Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
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.
Mr. Henry Gaffney was diagnosed with an aneurysm of the aortic sinus in 1998 and began treatment with Dr. Thomas Giles through the Louisiana State University Medical Center and Health Sciences Center (LSU) in July 2000. On July 2001, Mr. Gaffney underwent surgery to treat his condition at University of Alabama-Birmingham School of Medicine. Mr. Gaffney’s surgeon, Dr. Albert D. Pacifico, informed him that although the procedure was a success, he would need to undergo Coumadin (a blood thinner) therapy managed by his cardiologist, Dr. Giles, for the remainder of his life.
Shortly after meeting Dr. Giles and getting all the information about his new therapy, Mr. Gaffney started suffering from temporary blindness and other ailments. Even though he tried contacting Dr. Giles multiple times, he never got a reply. Eventually, Mr. Gaffney had to be admitted into the East Jefferson General Hospital emergency room. His attending there, Dr. David Learned, informed him he was overdosing on Coumadin.
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”). 
Underinsurance policies provide drivers an extra layer of protection. These policies compensate drivers for injuries suffered in accidents with uninsured or underinsured drivers, but the process of claiming under these policies can be problematic. Ted Luquette encountered this difficulty after he was injured in a car accident in Abbeville. 
Lawsuits that are rooted in car accidents are typically cut and dry; it is easy to determine the party at fault and to determine the party that should pay for the costs of damage. However, a case arising out of Monroe proves that this is not always the case. This perplexing lawsuit involves a situation in which the at-fault party was not covered under the vehicle’s insurance. 
It is often the case that although technically legal, certain lawsuits will not be popular amongst the general public because the court’s reasons for its decision just will not make sense at an emotional level. Despite this fact, people should take notice of the fact that courts rule based on what the law deems to be just and fair. This sort of a fact may only be small comfort to the Toups, who lost their son and want the party or parties responsible to be held accountable for the loss they suffered. 
A person may seek help from the federal court system when that person feels that they have been cheated or wronged.
Contract disputes can often be complicated when multiple parties and corporations are involved. Courts are forced to sort out multiple claims and counterclaims and figure out who is accountable for what. Even after a decision is made, there can be multiple appeals and judgments that a higher court is asked to review. In complicated cases, it’s common for mistakes to happen, as a case that landed in the Fifth Circuit will demonstrate, and the appeal process is available for parties to have their case double checked.