Articles Posted in Pain And Suffering Claims

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

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

casino_note_roadway_mark-1024x683When you enter a store or place of public accommodation as a customer, there is a certain expectation of safety. Many customers expect stores to provide clean bathrooms and a slip-free environment. This, however, was not the case for Valencia Lewis when she was walking through a New Orleans casino. 

Lewis was walking through Harrah’s Casino in New Orleans when she slipped and fell on the marble floor. After her fall, Lewis’s husband and son came to help her back to her feet. Lewis, her husband, and her son reported seeing “a little white stuff” on the floor. A Harrah’s employee identified this substance as a “smushed grape.” Ms. Mayshack, Harrah’s on-duty supervisor, noted that a substance “like melted cheese” was on the floor after Lewis’s fall. Another employee, however, reported that he did not see any smashed fruit on the ground after Lewis’s fall. During discovery, a video depicting Lewis’s fall was produced. This video, however, did not show any substance on the ground before Lewis’s fall. 

In her complaint, Lewis alleged that Jazz Casino, owner, and operator of Harrah’s, failed to (1) properly maintain the premises, (2) provide a reasonably safe surface for customers to walk on, (3) provide any warning of the dangerous condition and (4) inspect the area where Lewis was injured. Jazz Casino filed for summary judgment, arguing that there was no factual support for several elements of Lewis’s claim under Lousianna’s Merchant Liability Statute La. R.S. 9:2800.6. For instance, Jazz Casino argued that Lewis could not show whether (1) the food on the floor presented an unreasonable risk of harm that was reasonably foreseeable; (2) Jazz Casino created the risk of harm or had actual or constructive notice of the condition before Ms. Lewis’s fall, and (3) Jazz Casino failed to exercise reasonable care to keep the aisles and walkways free of hazardous conditions.

Continue reading

by

paramedics_doll_hospital_medical-683x1024The prospect of undergoing medical procedures carries inherent risks; sometimes, unfortunate incidents can lead to injuries. In such cases, individuals can pursue medical malpractice claims to seek compensation for damages. A crucial aspect of these claims is presenting the appropriate evidence and adhering to procedural requirements. A telling illustration of the importance of these procedures is found in a lawsuit involving Elliott R. James and Lakeview Medical Center, LLC. This case underscores the significance of following legal protocols and obtaining substantial evidence to bolster a medical malpractice claim.

Elliott R. James entered Lakeview Medical Center, LLC d/b/a Lakeview Regional Medical Center (“Lakeview”) for an exploratory laparotomy. A procedure where an endotracheal tube was inserted into him was completed with no complications. While he recovered for the next few days, James began experiencing nausea and vomiting. James returned to Lakeview, where Nurse Dinah Justilian attempted to place a nasogastric (NG) tube through James’s nose to reach his stomach. James alleges that Nurse Jusitilian did not contact his treating physician Dr. Darren Rowan before attempting to insert the tube. Nurse Justilian had difficulty inserting the tube. The tube encountered some resistance while being slid down Mr. James’ throat but was eventually able to be inserted successfully. Mr. James stated he felt severe pain in his throat during the process. 

A few days later, when the NG tube was removed, James still experienced pain in his throat. On November 4, 2010, Lakeview discharged James despite him still complaining of throat pain. James decided to obtain a second opinion about the pain from a specialist. The specialist found that his right vocal cord appeared damaged and would either heal within a year or was permanently damaged. Since then, James alleges his throat injury never healed. However, on July 16, 2014, a Medical Review Panel (MRP) rendered its findings on the situation. They found that the NG tube was placed correctly despite the discomfort, and there was no evidence that the NG tube was the likely cause of James’s injury. The MRP concluded that the evidence did not support James’s claim that Lakeview failed to meet the applicable standard of care. 

Continue reading

by

inside_ambulance_ambulance_lighting-1024x576When medical emergencies strike, the rapid response of emergency medical technicians (EMTs) can mean the difference between life and death. However, the high-pressure nature of their role can also give rise to complex legal questions when outcomes take a tragic turn. Richard Miller’s case sheds light on the intricate landscape of EMT liability, illuminating the balance between legal protections afforded to these healthcare professionals and the pursuit of justice for patients and their families. It also helps answer the question: Can an emergency medical technician or their employer be held liable when things go wrong? 

Richard Miller was injured in a motorcycle crash. Following the crash, emergency medical technicians employed by Northshore Emergency Medical Service transported Miller to Riverside Medical Center, where he was found to be in critical condition. Northshore transported him there before contacting Louisiana Emergency Response Network, a clearinghouse used to determine which medical center can best provide for a patient. Because Riverside did not have the proper resources to treat Miller’s severe injuries, the emergency room doctor had to contact the Louisiana Emergency Response Network to determine where to transport him. While in transit to the new hospital, Miller’s condition worsened. Unfortunately, he passed away when he arrived at the new hospital. 

