Business Dispute

May 7, 2023

Strict Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Kill Lawsuit Against Dillard University

hammer_books_law_court_0-768x1024 Knowing and adhering to the Rules of Civil Procedure in bringing a lawsuit cannot be understated in its importance. Before a lawsuit makes it to court, various steps and procedures must be followed for the case to proceed. Chief among these pre-trial requirements is establishing that the court has the power to decide the present case, otherwise known as the court’s jurisdiction over the case. If a court lacks judicial control over a party to the case or the subject matter involved, the case should not proceed, and the court cannot hand down a valid, binding judgment.

In a lawsuit alleging sexual harassment, assault, mental and physical abuse, perjury, and character defamation, Tyniski Evans represented herself against Dillard University (Dillard). Dillard responded to Evans’s complaint by moving for dismissal for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which the court may grant relief. See Fed.Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (6). The district court granted Dillard’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed without prejudice, permitting Evans to bring the case again.

Evans appealed this dismissal, arguing the court had federal subject matter jurisdiction due to Evans receiving financial aid from the Department of Education. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal by the district court, finding that Evans’s complaint did not sufficiently show that the federal court had the power to adjudicate her lawsuit.

May 6, 2023

Are Third-Party Contractors Caught in a Workers’ Compensation Loophole?

by Berniard Law Firm

craftsmen_building_scaffold_19584-1024x679 The evolving nature of employment now means the relationship between employer and employee can be indirect and through different contracting methods. In addition, many people employed by one company are, in fact, on the job doing work for another. A recent case in Louisiana highlights these distinctions and the risks posed to workers and their families when seeking compensation.

While working in 2013, Michael J. Louque Jr. was crushed to death by a piece of heavy machinery that rolled off the truck it was being loaded onto. Mr. Louque was employed by River Parish Maintenance (RPM) but was working at the Motiva Enterprises, LLC (“Motiva”) manufacturing complex. Upon his death, the family of Mr. Louque filed a lawsuit against Motiva and others, seeking compensation for his wrongful death.

The contract that brought Mr. Louque to the Motiva manufacturing complex was actually between RPM and Shell Oil Products US (“Shell”). This point is crucial in understanding the state of the Louque’s litigation, as Louisiana law prohibits employees from directly suing their employers in a tort claim rather than pursuing worker’s compensation benefits. See Deshotel v. Guichard Operating Company, Inc.

May 2, 2023

Employment Misconduct and its Threat to Unemployment Benefits

by Berniard Law Firm

hospital_corridor_operating_room-1-1024x681 Some mistakes can cost you your job. Rules and regulations are drafted and enacted in the medical field to ensure a safe work environment. Before breaking a rule to get your job done, consider the danger in which you could place yourself or your interests. The following lawsuit from Slidell shows how unemployment benefits can be taken away due to employee misconduct.

Rita Jimenez was a supervisor of phlebotomy for the Slidell Memorial Hospital. Her boss tasked Jimenez to handle scheduling for her area. Jimenez created a schedule that included several employees that lacked the required CPR certification; their certifications had expired, or they needed more training. Jimenez was caught and warned about this scheduling. The problem is that Jimenez could not short-staff her area, but there needed to be more certified employees. She scheduled more uncertified workers; she was fired after her third scheduling error.

Jimenez sought a judgment certifying her right to unemployment benefits. Her workplace administrative review board (Board of Review) found that she was rightly denied unemployment because she was fired for misconduct. Jimenez appealed that ruling to the district court, which affirmed the Board’s decision. Jimenez then appealed that district court decision to Louisiana’s First Circuit Court of Appeals. In the appeal, Jimenez argued even though she was responsible for scheduling employees, her boss was ultimately responsible for terminating employees who lacked the requisite certifications. Therefore Jimenez argued there was no misconduct in her actions.

April 27, 2023

When Car Accidents Get Messy: How Clear Language and Resolved Claims Can Help You Win Your Lawsuit

by Berniard Law Firm

car_accident_accident_dig-1024x775 Have you ever been involved in a car accident? It’s a scary experience that can have serious consequences. If you’ve been injured in an accident, you may be entitled to compensation for your injuries and damages. But what happens when multiple parties are involved? That’s the question at the heart of a case out of Louisiana, where a car accident resulted in a lawsuit between multiple parties. The case raises important questions about the legal responsibility of parties in a car accident and the process for resolving disputes in court.

