Articles Posted in Civil Matter

word_recessed_into_concete-1024x768The old Disney adage from the original Bambi movie, “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all,” is probably wise life advice. Still, when it comes to legal advice, any good attorney will tell you, “if you can’t establish the falsity of the claims said about you, then you likely don’t have a defamation claim.” Nevertheless, after some not-so-nice comments appeared in a local newspaper article detailing a Louisiana attorney’s alleged outburst outside a courtroom, he sued for defamation. Still, the courts were ultimately unconvinced by his arguments.

Attorney Martin Regan (“Regan”) represented St. Bernard Parish President David Peralta (“Peralta”) in a case involving multiple criminal indictments, including perjury and filing false records related to using campaign funds for his personal gambling. A grand jury found Peralta guilty on those charges brought by the District Attorney’s Office with the help of Assistant Attorney Generals David Caldwell (“Caldwell”) and Molly Lancaster (“Lancaster”). At some point during or after the proceedings, Regan confronted Lancaster about an issue in the case. According to Caldwell, the conversation between the attorneys escalated to Regan threatening Lancaster and swearing at her. 

Caldwell shared his version of the events he witnessed with the New Orleans Advocate, which published his account in a newspaper article. In part, Caldwell was quoted stating that Regan was “threatening his female assistant,” “dropping F-bombs on her,” and thought that if he had gotten close enough to Regan, “he might have taken a swing at [Caldwell].” The newspaper also reached out to Regan for his comments, who, after calling Caldwell a “liar,” continued to state that he “didn’t lose his cool” and “never swore at anybody.” After that, Regan filed a lawsuit against Caldwell, the State Attorney General, and the Office of the Attorney General, seeking damages for defamation. 

casino_note_roadway_mark-1024x683Casinos can be a chaotic mix of adrenaline and alcohol. While a cultural staple of sportsmanship and skill, it is unsurprising that injuries often occur at casinos. The casino may be liable in some instances, but casino guests are also responsible for acting reasonably and taking precautions to ensure their safety, such as moderating alcohol consumption. When a guest under the influence is injured while on casino property, a required showing of causation may be absent due to the contributory factor of intoxication.

Lee Edminson suffered a traumatic brain injury after falling down an escalator at Harrah’s New Orleans Casino in the early hours of the morning. Edminson’s blood alcohol content at the time of the accident was over three times the legal limit in Louisiana. He brought suit against the casino, alleging negligence in the maintenance of the escalator. The cause of action of the premises liability claims was La. Civ. Code article 2322, damage caused by building ruin, and article 2317, acts of others and things in custody. 

The trial court found in favor of the defendants on a  motion for summary judgment. The court, therefore, held that there was no causation because of the intervening cause of Edminson’s extreme intoxication. The plaintiffs appealed that judgment because they felt there was a dispute of fact about whether the escalator created an unreasonably dangerous condition that was not open and obvious. 

hospital_bedside_beds_ceiling-1024x768Having a sick child can be a nerve-racking time. Having a sick infant is even scarier as you, as a parent, feel helpless. In these times, caregivers turn to the experts in medical centers to help. But, unfortunately, a hospital can’t always help before it is too late. 

In June of 2012, 13-month-old Landon Lee was transported via ambulance to Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center (OLOL) due to vomiting and respiratory distress. Landon was treated in the emergency room by Dr. Boudreaux, where he was determined to have cardiac issues. He was admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit at OLOL. Later the same morning, Landon Lee was transferred via helicopter to Ochsner Medical Center in New Orleans to be placed in an Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation unit (ECMO). Within an hour of arriving at Ochsner, Landon died. The autopsy determined 13 month-old Landon passed from cardiomegaly or an enlarged heart. 

Landon’s mother filed a lawsuit on her behalf and for her deceased son against both OLOL and Dr. Boudreaux, the pediatrician and emergency room physician who treated Landon at OLOL. Lee asserts in her claim that Boudreaux and OLOL failed to properly care for and treat her son while at OLOL. Along with the allegations in her lawsuit, Lee attached an affidavit from Dr. Meliones, a board-certified pediatric cardiologist specializing in pediatric critical care, to support Ms. Lee’s negligence claim. 

padlock_grating_insurance_security-1024x768Protection from on-the-job injury is vital to any employee, especially those doing manual labor. But when so many types and subtypes of insurance coverage are involved in a single policy, how can you know when you’re covered? And what happens when you can’t tell if specific coverage applies to you? Can you still get protection and justice?

