by

Under the Louisiana Workers Compensation Act, an employer takes a worker as he finds him or her. A worker who is more susceptible to injury is entitled to no less protection than a healthy one.

The Louisiana Appellate Court held that employees, who are injured during the performance of their job duties, are to be provided appropriate compensation and medical care. A recent 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Decision explored workers compensation in Louisiana, and the elements necessary to obtain compensation, despite underlying health risks that may have helped create the injury in question. In Lloyd v. Shady Lake Nursing Home, the nursing home sought for the court to apply the Louisiana Worker’s Compensation Act, in order to avoid having to pay higher damages to the surviving spouse and family under a negligence or tort based remedy.

In the Margaret Caldwell case the Court focused on her injury suffered and subsequent death for their analysis. Mrs. Caldwell was a fifty-four year old woman. She was known to be suffering from morbid obesity and she worked as a Certified Nursing Assistant at the Shady Oaks Nursing Home for over twenty years. One day, as she was cleaning her station and mopping the floors, she spotted a patient out of his room. She asked him to return to his room and at this point he attacked her, striking her in the face. Immediately following the attack, Mrs. Caldwell experienced elevated blood pressure levels and was taken to East Carroll Parish Hospital. Only a few hours later she was pronounced dead. The autopsy found the immediate cause of death to be hypertensive heart disease and coronary artery disease, with the underlying cause of death being a physical blow to the face. This last portion became the ultimate point of controversy between Mrs. Caldwell’s family and Shady Oaks, as her employer attempted to rely on a specific Louisiana Revised Statute that negates workers compensation benefits for heart related illnesses or death that arises during the scope one’s employment. The court explored the meaning behind each element of workers compensation and definitional terms in order to formulate their decision.

Continue reading

by

On June 19, 2006, CITGO Petroleum Corp. released some four million gallons of hazardous slop oil and seventeen million gallons of wastewater into the Calcasieu River from the waste water treatment unit at its Lake Charles refinery. The overflow was caused in part by a storm that dropped more than six inches of rain in a three-hour period. The slop oil, which contained numerous toxic chemicals, fouled approximately one hundred miles of the river’s shoreline. Within a few days, the sludge migrated to the waters surrounding a small industrial plant located on an island in the river owned by the Calcasieu Refining Company (“CRC”), where several employees continued to work during CITGO’s clean-up efforts. Some of the workers in the dock area at CRC were directly exposed to the water and slop oil. They reported nausea, rashes, and peeling skin as a result. The vapors from the slop oil led to respiratory and central nervous system injuries to other workers. Complaints included headaches, nausea, dizziness, as well as eye, nose, and throat problems.

In May, 2007, fourteen plaintiffs from the CRC plant filed suit against CITGO for their injuries related to the spill. On September 17, 2008, CITGO entered a plea agreement in federal court over the spill in which it agreed to pay a $13 million criminal fine for various EPA violations. On September 19, 2008, the trial court entered a judgment against CITGO and awarded each CRC plaintiff general damages in the amount of $5,000, punitive damages in the amount of $30,000, and $2,500 for “fear of future injury.”

CITGO appealed, citing as error, among other things, that the award for fear of future injury lacked a basis in the evidence and was speculative. In support of its argument, CITGO cited a prior case, Broussard v. Olin Corp., where the plaintiff sought recovery for fear of developing cancer after he was exposed to phosgene gas. Because the plaintiff failed to clearly link phosgene gas exposure to an increased risk of cancer, the court in Broussard concluded that the claim was “mere speculation” and that the facts did not support an award for “anxiety.” The Third Circuit distinguished the present case in that CITGO’s own technical data showed that

Continue reading

by

Previously on this blog, we have discussed the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (“LMMA”) and its requirement that “all claims against healthcare providers be reviewed or ‘filtered’ through a medical review panel before proceeding to any other court.” A plaintiff who fails to do this is subject to the defendant’s “exception of prematurity,” which is a procedural mechanism by which the defendant can petition the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim until the medical review panel has properly conducted its review. The defendants in the case of Heacock v. Cook attempted to invoke the exception in a case that involved a sexual relationship between a doctor and his patient.

