Articles Posted in Civil Matter

by

adults-businessman-close-up-1056553-1024x666When representing clients, attorneys walk a fine line between providing adequate services for their clients and being potentially sued by their clients for legal malpractice. While there are legitimate cases of malpractice among attorneys, there are also allegations of malpractice that simply lack merit and are based upon anger from a dissatisfied client.  

Such was the case for Carlos Hardison, who filed a legal malpractice lawsuit in the New Orleans Parish against George W. Byrne Jr., an attorney at Ungar & Byrne, A Professional Law Corporation (“Byrne”). Hardison, a seaman who sustained injuries to his foot while on the job and had to undergo a partial leg amputation, filed a maritime personal injury lawsuit against his employer, Abdon Callais Offshore (“ACO”) because of injuries sustained while at sea. After receiving a $90,000 settlement and what he felt to be an adverse judgment, Hardison filed his lawsuit against Byrne for malpractice. 

Hardin alleged that as a result of Byrne’s malpractice, he was given a settlement option of $90,000 as opposed to an amount as high as $10 million. Hardin also alleged that he did not give valid consent to the proposed settlement by the court and that he was also under duress at the time of giving consent.

Continue reading

by

auto-automobile-blur-532001-1024x683When you think of an interrogation, you may think of a cold, plain room. You can imagine the two-way mirror and the rough metal chairs. You’re probably picturing some menacing looking criminal across from a police officer. It’s likely a high-pressure situation, and one party clearly holds most of the power. The police officer is calling the shots, asking all of the right questions, and knows all of the protocols. But what if it was another officer sitting across from them in the interrogation room?

On August 8th, 2013, Davin Miller was arrested by the Ascension Parish police for counts of simple battery and domestic violence.  It was alleged that Miller, an officer for the City of Gonzales, had an altercation with his wife leaving her with injuries and had also threatened his father-in-law while in uniform. Following an investigation and citing ten possible violations of the Department’s standard operating procedures, the Chief of the Gonzales Police Department fired Miller. Miller appealed this decision, citing errors including not being able to record interrogations and not having assistance of counsel during interrogations.

Mr. Miller alleges that he requested that the questioning be recorded and to have counsel present but was denied twice. He was then made to sign two waivers or else be terminated. The first waiver, a “Warning of Rights and Consent to Speak,” stated that Mr. Miller could speak to counsel and have them present when being questioned. The second waiver was consent to a polygraph test. During the questioning, Mr. Miller was asked by the Chief of the Gonzales Police Department multiple times if he was lying. 

Continue reading

by

bill-oxford-r2ESY7RXB4M-unsplash-1024x517Litigation must come to an end so that parties to a lawsuit can go on with their normal lives. The court system also needs to move on to assist others in settling their disputes. This is a fundamental concept of our justice system. This also encourages courts to deal with cases in an efficient manner so that cases should not drag on unnecessarily. There are several ways in which cases can come to an end. One way is through abandonment. If you file a lawsuit and do nothing about it until three years, that lawsuit will be considered abandoned. In this case, the Fifth Court of Appeal of Louisiana considered a situation where this rule applies.

On May 10, 2011, the plaintiff, Mr. Felo, filed a lawsuit in which he named Ochsner Medical Center as the defendant. In the lawsuit, he alleged that he was injured after falling following a right hip arthroplasty. Ochsner Medical Center answered the petition on July 22, 2011, and on July 28, 2011, filed a request for a jury trial. The July deposit order was signed by the trial court on July 29,2011 and mailed to both parties on August 10, 2011. From this date, the plaintiff took no further action until August 6, 2014, when the plaintiff made applications and requests for production of documents. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit for abandonment. The court granted this request. On appeal, the court considered whether the mailing of the jury deposit order by the clerk of the court was a step in the prosecution of the action to an extent that it had changed the running of abandonment to start from August 10, 2011, and not July 28, 2011.

According to La. C.C.P art. 561(A)(1), an action is deemed abandoned when the parties fail to take any steps in either prosecution or defense for a period of three years. Under this provision, the rule does apply even without a formal order as it is an automatic so long as the period is three years. See Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 785 So. 2d 779 (La. 2001). Under this rule, if a party disputes abandonment, it must prove that (1) it took a formal action which was intended to continue with the case, (2) the steps must appear on the court record and (3) the steps must have been taken within the prescribed time period.

Continue reading

by

abandoned-abandoned-building-architecture-1687067-819x1024State of Emergency conditions and evacuations seem to have become increasingly more common in this state over the years. Floods, hurricanes, and other extreme weather conditions can force a whole neighborhood to relocate for a few weeks. At times the evacuation protocols remain voluntary, meaning you may stay in your home at your own risk. Residents choose to weather the storm for a number of reasons, be it to avoid an expensive relocation or to protect their property from looters. Whatever the reason you stay behind, be aware that a State of Emergency prompts law enforcement to be more vigilant in their safety patrols.

