Articles Posted in Civil Matter

hospital_hospital_corridor_921034-682x1024Personal injuries occur every day in society and should be taken seriously. Yet, courts must judge the importance of each accident. As a result, not all injuries are ruled in favor of the injured individual. A lawyer representing an injured person must investigate the circumstances and facts surrounding the injury with due diligence. The lawyer must show the court that his client’s case should be heard because the evidence says so. However, when video evidence of a slip and fall injury in a hospital is not obtained, should a court allow the lawyer to continue investigating his client’s accident? A case out of Baton Rouge explores this question and reminds lawyers of their responsibility to act diligently in attaining evidence for their clients.

Bobbie Davis Cole was visiting her sister, a Baton Rouge General Medical Center (BGR) patient. When Ms. Cole entered the hospital, she slipped and fell on a slippery substance on the floor and was then helped by the security guard. Ms. Cole filed a lawsuit against BGR, claiming the security guard told her that others had fallen in the same area she had. 

BGR moved for summary judgment. A summary judgment would allow for the dismissal of the case. In filing this motion, BGR argued that Ms. Cole could not prove a foreign substance on the hospital floor injured her. Ms. Cole took the testimony of the security guard, who asserted he looked at the video camera footage and did not see anything on the floor. At the hearing for summary judgment, Ms. Cole filed a motion of continuance, which would allow her to continue the discovery process, contending that she was not ready to go forth with the hearing without having the surveillance video of her fall. The trial court denied her continuance motion and granted the hospital’s summary judgment dismissing Ms. Cole’s case. An appeal of the ruling followed.

bandit_playmobil_shield_western-683x1024It’s reasonable to want to feel safe at work, no matter your job. Employers must keep their employees free from unnecessary danger and generally provide a safe working environment. Even given this duty, the law doesn’t always hold them responsible for the actions of criminals. A recent lawsuit out of Lafayette discusses the principles court asses to determine what remedies are available to employees when crime happens.

Melody Smith (Smith), an employee of Circle K, was robbed at gunpoint by Marcus Sam while making a bank deposit for the store. After the incident, Smith filed a lawsuit and was eligible for workers’ compensation benefits. Workers’ Compensation is an exclusive remedy for accidents in the workplace. R.S. 23:1032(A)(1)(a).

Smith later filed an amended and supplemental lawsuit that claimed Circle K committed intentional torts of assault and battery on her because they created an environment for her to be robbed. Smith argued that because Sam overheard her manager telling her to make a bank deposit the robbery was inevitable. Circle K disputed Smith’s claims and filed a motion for summary judgment. 

cable_electricity_cables_electric-575x1024Have you ever noticed that running alongside power lines are other types of cables? They are not easily distinguishable from one another, but communication lines and support lines also run along our electricity source. Looking so similar, it would be hard for an ordinary person to tell to whom each line belonged. One New Orleans man’s inability to determine the owner of such a wire almost prohibited him from filing a lawsuit against a well-known communications company.  

Donald Morgan was at Canal Street and South Jefferson Davis Parkway intersection in New Orleans when he tripped over a guy wire (anchoring wires) and was injured. Mr. Morgan’s attorney personally inspected the utility pole attached to the guy wire before filing a lawsuit. The pole was marked with the name of a company that was no longer in business. Mr. Morgan’s attorney traced the pole to Entergy New Orleans, Inc. (“Entergy”).

After filing a lawsuit naming Entergy as the defendant, Mr. Morgan sent discovery requests to Entergy requesting the name of the guy wire owner.   The requests specifically asked for the names of any person/company with any interest in the guy wire and the names of any person/company responsible for maintaining the wire. In response, Entergy merely attached a joint use agreement for the pole between Entergy and Bellsouth.   

lever_metal_handle_door-1024x685Imagine getting hurt on the job, seeking help from a good attorney, following all the court’s requirements, and still having all your claims denied because your opponent did not appear for a deposition. For Raymond Schultz (“Schultz”), an employee of Blanchard Contractors, this scenario became his reality after the District Court in Orleans Parish dismissed all his claims and denied his motion for a new trial.