In December of 2005, Margaret Heacock was admitted to the Palmetto Addiction Recovery Center (“Palmetto”) in Rayville for an inpatient substance abuse treatment program. After being discharged in May of 2006, she underwent outpatient treatment which continued through January of 2008. In 2009, Heacock filed two lawsuits against Palmetto and her treating physician, Dr. Douglas Cook. Both suits alleged essentially the same facts: that Dr. Cook “entered into an inappropriate, sexual relationship” with Heacock during the time she was his patient; one suit’s theory of recovery was based on intentional tort, the other on negligence. Dr. Cook and Palmetto filed exceptions of prematurity, seeking to have all claims dismissed in the trial court and instead brought before the medical review panel. After a hearing, the trial court determined that Heacock’s claims sounded primarily in medical malpractice and therefore required a review by the medical panel. Thus, the trial court dismissed Heacock’s suits without prejudice. Heacock appealed, arguing that it was error for the trial court to require the panel’s review given that her allegations gave rise to a general tort claim, and not a medical malpractice claim.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeal noted that the LMMA applies only to “malpractice” as defined by the statute, while other tort liability on the part of a health care provider is governed by general tort law. Further, Louisiana statute provides separate and distinct definitions for “malpractice” and “tort,” the former extending only to unintentional actions. Thus, “by definition, ‘malpractice’ does not include the intentional acts of the health care provider.” Noting that “Dr. Cook took deliberate action as a physician by becoming involved in a sexual relationship with his patient,” the court reasoned that Heacock’s claim of intentional tort against Dr. Cook was not “malpractice” as defined by the LMMA. Instead, “this type of deliberate action, a sexual relationship, has been deemed to be an intentional tort, and, as such, not considered a malpractice claim.” The court, concluding that the trial court erred in granting Dr. Cook’s exception of prematurity for Heacock’s claim of intentional tort, reversed the trial court’s judgment as to the intentional tort action and affirmed the trial court’s judgment as to the negligence claim.

Continue reading

by

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently provided guidance on the jurisdictional limit for proper filings in Louisiana civil courts. At issue in the case of Thompson v. State Farm was the jurisdictional limit required for proper filing in city court. While filing may seem to the unknowing person on the street like a minor issue, a failure to file a case in the correct district can have dire consequences for the case of a well-intending plaintiff.

In Thompson, the plaintiff sought damages from injuries she sustained in a rear-end chain reaction collision allegedly caused by a driver insured by State Farm. In her filing, she named the driver at fault and State Farm as defendants. Thompson’s husband joined the suit and sought damages for loss of consortium, medical expenses, and loss of his wife’s income due to the injuries she suffered. In their petitions, which were filed in Alexandria City Court, the plaintiffs explicitly demanded an amount “less than the jurisdictional maximum of [the] court.” The Alexandria City Court entered judgment for the plaintiff, awarding her $50,000 in general damages and her husband $20,000 for loss of consortium and $30,000 for past and future medical expenses on behalf of the community. Subsequently, State Farm filed an exception for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that it was improper for the city court to have heard the case since the amount of damages awarded exceeded the court’s jurisdictional limit of $50,000. The appellate court agreed, vacating the judgment and remanding the case to the lower court in order to transfer the action to a court of competent jurisdiction.

The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the ruling, finding that the test for subject matter jurisdiction of a city court is the amount in dispute, or the amount demanded by the plaintiff. According to the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, the Alexandria City Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the district court in civil cases where the amount in dispute does not exceed $50,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Since both plaintiffs unequivocally limited the amount demanded to “an amount less than the jurisdictional maximum of… yet within the jurisdictional limits of [the Alexandria city] court,” the Supreme Court concluded that the city court had proper subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reinstated the trial court’s judgment but remanded the case on another issue.

Continue reading

by

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.

Continue reading

by

Unfortunate instances can occur when a wild animal is involved. The First Circuit Court of Appeal for the State of Louisiana ruled that defendants Mr. and Mrs. Rivett, who were sued in addition to their insurer, are not liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff when he was riding their horse. The plaintiff sued under an ordinary negligence claim under Article 2321 of the Civil Code of Louisiana (amended in 1996), which renders the owner of an animal liable for damage caused by the animal. For the owners of all animals except dogs, an ordinary negligence standard applies. For dogs, a strict liability standard was retained.

