Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
Navigating the criminal justice system is a scary, stressful and, often harrowing experience for anyone, but these feelings are generally exacerbated when a defendant is mentally ill. The unfortunate story of Willie Warren Harper follows as an illustration of the litigation that can arise in these situations. After being arrested for theft in 1984, Mr. Harper was admitted to Feliciana Forensic Facility (FFF), a part of Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH). He was found not guilty by reason of insanity and, when deemed to no longer be a danger to himself or others, was to be released on the condition that the Orleans Inmate Treatment Service (OITS) would help him enter a halfway home and file for social security and welfare. However, he remained in DHH’s legal custody until 1997.
In December of 1997, his attorney filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus (a formal, legal recourse against illegal detention). After he was released, he filed a claim for illegal confinement but passed away in 2003. His two children filed a Petition for Damages against the State of Louisiana, through DHH, to continue their father’s lawsuit and remedy the wrongs perpetrated against their father.
The jury at the Trial Court found for Mr. Harper and his children and awarded them $4,050,000 collectively. DHH appealed the Trial Court’s decision claiming numerous errors. Two of the issues on appeal concerning the monetary amount were both overturned by the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal and the award was reduced.
In a medical malpractice case, often lawyers for either or both sides will hire what is called an expert witness. These cases are complex and frequently require such experts to explain to the judge and jury the medical procedure at issue and what went wrong. These necessary experts, however, are not inexpensive and the winning party in a lawsuit can often come out ahead but at a serious financial setback. This is what happened in a recent case out of Ouachita. And due to a lack of evidence on record in support of expert witness fees, the winning party had no chance of recovering these costs. 
Employees can pit employers against each other just like children do with parents. If permission is limited by one person the employee/child will simply repeat their request to the other party. What an employee is permitted to do can be ambiguous. In a recent automobile accident case out of Shreveport however, the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed that employer “permission” in Louisiana provides a wide berth to an employee and can result in unexpected liability. 
On the sea, a life jacket can save your life. In the courtroom, the life jacket that can save your case is provable and relevant facts. Seaman, Frank Glaze, recently found this to be true when a Louisiana Court dismissed his Jones Act personal injury case due to a lack of evidence.
What are your legal options when you experience job-related hearing loss? Are you limited to benefits under workers’ compensation laws or can you file a lawsuit for possibly a considerable monetary amount? That was the essential question put forth to the Supreme Court of Louisiana in a recent case out of West Monroe. 
Everyone has been in the awkward situation where, as soon as they leave the doctor’s office, a myriad of questions that they forgot to ask are suddenly recalled, leaving you with no choice but to call your physician and try to get some answers. Unfortunately, these calls are not always answered. Recently the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal found that if complications arise out of failing to answer or return the call, your doctor may actually be breaching the standard of care.
An accident at the workplace is never fun, not for the employer, and certainly not for the employee. In addition to the difficulty of the injury itself, determining who pays for the medical treatment is often in dispute. Whether there is enough evidence to show that the accident actually caused the injury helps a judge decide if the employer is required to pay. This connection may also play into whether the payment will be limited to a $750 cap.
Over the last few years, we have all seen the videos of police arrest that seem to involve excessive methods. These videos stoke controversy and encourage a discussion on what constitutes “excessive force” during an arrest. Even with video evidence, the actions of the police and the arrestee are subject to multiple interpretations. The search for the truth becomes even harder when the arrest is not videoed and the participants all give different testimony on those events. The following case out of Shreveport Louisiana demonstrates how the Civil court system handles differing testimony on allegations of excessive force during an arrest.
Evidence in a trial can take almost any shape or form. For murder trials, people think of weapons. For fraud cases, perhaps incriminating documents comes to mind. For a personal injury case, the options are almost limitless yet likely “flip flop” is not the first image that pops up; especially in a maritime case. Yet in this case, Garrard Myers makes quite the fuss over the state of his sandals.
In the world of workers’ compensation, being injured while on the job is an obvious requirement. Things tend to get muddled however in these cases over accident dates, pre-existing injuries, and the actual cause of the injury. In the following case, Carlos Harvey had all these things working against him in his claim for workers’ compensation benefits against his employer Sol’s Pipe & Steel (“Sol’s”).