In August 2011, plaintiff William Weems was an employee of Cane River Construction LLC (Cane River). While on the job, Weems was driving a car owned by Cane River when another vehicle struck him from behind, and he suffered severe injuries. Defendant Houston Speciality was the automobile insurer for Cane River, and following the accident, Weems and his family sought uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) coverage from Houston Speciality for his injuries. Houston Speciality denied that its policy extended UM coverage to Cane River and instead filed a third-party complaint against its insurance agent employed by Moreman Moore

Moreman Moore’s agent Mr. Dickerson was responsible for completing Houston Specialty’s insurance file. Mr. Dickerson is the agent with whom Cane River’s owner, Mr. Moran, secured the insurance agreement. The Louisiana Commissioner of Insurance requires insurance companies to employ UM waiver forms in their policies and allow their clients to accept or reject UM coverage. Dickerson delivered this waiver to Mr. Moran, and Mr. Moran denied UM coverage via the release. Therefore, Cane River’s insurance policy with Houston Speciality on the accident date thus did not include any UM coverage.

hammer_books_law_court_0-768x1024Knowing 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. 

craftsmen_building_scaffold_19584-1024x679The 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.

boat_baltimore_fire_boat-1024x647Juries are one of the most important foundations in our legal system. Their role is to determine the truth behind the sometimes confusing legal language and provide justice. Juries rely on the information given to them by lawyers in the form of Jury Questions. However, when an alleged ambiguous term appears in the questionnaire, the court must determine if that specific word tainted the jury’s verdict. 

Richard Bosarge filed a lawsuit against his employer Cheramie Marine to recover damages from injuries sustained on a voyage when using one of Cherami Marine’s utility vessels. Borsarge had applied to work at Cheramie Marine, and as part of the pre-employment physical, he was asked if he had any prior back pain or injury. Borsarge told Marine he did not, concealing that he had back pain, and sought medical care. While on board one of Marine’s vessels in July 2014, Bosarge claimed the captain encountered “high waves,” Bosarge was injured when the captain decided to go through them. 

At trial, Cheramie Marine brought evidence that the waves were not, in fact, “violent,” and Bosarge’s pain was not from falling but from being seasick. Marine also brought in a medical expert who testified Bosarge’s pre-injury MRI scan looked worse than the post-injury MRI scan. The jury concluded they did not think Bosarge suffered an accident on July 18, 2014, and he did conceal material medical facts during the pre-employment medical examination and interview process. The trial court agreed with the jury’s findings. 

paragraph_attorney_judge_process-682x1024The jury process is considered the great equalizer when it comes to the everyday man fighting large corporations. Juries in Louisiana are made up of twelve people tasked with evaluating the evidence and legal arguments of the parties. While juries do, their best mistakes can be made and corrected by the Judge overseeing the case. So what happens if a jury leaves out critical items of a damage award? Can a Judge increase a jury’s award of damages? The following lawsuit out of Lake Charles helps answer this question. 

Dwight Minton was a passenger in a car when he was hit by another vehicle. As a result, he filed a lawsuit against Christopher Gutierrez, the driver of the other vehicle, and GEICO Casualty Company, among others. In addition, Minton sought damages for the injuries sustained in the accident. 

The jury returned a verdict in favor of Minton, awarding damages of fifty-eight thousand five hundred dollars. Believing this award was too low, Minton filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), asking the trial Judge to increase the award. The Judge granted this motion and awarded damages over five hundred thousand dollars. 

roof_tile_roofs_house-1024x768If you are injured by someone in their course of employment, you can contact their employer for your compensation. But unfortunately, employers hire independent contractors to skirt around liability when their workers mess up. Below is a cautionary tale about how cascading levels of independent contractors left an injured plaintiff with limited sources for his injuries. 

Jarrett Lemmon was in an accident involving Jonathan De La Mora that resulted in damage and injury. Lemmon sued Jonathan for causing the accident. Later, Lemmon amended his suit to add Jonathan’s employer, Rosendo De La Mora, and RoofCorp USA, LLC, as responsible for the accident, claiming that Jonathan was working within the scope of his employment when he struck Lemmon. RoofCorp USA, LLC was the parent company that hired Rosendo De La Mora to install roofs as an independent contractor. Rosendo De La Mora then hired his son Jonathan to help install the roofs, separate from RoofCorp’s payroll. RoofCorp filed a motion for summary judgment at the district court level, claiming they could not be held responsible; it was granted.  Unhappy with the ruling, Lemmon appealed.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals was then tasked with deciding if the trial court properly awarded RoofCorp summary judgment. To do so, the appeals court must determine if Jonathan was an employee of Roofcorp at the time of the accident, and the court must decide if Jonathan was in the scope of his employment when the accident occurred. Lemmon claims that Jonathan was an employee of RoofCorp in the court of his employment when he hit Lemmon. 

hospital_corridor_operating_room-1-1024x681Some 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.

Contact Information