In order to recover under Article 2321, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the defendant was required to adhere to a specific standard of care (the duty factor); (2) the defendant did not adhere to the appropriate standard (the breach of duty factor); (3) the defendant’s failure to adhere to the standard in fact caused the plaintiff to be injured (the cause-in-fact factor); (4) the injuries of the plaintiff were legally caused by  defendant’s failure to adhere to the standard (the degree of liability or sphere of protection factor); and (5) the plaintiff’s actual damages (the damages factor). If the plaintiff fails to show any of these elements, there is no liability. The First Circuit referred to this analysis as the duty/risk analysis.

On appeal, the plaintiff asserted that the trial court committed five legal errors. The First Circuit found that the trial court did err by not instructing the jury with the correct standard with which to evaluate the defendants’ conduct and therefore set aside the jury verdict finding for the defendants. The court reviewed the case de novo, without giving any weight to the factual findings of the incorrectly instructed jury as it usually would, and still found that the plaintiff had not been able to establish that the defendants were negligent for the injuries caused by the startled horse.

Continue reading

by

In 1996, a group of plaintiffs filed a petition for damages against the city of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge alleging that the operation and maintenance of the North Wastewater Treatment Facility caused personal inconvenience, mental suffering, embarrassment, and personal injuries, threatening their health and safety, as well as damaged their land and property. The trial court awarded monetary damages to nineteen plaintiffs for stigma damages and added plaintiffs back who had been dismissed for no property interested, awarding damages for discomfort and inconvenience. However, in a 2009 decision (that can be found here: 2009CA1076), the Louisiana Court of Appeals reversed many of the damage awards based on errors of law.

On appeal, the Louisiana Court of Appeals considered whether the trial court erred because the prescriptive period had expired, erred in awarding damages out of the 1997 expansion of the plant, or erred calculating damage amounts. Under La.R.S.9:5624, the prescriptive period for public property damage claims like this one is two years. The court agreed with plaintiffs that the period did not lapse because the latest expansion of the sewage plant can be viewed as a new public work event – thus plaintiffs were only responsible to file suit within two years of the 1998 expansion, not within two years of the plant’s original opening in 1960.

The trial court awarded damages under Article I Section 4 of the Louisiana Constitution, which provides that “property shall not be taken or damages by the state or its political subdivisions except for public purposes and with just compensation paid to the owner.” The Louisiana Supreme Court has addressed inverse condemnations like this one in the past (where the state is not taking other’s property, but rather damaging it through their own property) and noted that “Despite the legislative failure to provide a procedure to seek redress when property is damaged or taken without the proper exercise of eminent domain this Court has held that a cause of action must arise out of the self-executing nature of the constitutional command to pay just compensation.” As such, individuals whose land is damaged by the government have constitutional redress.

Continue reading

by

Previously on this blog, we examined the concept of a “substitute vehicle” for purposes of extending insurance coverage for an auto that is used only temporarily and in place of a policyholder’s usual car. In this situation, the insurer is required by state law to extend the same coverage to the substitute car as was in place for the regular vehicle. This requirement, however, does not necessarily apply to a vehicle that a driver simply borrows from another ownerin addition to the vehicle covered by his policy. A vehicle under this arrangement is known as a “non-owned” auto and, as the plaintiff in Burns v. Couvillionlearned, coverage is determined by the language of the owner’s policy.

On October 12, 2005, Linda Burns was driving on Highway 1 in Simmesport when she was rear-ended by a bean harvester farm vehicle operated by Burton Dupuis. At the time of the accident, Dupuis was engaged in work for his employer, Victor Lachney. The bean harvester was owned by Ted and Don Couvillion and had been loaned to Lachney for use by Dupuis that day. Burns filed a lawsuit for damages against the parties and also Progressive Insurance, alleging that Progressive had issued a policy to Lachney which applied to the bean harvester. Progressive admitted that it had issued a policy to Lachney that provided coverage on a different vehicle but denied that coverage extended to the bean harvester. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and the trial court granted judgment in favor of Progressive.