Shaw, a construction engineering company, allegedly had a labor agreement with HKA Power. The parties were bound by the Master Supplemental Labor Services Agreement (“Agreement”), which originally existed between HKA Power and Energy Delivery Services but was acquired by Shaw after the agreement was in place. According to Shaw, HKA Power was required to name Shaw/EDS as an additional named insured on their insurance policies once Shaw acquired EDS. The issue arose after a truck accident where Gregory Beasley, an HKA Power employee, was driving a truck owned by Shaw and rear-ended another truck driven by Justin Parker, injuring him and his passenger Gregory Gumpert.

Parker and Gumpert filed a lawsuit against Shaw, Zurich (Shaw’s alleged liability insurer), and Beasley. Zurich and Shaw then filed a third-party claim against HKA Power, alleging Beasley was an HKA Power employee and performed services for Shaw under the Agreement. HKA Enterprises, Inc. was later added as a third-party defendant, with Zurich and Shaw alleging HKA Enterprises was the parent company or successor entity to HKA Power and breached the labor agreement by not naming Shaw/EDS as an additional named insured.

April 22, 2023

Accident While Driving Your Car On The Job: You may not be covered!

by Berniard Law Firm

car_old_car_car-1024x683 Driving while on the job can be a common occurrence for many employees. Sometimes you may even use your personal vehicle on a workplace errand. If so, beware; Accidents happen, and your employer’s insurance may not cover you.

Kim Simon was struck by an uninsured motorist when driving her personal vehicle while doing her job. Simon’s vehicle was damaged, but her employer’s insurance would not pay to fix the damages. So Simon sued her employer’s insurance to get coverage for her personal vehicle.

Her company’s insurance provider argued that Simon’s personal vehicle was not covered under the policy because it was not a “covered auto” defined by the policy. Simon argued that because the auto policy did not list any “covered autos.” Further, she felt Louisiana revised statute 22:1295(1)(e) required the insurance policy to cover her unlisted car.

April 17, 2023

Injured on a Boat on Land, Can you File a Lawsuit with Maritime Claims?

by Berniard Law Firm

maritime_ship_daymark_65533-1024x768 Activities on the water carry inherent risks. If you are injured while on the water, laws of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction generally rule. There are also allowances to invoke admiralty jurisdiction for injuries on land. To do so, one must satisfy conditions of both location and connection with maritime activity. But what happens if you are injured on a boat on land? Can you file a lawsuit with maritime claims? The following lawsuit out of Manchac, Louisiana, helps answer this question in the context of a prescription argument.

Eddy Welch filed a lawsuit in October of 2013 against Jefferson Daniels to recover damages from bodily injuries he sustained from being a guest passenger on Daniel’s boat. While Welch attempted to come down from the boat’s upper level, a piece of steel rail caught his arm, and he sustained injuries. Welch claimed the injury was from a defect that posed an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of harm.

Procedural jostling caused Welch’s lawsuit to be transferred to another parish. Welch subsequently filed his amended petition with the new trial court, stating the incident falls under admiralty jurisdiction. Daniels then filed a motion for summary judgment and exception of prescription set forth under La. C.C. art. 3492.

April 16, 2023

Proving ADA Violations: Sufficient Evidence is Required for Discrimination Lawsuits

by Berniard Law Firm

psychology_psychotherapy_531071-1024x768 Discrimination in the workplace should never be accepted. If you feel that you have been discriminated against for age or disability reasons, the law allows you to seek damages. A lawsuit of that nature is not unlike others; proof and evidence are required to proceed with your claims. The following case out of New Orleans shows why sufficient evidence is required to proceed with a discrimination or hostile workplace claim.

Dr. Gerald Lahoste is a tenured associate professor in the Psychology Department at the University of New Orleans (UNO) Psychology Department. Dr. Lahoste filed a lawsuit against the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College (LSU), asserting his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act were violated. Dr. Lahoste alleged LSU did not provide him with reasonable accommodations for his major depressive disorder. He argued he had been harassed and discriminated against, and his journal articles and grant had decreased due to his request for accommodations.

