Pain And Suffering Claims

July 1, 2023

Worker Entitled To Workers’ Compensation From Injuries From Passing Out At Work

computed_tomography_human_brain-1024x730 You might be eligible for workers’ compensation if you are injured on the job. However, you must be honest in your communications with your employer and medical providers because, under Louisiana law, you forfeit your rights to any such benefits if you make misrepresentations or false statements concerning your workers’ compensation scheme. What happens if these misrepresentations appear to result from memory impairments related to your on-the-job injury? The following lawsuit helps answer this question.

While working as a security guard at the Golden Nugget Casino, Katina Hodges fainted and fell to the floor. Her legs and knee hit the floor. She hit her head on the floor and appeared to have seizures. At Christus St. Patrick Hospital in Lake Charles, Louisiana, a CT scan showed she suffered a hemorrhage in her brain. Hodges subsequently received treatment for her injuries, which included aggravations of preexisting conditions.

Golden Nugget filed a Notice of Controversion, claiming it did not owe Hodges anything because ha fainting spell caused her injuries. Hodges claimed she had passed out, fell, and was injured while working. In response, Golden Nugget claimed Hodges had forfeited any benefits under La. R.S. 23:1208 because she had made misrepresentations associated with her claim. The matter went to trial before the Workers’ Compensation Judge, who ruled that Hodges’ fall was an accident and she had suffered injuries caused by the accident. Golden Nugget was ordered to pay temporary disability benefits, supplemental earnings benefits, medical benefits, a penalty of $2,000 for failing to pay Hodges’ indemnity benefits, a penalty of $2,000 for failing to pay Hodges’ medical expenses and $25,000 in attorney fees. Golden Nugget appealed.

June 26, 2023

Medical Malpractice Claim Dismissed For Lack of Expert Testimony

by Berniard Law Firm

medical_inject_blood_patch-1024x642 In a medical malpractice lawsuit, there are numerous procedural and evidential requirements with which a plaintiff must comply to support their claim. This case illustrates what can happen if a plaintiff does not comply with these requirements, specifically providing expert testimony supporting the malpractice claim.

Tanya Madere filed a lawsuit against Dr. Louise Gautreaux Collins. Madere claimed she suffered complications from a gynecological surgery due to Collins’ negligence, including kidney complications and the need for additional surgeries and treatment. A medical review panel was found in favor of Collins. Madere then filed a lawsuit against Collins.

Collins filed a summary judgment motion, arguing Madere’s claims should be dismissed because she had not provided expert testimony to support her claim that Collins had not followed the applicable standard of care or to support that the breach had resulted in Madere’s injuries, as required under Louisiana law. See Samaha v. Rau. Madere opposed Collins’ summary judgment motion, arguing she had retained Dr. Lawrence Kim as an expert and needed time to complete discovery. The court continued the hearing related to Collins’ summary judgment motion for a few months.

June 24, 2023

Workers’ Compensation Lawsuits and the Battle for Evidence

by Berniard Law Firm

pelicans_australian_pelican_pelican-1024x1024 Unfortunately, heart attacks are one of the most common causes of death. If a loved one suffers a heart attack while on the job and you file a workers’ compensation claim, you must provide evidence to support your claim. But what happens if the employer files a motion for summary judgment before you can complete discovery?

Michael Mack Sr. worked as a prep cook at the restaurant Blind Pelican. While working a shift, he went into the restaurant’s bathroom, where he tragically suffered a heart attack. He was transported to Touro Hospital via ambulance and died later that night.

After Mack’s death, his wife, Denisa Allen, filed Form 1008, a disputed claim for compensation under La. R.S. 23:1231, on behalf of her minor child. She described the accident as a heart attack while he was on the job and provided medical data from the New Orleans coroner.

June 21, 2023

Allocation of Fault and Damages in a Car Crash: Who is Right?

by Berniard Law Firm

car_crash_1-1024x768 If you ever find yourself injured in a car accident, it’s crucial to seek legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction. Consulting with an attorney can help you understand your rights and determine if you are entitled to compensation, depending on the allocation of fault. Car accidents can be complex, and navigating the legal process requires expert guidance.

A motor vehicle accident occurred at the intersection of Louisiana Highway 315 and Concord Bypass Road in Terrebonne Parish. The accident involved a pickup truck driven by Michael Gaither and a utility van driven by Deputy Warren Webre. Gaither used the turning lane to pass slower traffic when Deputy Webre’s van collided with his vehicle. The investigating officer cited both drivers, citing failure to stop and yield for Deputy Webre and improper lane usage for Gaither.

