability to supplemental earnings benefits (SEBs). This dispute eventually led to an appeal when Mouton challenged the decision. See Mouton v. Walgreen Co.

In Louisiana, the workers’ compensation system is governed by specific laws designed to protect the rights of both employees and employers. One such statute is Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1310.8. This statute grants the WCJ continuing power and jurisdiction over each case. It allows for modifying or amendment of prior findings or orders when such changes are warranted in the judge’s opinion. In addition, the statute allows for review of any award upon motion of a party, particularly in cases where there has been a change in circumstances. The WCJ may then enter an award that terminates, reduces, or increases the compensation previously awarded.

Continue reading

by

larimer_sheriff_2014_chevrolet-1024x683Before accepting a job, it is essential to review all policies provided to you by your potential employer, as these policies may not always be in your best interest. The following East Baton Rouge case demonstrates what may or may not be considered a “wage” payable at the end of employment. 

Ely Boucher was terminated from the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff’s Office and was simultaneously provided with a copy of their Leave Policy. A provision to the Leave Policy stipulated that a certain amount of hours of paid-time-off leave were paid upon termination of employment. Subsequently, Boucher, who had over 914 paid-time-off leave hours, was paid for 300 hours per the policy provisions. Boucher then argued the Leave Policy violated La. R.S.23:631 and made a written demand on the Sheriff, for unpaid wages. When Boucher’s demand went unanswered, he filed a lawsuit against the Sheriff with the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. 

Boucher filed a motion seeking to exclude the testimony of the EBR Sheriff’s Human Resource Director concerning her interpretation of the Leave Policy. He argued the document was the best evidence of its contents. He also argued that the testimony should be excluded based on the contract interpretation laws. 

Continue reading

by

police_handcuffs_right_1072636-1024x680Imagine being wrongfully arrested and seeking justice for the harm caused. This was the situation for Joe Bridges III, Jordan M. Bridges, and Branden J. Herring, who filed a lawsuit for damages after an arrest on July 30, 2011. The plaintiffs initiated the lawsuit by filing a petition for damages on July 20, 2012. The defendants named in the petition included the Baton Rouge Police Department, the City of Baton Rouge, and several individual police officers.

The plaintiffs alleged their arrests were unjustified and had caused them harm, leading them to seek compensation for the damages incurred. They claimed the actions of the defendants, including the individual police officers, were responsible for their wrongful arrest and subsequent suffering.

In considering the appeal, the court had to apply the relevant rules and statutes. Of particular significance was La. C.C.P. art. 561. This article outlines the concept of abandonment and specifies the conditions under which a case may be dismissed. It requires parties to take steps in the prosecution or defense of an action within a three-year period to avoid abandonment. Clark v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 00-3010, pp. 5-6 (La. 5/15/01), 785 So. 2d 779, 784.

Continue reading

by

sunsets_family_happiness_beach-1024x683The challenges posed by mental and physical disabilities can place immense strain on families, particularly when the affected individual is unaware or unable to acknowledge their condition. When individuals face difficulties managing their health, personal matters, finances, and business affairs due to mental incapacity, they must take legal steps to protect their interests. During such trying times, the guidance of a skilled lawyer can alleviate some of the pain and stress that families experience. 

Stanton Lee Cadow faced just such a situation when his mother, America Jean Morris Metzler, was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and, as a result, could no longer live independently, care for herself, or make sound personal and financial decisions. Her son, Cadow, thus sought a full interdiction to make legal decisions on her behalf. However, Metzler asserted her husband, John Metzler, Sr., was her power of attorney.

The proceedings began when Stanton filed a petition in 2014 seeking the interdiction of his mother, America Jean Morris Metzler, who was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. Cadow alleged that his stepfather, John Metzler Sr., could not care for Metzler due to his health issues. Metzler contested the petition, asserting that Metzler, Sr., had a valid power of attorney and could act on her behalf. Initially, the trial court denied and dismissed Cadow’s claims without prejudice in 2015.

Continue reading

by

texas_flag_texas_flag-1024x683It’s pretty common for large corporations to conduct business across multiple state lines. So, too, it’s expected that employees for these types of companies will also have connections with multiple states based on their employment with the corporation. In these situations determining which state and Court has jurisdiction over legal claims when such issues arise can become an incredibly fact-specific inquiry. This was the case for one Workers’ Compensation Judge (“WCJ”), who found that the Office of Workers’ Compensation (“OWC”) located in Lafayette, Louisiana had subject matter jurisdiction to decide the legal claims of a former Tyson-employed truck driver.

Frank Verret (“Mr. Verret”), a Louisiana resident, was hired as a long-haul truck driver for Tyson Foods, Inc. (“Tyson”) in 1999. Initially, he drove to a Tyson facility in Center, Texas, to apply for a position and later called to inquire about the status of his application from his home in Louisiana. During that phone call, Mr. Verret claimed that Tyson hired him for the long-haul truck driver position. Afterward, he drove back to Texas, picked up his truck, and began employment.

Years later, in 2015, while driving his Tyson truck through Oklahoma, Mr. Verret crashed into the median barrier. Mr. Verret was hospitalized and treated for his injuries in Oklahoma, then was sent to Texas for an employer-mandated drug screening before returning to Arkansas, where he had begun his route before the crash. A few months after the crash, a then-retired Mr. Verret filed a Disputed Claim for Compensation against Tyson.

Continue reading

by

refinery_oil_aerial_natural_1-1024x683When multiple people are injured in the same incident, you might expect they are all eligible to recover the same type of damages, even if the precise dollar amount varies. This case indicates how the categories of damages awarded can vary by plaintiff, depending on the testimony and other evidence presented at trial. 

Fourteen workers at the Citgo Petroleum Corporation refinery in Lake Charles, Louisiana, were exposed to hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide following a gas release. The workers suffered various symptoms, including nasal irritation, headaches, and chest pain. The workers filed a lawsuit against Citgo, arguing their symptoms resulted from the gas release. The trial court awarded nine of the fourteen plaintiffs damages for fear of future injury. All fourteen plaintiffs received damages for mental anguish/loss of enjoyment of life. Citgo appealed.  

On appeal, Citgo argued the trial court erred in awarding nine plaintiffs damages for fear of future injury because there was no evidence that the gas release could cause them future health problems. To recover for fear of future injury, a plaintiff must show a possibility of such damages from the tortious conduct. See Broussard v. Olin Corp. At trial, even the plaintiff’s expert witness did not testify that the plaintiffs were at risk for future health problems from the gas release. Additionally, there were studies presented indicating there were no known future health issues from similar exposures. Therefore, the appellate court found the trial court’s award of damages for future injuries was “mere speculation” and reversed the trial court’s award of damages for fear of future injuries to the nine plaintiffs. 

Continue reading
Contact Information
1140 St Charles Ave
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 521-6000
Fax: (504) 617-6300

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2025, Berniard Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design