On appeal, Burns argued that coverage should apply to the bean harvester because the Progressive policy included an “Employer’s Non-Ownership Liability Endorsement,” which stated that “[t]he definition of insured auto is modified to include a non-owned auto when you or any of your employees use the non-owned auto in your business.” Progressive countered that the policy had not been modified by the Endorsement because, although it was among the various endorsements and other forms that accompanied the policy, it was not listed on the policy’s Declarations Page which specifically identified the forms that modified the policy. In fact, the policy contained the following language:

Continue reading

by

Under Louisiana law, an issuer of a property insurance policy is required to follow certain procedures when renewing the policy. Essentially, an insurance company must give a property owner 30 days’ notice of either 1) its decision not to renew a policy, or 2) the homeowner’s option to renew when it expires. La. R.S. 22:887(G). Case law adds the stipulation that, in most cases, an insurer’s failure to provide this notice will result in an automatic renewal of the policy. If there is a dispute, the insurer faces an initial burden to prove that it mailed the required notice, which creates a presumption the insured received the notice. The property owner may rebut this presumption by offering evidence that the notice was never delivered. The ultimate factual determination must be made by the trial court.

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently reaffirmed this approach in the case of Nolan v. Mabray. On June 18, 2005, Wilson Mabray and Marsh Nolan were shooting off fireworks at Mabray’s family farm in Union Parish. Wilson shot a bottle rocket which struck and severely injured Marsh. Wilson’s father (“Mabray”) maintained a farm-owner’s policy issued by Shelter Insurance Company. When March sued for his injuries, Shelter disputed that the policy was in effect at the time of the accident, arguing that the policy had lapsed: Shelter asserted that it mailed Mabray a renewal notice on April 28, 2005 which stated the premium was due on June 2, 2005. However, the company did not receive payment until nearly a month late, on June 29, 2005. At trial, a Shelter employee offered testimony about the company’s computer-generated renewal notices and automated mailing process. The employee produced records of the company’s April 28 letter and also a separate “lapse letter” mailed on June 20 that warned Mabray his policy had been cancelled. Mabray’s local agent, who was copied on the lapse letter, personally contacted Mabray on June 29 and collected payment the same day. On the issue of whether he ever received the renewal notice, Mabray testified by way of deposition that he did not remember receiving it, and that if he had, he would have paid the premium right away. However, Mabray testified it was possible he overlooked the notice as April through June were especially busy months on the farm during which he “might have stuff sit on [his] desk for a couple of weeks before it gets opened.” Mabray further stated that “[he] could certainly not swear that it did not come to [his] mailbox and actually get on [his] desk.” He also admitted that several other insurance policies with Shelter had lapsed in the past because he did not pay the premium on time. Based on this evidence, the trial court found that Shelter did mail the renewal notice to Mabray on April 28, 2005 and, therefore, the policy was not in effect at the time of the bottle rocket incident because it had lapsed.

The Second Circuit reversed, finding that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that the renewal notice had been mailed. This decision was based primarily on the fact that Shelter did not introduce evidence of any person’s actual knowledge that the notice was mailed. The Louisiana Supreme court disagreed. Applying the manifest error standard of review, the Court held that

Continue reading

by

In Louisiana, a general tort claim has a prescriptive period of one year. This means that the plaintiff must file a claim within one year of the injury bringing about the claim. The prescriptive period has been implemented by the Louisiana legislature in LSA-C.C. art 3492 and a brief summary gives us the following guidelines:

These actions must be filed within one year. The year mark starts on the day that the injury or damage occurs on however, there are some exceptions to this rule of one year. The exceptions would be in the individual is a minor or actions involving individuals with permanent disability, brought under the Louisiana Products Liability Act or the law of the state which governs actions of product liability at the time the injury or damage has occurred.

Thus, no one except a child or interdict can complain of the prescriptive period because it is clearly established by law. All attorneys are aware of this period and any action, in order to be timely, must be filed within the one year period. However, Louisiana law also states that this period can be altered by legislation. This means that article 3492 is a fall back provision for cases where the legislature has not created another sort of prescriptive period. Different prescriptive periods are implemented due to the nature of the injury or damage. For example, medical malpractice claims also have a general one year prescriptive period, but the legislation creates leeway to bring a claim past the one year prescriptive period. The prescriptive period for a survival claim based on medical malpractice is implemented by LSA-R.S.9:5828 as follows:

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