Following the accident, Gaither filed a lawsuit seeking damages for his injuries. He alleged that Deputy Webre’s failure to pay proper attention and yield caused the accident. Gaither claimed that even if he had turned left onto Concord Bypass Road, the collision would have occurred due to Deputy Webre’s actions. Gaither argued that Deputy Webre should bear a greater share of the fault.

June 12, 2023

Blind Trust: The Importance of Timely Appeals in Personal Injury Cases

by Berniard Law Firm

courthouse_311_jarvis_st-1024x768 In personal injury cases, plaintiffs are often left vulnerable due to the accidents leading to their injuries. Hence, they require excellent attorneys who don’t exploit these vulnerabilities but instead zealously advocate on their behalf. For Claude Allen Newsome (“Newsome”), a November 2010 car accident in Bossier Parish, Louisiana, left him without sight, which was a direct result of macular degeneration caused by the accident. After that, Newsome was deemed legally blind and rendered a person with quadriplegia. Newsome appointed Robert Lansdale (“Lansdale”) as his power of attorney. What unfolded while seeking damages on behalf of Newsome demonstrates the necessity to lodge objections on the record and timely appeal matters.

After Newsome named Lansdale as his agent, Lansdale hired an attorney, Norman Gordon (“Gordon”), to represent Newsome in his personal injury lawsuit. The lawsuit eventually settled for approximately $7.4 million, and Gordon recommended to Newsome and Lansdale that setting up a special-needs trust would benefit Newsome. Lansdale told Gordon that Newsome would not consider establishing a trust.

Concerned, Gordon withdrew his representation of Newsome, expressing that a conflict of interest had developed and relaying to the court that he believed Lansdale would not use the settlement proceeds for Newsome’s benefit. The court held a status conference where Gordon appeared allegedly without Newsome’s knowledge and asked the court to protect Newsome from the possibility of undue influence by Lansdale. Resulting of this conference, the court ordered that a special needs trust be created to receive the funds from Newsome’s settlement. Later, at a second status conference, the court-appointed Regions Bank as the corporate trustee of Newsome’s newly established special needs trust and appointed Newsome’s aunt, Stella Jean Godley as the trustee over Newsome’s person. The court also ordered that $3,879,835.67 of the $7.4 million settlement proceeds, minus the payment of fees, expenses, and liens, be transferred into the trust. At no point during these conferences and court orders did Newsome object or appeal.

June 11, 2023

While Injured Worker Claims Late Payment, Louisiana’s First Circuit Court of Appeals Focuses on Important Date

by Berniard Law Firm

purse_money_credit_squeeze-1024x683 For purposes of seeking an appeal, there is great importance in preserving the record, which may be done through admitting evidence at trial to support relevant claims. When the record has not been established at trial, it is difficult for the best attorneys to succeed on appeal. William Taylor (Mr. Taylor), the plaintiff in his case brought against Hanson North America (Hanson), ran into this evidentiary legal hurdle when he appealed the Office of Workers’ Compensation (OWC) decision denying his motion to Louisiana’s First Circuit Court of Appeal.

Twenty years before the First Circuit Court issued its 2015 opinion affirming the OWC decision, Mr. Taylor was injured in a work-related accident. His injuries left him permanently and totally disabled. Afterward, the OWC determined that Mr. Taylor was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits.

Years later, Mr. Taylor’s physicians recommended that he undergo a myelogram, CT scan, and physical therapy. However, Hanson, the successor in interest of his former employer, refused to authorize these treatments. In turn, Mr. Taylor filed a disputed claim with the OWC against Hanson, seeking penalties and attorney fees for Hanson’s failure to approve these treatments and for failure to timely pay his medical expenses and prescriptions.

June 8, 2023

When a Cow’s Journey Turns into a Legal Showdown, Liability for Escaped Cows in Louisiana

by Berniard Law Firm

cow_beef_alm_cows-1024x683 What happens when a cow crosses a road? Although that might sound like the start of a joke, that is the situation Zaine Kasem found herself in after being run over by a cow that escaped from a herd owned by Joyce B. Williams and H.R. Williams Cattle Company (“HRW”).

There had been a heavy rainstorm. One of HRW’s employees inspected the pasture and fence, but he did not see any damage caused by the storm. Nonetheless, a cow escaped from the herd through a damaged fence and entered Kasem’s front yard in St. Gabriel, Louisiana. Kasem described the scene as a “circus” with many people running around trying to capture the cow. Finally, she went outside to see what was happening, and the cow ran into her, knocked her into the bed of a truck, and caused her to suffer injuries to her eye, nose, back, and neck, requiring medical treatment and pain and suffering.

Kasem sued Williams and HRW, claiming they breached the duty under La. C.C. art. 2321 to restrain their cattle and prevent them from entering other properties, injuring others, or otherwise causing damage. Williams and HRW filed a motion for summary judgment in response to the lawsuit.