LSU filed a motion for summary judgment, as they believed Dr. LaHoste could not prove discrimination or that a violation of Title VII. LSU also alleged that Dr. LaHoste failed to provide documentation regarding his diagnosis. Dr. LaHoste responded to the motion for summary judgment by arguing that LSU did not meet to discuss his condition. The trial court granted summary judgment for LSU, effectively ending his lawsuit. Dr. LaHoste appealed the trial court’s decision in hopes of overturning it.

April 8, 2023

Do You Have to Disclose a Personal Injury Claim to a Bankruptcy Court?

by Berniard Law Firm

u_s_customhouse_in-1024x768 Filing for bankruptcy can be an overwhelming experience. Many disclosures must be made, and failing to do so can have severe consequences for other legal matters. For example, what happens if you are involved in a personal injury lawsuit after filing bankruptcy? Must you disclose that claim to a bankruptcy court? The following lawsuit out of Louisiana answers that question and shows the consequences that can flow from the failure to disclose.

Helen and Robert Allen (HA) filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2009. In the five years, the court administered the HAs’ bankruptcy case, the HAs amended their case three times—one year after filing their initial bankruptcy case but before the three amendments. In 2010, Helen filed a personal injury lawsuit that alleged she was seriously and permanently injured when the stool she sat on broke apart.

The defendants in her personal injury case filed a motion for a summary judgment seeking to dismiss Helen’s lawsuit because they contended that HAs didn’t disclose the existence of the filing in their bankruptcy. Moreover, they argued the court should prevent HAs’ personal injury claim from proceeding based on judicial estoppel because HAs did not disclose the lawsuit to the bankruptcy court.

March 27, 2023

Terrebonne Auto Mechanic Injured Twice on the Job, Hospital that provided Medical Services Barred from Full Recovery

by Berniard Law Firm

tire_repairer_tire_mounting-1024x681 Injuring yourself while on the job is not fun for anyone, especially when your accident further exacerbates a previous workplace injury. What happens if you then try to seek retroactive benefits from your previous injury? You may run into an issue of prescription (otherwise known as the statute of limitations). A 2016 case from Terrebonne Parish explores how prescription can play out in a compound workplace injury.

Gerald Hellmers was a mechanic for the Port of New Orleans. On August 23, 2007, Hellmers injured his lower back while changing a tire as part of his duties at work. He required hospitalization and surgery at Tulane University Hospital and Clinic (“Tulane”). Worker’s compensation benefits were paid to Hellmers by the Port. Tulane sent the Port invoices totaling $118,000.00. The Port made some payments but not the total amount owed.

Hellmers re-injured his lower back while changing a truck battery on January 13, 2009. Again, Hellmers was hospitalized at Tulane, and the Port paid worker’s compensation benefits. Tulane billed for this treatment, but once again, the Port didn’t pay the total bill.

March 25, 2023

Can You Enforce an Indemnification Clause Without a Fault Finding?

by Berniard Law Firm

oil_rig_technology_sea-768x1024 Personal injury cases can be costly for all parties involved. Paying those costs can get confusing, especially when there is indemnification. Indemnification arises when a party is contractually obligated to foot the bill for attorney fees and defense costs. The question then arises, can you seek indemnification if fault was never established? This type of contractual clause and legal questions are the core issue in a recent appeal discussed below.

In 2002, Murphy Exploration and Production Company contracted with McDermott, Inc. to design and construct an offshore oil rig facility fixed to the seafloor adjacent to the State of Louisiana. Part of that contract provided that Murphy agreed to indemnify McDermott against claims, losses, and expenses.

James Hefren, a Murphy employee, filed a lawsuit against Murphy and McDermott, alleging an injury that occurred due to a defect on the facility. Eventually, McDermott filed a cross-claim against Murphy asserting that McDermott was entitled to indemnification, based on the 2002 contract between the two parties, for all costs related to its defense against Hefren’s lawsuit. The district court found that Hefren’s claims were barred and dismissed the claims with prejudice. Following that dismissal, McDermott sought indemnification for the expenses incurred in defending itself from Hefren’s suit. The district court entered a judgment for McDermott and awarded attorney costs. Murphy appealed the judgment.