Back in 2012, Schultz was injured in a work-related accident after he inadvertently touched an unmarked pressurized lever that spewed rust and slag, striking him in the stomach and knocking him into some nearby water from which he was later rescued. As a result, Schultz filed a negligence lawsuit against Cox Operating, L.L.C. (“Cox”) and Terry Vincent (“Vincent”) (collectively “Defendants”), alleging that each of the Defendants mentioned above fault caused his injuries.

Defendants countered Schultz’s claims using a legal argument. They argued that since Schultz was Cox’s statutory employee, this made him Vincent’s statutory co-employee, and Schultz’s sole remedy falls under the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act. Defendants argued this legal argument would cause his negligence claims to be effectively barred from the lawsuit. After the District Court heard motions on each side of these arguments, it allowed Schultz six months to conduct discovery to build his case for trial.

hospital_ward_hospital_medical_0-1024x683Sickness often begets a doctor’s visit, and sometimes severe illness calls for a trip to the emergency room. So when parents, David Pitts, Jr. and Kenyetta Gurley, arrived at Hood Memorial Hospital in Amite City, Louisiana, with their daughter, Lyric, it’s likely neither expected to leave there without their daughter’s health restored.

 Upon arrival at the emergency room, Lyric’s mother described her daughter’s symptoms as breathing “funny” and faster than usual and disclosed that she had thrown up twice earlier in the day. The hospital recorded that “Lyric had not had any liquid intake since 4:00 PM, and no output (i.e., dirty diaper) since 2:00 PM.” Around 7:30 PM, after Dr. Rhoda Jones (“Dr. Jones”) examined Lyric, she noted Lyric’s “shortness of breath” and “wheezing” in her lungs. Dr. Jones’s initial diagnosis was “asthma, possible pneumonia, and RSV,” so she ordered a chest x-ray, CBC (complete blood count), CMP (comprehensive metabolic panel), and a test for RSV (respiratory syncytial virus). The results of the chest x-ray came back normal, and the RSV test came back negative. Nevertheless, one of the nurses tending to Lyric had asked Dr. Jones at least three times if Lyric could be taken to another facility. Still, Dr. Jones insisted that no one would admit Lyric with negative or normal lab results and no fever.

 Lyric stayed at the hospital overnight. However, by 2:30 AM, Dr. Jones was called in to check on Lyric, and at approximately 3:00 PM, while she was holding Lyric, the 7-month-old baby had a seizure and stopped breathing. About an hour later, Lyric was declared dead, and the cause of death was listed as myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle).

clock_time_time_indicating_6-1024x768Timing is always important; however, in legal matters, it determines whether you can even bring a lawsuit to the courts. In most states, the time frame to bring lawsuits is called the statute of limitations, and in Louisiana, it is called prescription. Generally, you have one year to file a lawsuit. However, that time period can change depending on several factors. The intricacies of prescription recently resulted in dismissing a case out of the Florida Parishes.   

In 2006, Tammy L. Briggs was hired as a cook by the Florida Parishes Juvenile Detention Center. She was fired on August 19, 2014, for violating the Detention Center’s rules and procedures. Ms. Briggs filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint with the Louisiana Commission on Human Rights, stating that her termination was based on racial and gender discrimination.

A year later, the EEOC sent Ms. Briggs a “Dismissal and Notice of Rights” letter, stating that, after its investigation, it could not conclude that any violation had occurred. The “Dismissal and Notice of Rights” included information saying that Ms. Briggs only had 90 days to file a lawsuit against the defendants, Florida Parishes Juvenile Justice Commission, and the Detention Center. However, she filed her lawsuit on December 8, 2015, and the defendants raised the objection of prescription by filing a peremptory exception or in the alternative, motion for summary judgment. This means that the defendants argued that the lawsuit was filed too late. Because the case was filed too late, they argued that the Twenty-First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Tangipahoa should dismiss it.

highway_jam_baustelle_jam-1024x769Imagine you were just in an accident, and you pulled over on the shoulder of the interstate highway. Traffic is roaring in your ears, the wind is whipping past your face, and you can feel the congested car flows as your tires buzz. Luckily, you are not injured. As you are waiting for the police to arrive, another collision happens right beside you two. Brakes are being slammed, and horns are being blown, but the chain reaction is just unstoppable. A third car darts into the road shoulder, toppling the vehicle behind you and slamming it in your direction. You are hit again.