June 7, 2023

Navigating the Rules of Evidence: How They Can Impact Your Lawsuit and the Jury’s Perception

by Berniard Law Firm

crane_load_crane_crane-1024x683 When you are preparing for a lawsuit, it is crucial to understand what evidence you will be allowed to present in support of your claim. On the flip side, if there is evidence you do not think the other party should be able to present, you can file a motion to try to exclude that evidence. Rulings on evidence can have a major effect on a case because they limit what a jury gets to see or hear.

In product liability lawsuits, it is essential to understand the various parties involved in the manufacture and sale of the at-issue equipment. The following lawsuit out of St. Charles Parish Louisiana shows the importance of understanding the rules of evidence and when and how to produce evidence at trial.

Grove U.S. LLC manufactured, sold, and delivered the at-issue Grove crane to H&E Equipment Services. H&E then leased the crane to Dow Chemical to use in Taft, Louisiana. While in use Grove sent H&E a notice of a Product Improvement Program related to issues involving the crane’s boom extension and structural deficiencies. H&E was authorized to repair because it was an authorized distributor. A manager at H&E contacted the crane’s supervisor at Dow to make the repairs. Dow’s supervisor said they would remove the parts instead of permitting H&E to do so.

June 5, 2023

Prevailing Against All Odds: Triumphing in a Workers’ Compensation Claim

by Berniard Law Firm

louisiana_shrimp_boats_grand-1024x709 In the realm of lawsuits, there are always two sides to the story, presenting challenges in determining who will emerge victorious. However, even when faced with factual disputes, there is still hope for success in your worker’s compensation claim. The case of David Thibodaux, a truck driver for Grand Isle Shipyard, serves as a prime example of overcoming obstacles in the pursuit of justice. Despite skepticism about the origin of his injuries and facing resistance from his employer, Thibodaux’s perseverance and the support of a skilled attorney led to a favorable outcome. This story emphasizes the crucial role of legal counsel in guiding individuals through the complexities of workers’ compensation claims and ensuring the presentation of compelling evidence to support their case.

Thibodaux was allegedly injured while working as a truck driver for Grand Isle Shipyard. He was driving a truck in Isabel, Louisiana picking up sand. His truck stalled in a pothole he had attempted to drive through, and the front axle of his truck broke. Thibodaux claimed the truck bounced around, and he hit his arm on an armrest. He was eventually able to stabilize the vehicle.

Within a few days, Thibodaux informed his supervisor he was injured. He claimed his supervisor did nothing in response. Approximately eight days later, Grand Isle Shipyard terminated Thibodaux. He claimed at the time of his termination, he had not filed a workers’ compensation claim, nor had anyone at Grand Isle Shipyard informed him of how to file such a claim. However, before his termination, Thibodaux had visited his doctor related to the accident because of ear and neck pain. His doctor prescribed him various pain medications. Nevertheless, Thibodaux continued to have pain and sought additional medical treatment.

June 4, 2023

When Is a Doctor Required to Warn Someone of a Patient’s Threat?

by Berniard Law Firm

skeleton_bone_medical_doctor-1024x768 The case of Danell Brice, a home health nurse who was attacked while visiting Timothy Bragg’s apartment, highlights the complex legal issues surrounding the duty of care owed by healthcare professionals in situations involving potential harm to third parties. Brice filed a lawsuit against Dr. Lynn Simon, Braggs’ treating psychiatrist, and Dr. Vasanthi Vinayagam, who provided medical treatment to Braggs. The central dispute revolves around whether the doctors had a duty to warn Brice about Braggs’ changed medication and potential for violence. This article examines the court’s ruling on the motion for summary judgment and the application of relevant statutes in determining the doctors’ liability.

While visiting Bragg’s apartment, Danell Brice, a home health nurse, was attacked by Braggs. Braggs was admitted to Serenity Community Mental Health Center, an outpatient partial-day program for psychiatric patients. Braggs had paranoid schizophrenia and benign hypertension and was considered “poorly integrated.” When Brice was taking Bragg’s blood pressure in his apartment, he made sexual advances toward her. When Brice attempted to leave the apartment, Braggs shoved her into a corner by the door. However, she managed to push Braggs away and leave his apartment. Brice said that she sustained injuries when she pushed Braggs away from her.

Brice sued Dr. Lynn Simon, Braggs’ treating psychiatrist at Serenity, and Dr. Vasanthi Vinayagam, who treated Braggs for minor medical conditions at Serenity. Brice alleged that both doctors failed to warn her that Braggs’ medication was changed, failed to provide her with adequate security when treating Braggs, failed to protect her from a predicable assault, and breached their standard of care.