Miller’s estate and family filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against numerous companies and individuals, including Northshore, the company that transported him to Riverside initially. Northshore filed a summary judgment motion claiming Northshore was not liable to Miller for his injuries. The evidence it provided included an affidavit from the Northshore paramedic, medical records, and deposition testimony. The trial court granted Northshore’s summary judgment motion and dismissed Miller’s case. Miller appealed. 

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

by

refineries_haifa_israel_night-1024x682While headlines often tout substantial monetary awards for injured workers, the intricacies of such compensation might remain shrouded in mystery. Behind every high-stakes verdict lies a meticulous process of presenting compelling evidence to substantiate the array of damages claimed. In a recent case involving workers at a Firestone Polymers plant, the multifaceted nature of damages is unveiled, shedding light on the need for robust legal representation to navigate the diverse categories of compensation.

Workers at Firestone Polymers plant near CITGO Petroleum Company’s refinery in Lake Charles, Louisiana, were exposed to higher than permitted sulphur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide levels. Eight individuals who worked at Firestone filed a lawsuit against CITGO. At trial, the court held the employees’ exposure to the higher than permitted levels of sulphur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide caused their injuries, including headaches, coughs, eye and sinus irritation, and sore throats. The trial court awarded damages based on the workers’ injuries over three years. Although CITGO agreed it was liable, it appealed the damages awarded to the injured workers.

On appeal, CITGO argued the trial court’s award of damages for fear of future injury was duplicative of the mental anguish damages. CITGO also argued there was insufficient evidence to support the fear of future injury and medical expense damages awarded to the workers. 

Continue reading

by

medical_instruments_examination_424729-1024x768In the realm of medical malpractice, the intricacies of the legal process can often appear daunting, especially when juxtaposed against the heart-wrenching backdrop of a stillborn baby’s tragedy. K Arceneaux found herself entangled in this very confluence of circumstances, seeking justice for her devastating loss while grappling with legal procedure demands. As the mother’s quest for accountability unfolds, a crucial question emerges: Can a plaintiff prevail in a medical malpractice case without the indispensable backing of expert testimony?

K Arceneaux’s baby died in utero while she was hospitalized. The baby had hydrocephalus, or excess fluid in the brain. Arceneaux claimed the child’s death partly resulted from a failure to monitor its heart rate. She also claimed that the Lafayette General Medical Center (“LGMC”) nursing staff forced her out of bed after delivery. She claimed she fell on the floor, injuring her neck. 

Arceneaux filed a medical malpractice claim against LGMC and Dr. Bobby Nevils. The medical review panel determined there was no breach of the required standard of care. She then filed a lawsuit against LGMC. 

Continue reading

by

oil_well_head_surrounding-686x1024The rugged world of oil well labor often serves as a crucible of challenges, where hard work meets unforeseen perils. Within this demanding landscape, a legal saga unfolds, revealing the harrowing tale of two injured workers and the intricate journey through a labyrinthine appeals process. Their journey from the fiery depths of an explosion to the halls of justice sheds light on the complexities that can arise even after a jury’s verdict, providing a stark reminder of the importance of legal expertise in navigating this tumultuous terrain.

AIX Energy Inc. owned and operated an oil well in Claiborne Parish, Louisiana. It performed a frac job and hired Republic Well Testing as a contractor to measure the oil well’s flowback. Republic installed a flowback tank. AIX decided to try to set a “packer” to produce through smaller tubing. AIX hired Jeremy Shepard and Michael Jackson as toolpushers and floor hands. While attempting to set the “packer,” the crew ran into issues. In the course of the work, there was an explosion. Jackson and Shepard were standing near the well. They were knocked over and seriously burned. 

Jackson, Shepard, and their respective wives filed a personal injury lawsuit against AIX, Republic, and others. At trial, the jury found AIX and various other defendants were negligent. The jury allocated AIX 97.5% of the fault. The jury awarded Shepard and Jackson $22.45 million in damages. AIX appealed.

Continue reading

by

storm_drain_drain_snow-1024x577Imagine walking through your neighborhood only to be seriously injured from tripping over a wire frame on a storm drain. The following case considers whether such a condition is open and obvious. This is an important consideration because if a condition is found to be open and obvious, then defendants do not have a duty to protect people from the condition. 

Theresa Granier and Linda Pace were walking on the sidewalk in their subdivision in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. They reached the end of the sidewalk and turned left to cross the street. While walking, they tried to step over a storm drain attached to the curb. They both purportedly stepped onto a wire frame, called an inlet protector, covering the drain’s opening. As a result, they tripped and fell on the street and were seriously injured. 

Granier and Pace then filed a lawsuit against Alvarez Construction Company, the developer of the subdivision as well as its insurer, Navigator Specialty Insurance Company. In the lawsuit, they claimed Alvarez was negligent because the inlet protector was in its control and created an unreasonable risk of injury. 

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