According to the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration, rear-end collisions are the most common type of car accident in the United States. A pileup accident multiplies the danger of a single rear-end accident. It often causes severe body injuries, expensive medical bills, and piles of insurance paperwork. Who should be held liable for your pain and suffering when pileups occur? A recent case on Interstate 10 explored this question and provided answers for the poor victims.

Mr. Chanthasalo found himself in such a position where he just had a narrow escape from one life-threatening accident but got involved in another. In the first accident, Mr. Chanthasalo was rear-ended by Ms. Deshotel. In the second accident, Ms. Schum was rear-ended by Mr. Mitchell and hit Ms. Deshotel. Mr. Chanthasalo filed a lawsuit in Louisiana trial court against all three cars behind him and their respective insurers, State Farm, USAA Casualty Insurance Company, and Progressive. He later settled with Mr. Mitchell, the last driver, and his insurer. The controversy in the appeal focused mainly on Ms. Deshotel’s (the lady that first hit Chanthasalo) liability.

town_sign_place_name_1-1024x678Decretal language, what on earth is it, and why is it so important? The Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal recently dismissed an appeal because the trial court’s judgment lacked proper decretal language. So what are these “magic words”? Why are they indispensable for a final judgment to be given legal effect?

Vera Bernard injured herself when exiting the Lafayette Regional Airport through a turnstile allegedly malfunctioning. Later she filed a lawsuit against various parties. Ms. Bernard settled with several defendants, leaving the turnstile company (Stanley) as the only Defendant. Stanley argued that they provided no service before Ms. Bernard’s misfortune that could cause the malfunction of the turnstile.

After a hearing on a motion filed by Stanley, the District Court dismissed all of Ms. Bernard’s claims, but the final judgment did not include the all-important “decretal language.” An appeal followed, and the appellate court spelled out precisely what was required for the Appellate Court to proceed with their review.

certificate_bavaria_notary_866100-1024x683It is a sadly familiar scenario: a family suffers a loss and soon after devolves to fighting over the will. The family may never imagine turning against one another, yet it happens over and over. The Youngblood family from Caddo Parish recently found themselves in such a fight. 

Frances Youngblood from Caddo Parish had her longtime family attorney draft a will dividing her estate amongst her three children: Ray, James, and Mary Anne. Frances named her son James as her sole executor, and Ray and James left their estates to one another. The family lawyer, Patricia Miramon, drafted each of these wills. Ms. Miramon also drafted an addition to James’ original will, naming herself his executor. 

Frances passed in 2011, Ray in 2012, and James in 2016. Once Frances passed, James granted Ms. Miramon general power of attorney and broad powers to act on his behalf, including as executor of Frances’ estate.  

ladder_sky_pig_iron-1024x684Imagine an injury on a ladder, lawnmower, boat, or other manufactured product. The product might appear defective; however, is defectiveness sufficient to win a lawsuit against the manufacturer? Under Louisiana law, to prevail in a lawsuit alleging medical injuries from a defective product, a plaintiff must provide adequate medical evidence to support that the injuries likely resulted from the defective product. This is referred to as “medical causation.” Without establishing medical causation, you may not be able to recover for your injuries.  

Craig Andrews was a river pilot. He injured his hip after climbing a ladder that he alleged was negligently rigged. After that, he and his wife sued Lomar Shipping, alleging that his injuries resulted from climbing their negligently rigged ladder.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 in favor of Lomar Shipping. Summary judgment means that the court ruled in favor of a party (here, Lomar Shipping) before trial. The District Court explained that Mr. Andrews did not submit adequate medical evidence to support that climbing the ladder he alleged was negligently rigged caused his injuries. Therefore, summary judgment was warranted because there was no genuine issue for trial. 

Contact Information