One late night Neil Rabeaux was walking down the side of the road in Butte La Rose when he was stopped by police officers. There was a State of Emergency in effect at the time, and many residents had voluntarily evacuated the town due to a looming flood warning. While speaking with Rabeaux, officers noted Rabeaux appeared intoxicated and that his waistband contained a handgun. A radio call to dispatch erroneously indicated Rabeaux had multiple felony convictions on his record. They arrested Rabeaux for Possession of a Firearm by a Felon and Illegal Carrying of a Firearm. Officers later discovered Rabeaux did not have a record, and dropped all charges. Rabeaux then filed a lawsuit against the two officers for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment.

The officers filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming immunity under the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act (“the Act”). They asserted that since there was a State of Emergency at the time, their actions were immune from suit. The Trial Court agreed and dismissed the lawsuit. Rabeaux appealed.

Continue reading

by

33-032619-photoTrials are decided solely upon the evidence presented. A judge cannot read a book on the subject, or do extraneous research on the internet, to aid her decision-making process. In this case, the Defendant claimed that the judge did just that, by calling a city official to confirm some data. The appellate court thought otherwise. So, what do you do when you feel as if the Judge made a decision unfairly?

Plaintiff Vicke Mosley was driving down Mansfield Road in Shreveport when she was struck by Jacob Griffin’s vehicle at the intersection of Valley View. The crash rendered Mosley unconscious and he had to be hospitalized for three days. Mosley claimed Griffin ran the red light, while Griffin claims the light had turned green as he entered the intersection. Mosley filed a lawsuit against Griffin and his insurer.

Witness accounts depicted Mosley entering the intersection on a yellow light, and Griffin edging out into the intersection before his light turned green. Mosley’s attorney also entered a traffic signal inventory (“TSI”) into evidence, which logged the amount of time traffic signals stay certain colors. The only problem with the TSI was that it was from 2011, nearly 3 years before the accident. The Trial Court notified the attorneys for both parties that it would contact the city to confirm the TSI’s veracity. The plaintiff’s counsel was vocal in his support of this action, while defense counsel said nothing.

Continue reading

by

34-Email-3-13-19-1024x683In the Parish of Plaquemines in Louisiana, the oyster business can be quite profitable. Anywhere in the state, land can be a method of maintaining a person’s livelihood, whether it be through oil, tourism, or even an oyster lease. When a person with valuable land passes away, especially if that person is your relative, you may be curious as to how the death will affect claims to the land and its profits. One family found out when the courts were forced to interpret the law of community property as it relates to oyster leases.

Sometime in the 1960s, Antoinette Bernice Cognevich Barrois (“Bernice”) and her husband, Mancil Barrois (“Mancil”) executed oyster leases. Mancil died in 1975 and left Bernice all of his property in his will. Because Mancil had children outside of the marriage, some children could benefit from Mancil’s estate with no claim to Bernice’s estate. Bernice maintained the oyster leases, including renewing them, for six years after Mancil’s death. When Bernice died in 1981, the administrators of her estate continued to maintain and renew the oyster leases. Neither Mancil’s nor Bernice’s estates were ever closed after their deaths, and in 2014, the administrator of Bernice’s estate, Helen, received a damage award from the 2010 BP oil spill as it damaged the oyster lease property. Mancil’s estate then filed motions seeking to declare the oyster leases as community property and seeking some of the award money pursuant to this decision. Although there were multiple procedural complications with this case, the only issue the Appellate Court was concerned with was whether or not the oyster leases obtained during the marriage of Mancil and Bernice are community property under Louisiana law.

Generally, property acquired during the existence of a legal marriage is considered community property, unless there are special circumstances that make the property separate property belonging to only one spouse. La. C.C. art 2338. This includes any “natural and civil fruits” of all community property. The spouse arguing against community property requirements does have the ability to rebut this presumption. La. C.C. art. 2340. Crucial here is also the Louisiana statute barring a renewal or extension of existing oyster leases to be considered “‘new” leases. La. R.S. 56:426.

Continue reading

by

70-picture-1024x683When someone is injured on the job, sorting out liability can be complex. It can be doubly so when a prisoner is temporarily released so he or she can work and is subsequently injured on a job that was approved by the prison system and the sheriff managing that prison, but completely run by a private party. In such a situation, it will take an excellent lawyer to sort out the liability issues and advise whether a lawsuit is worth bringing. So, who is liable for injuries on a work release program?

Sheriff Mike Tubbs found himself named in a lawsuit by an inmate who was injured in just such a situation. Ronnie Thomas was a prisoner in a jail in Morehouse Parish, Louisiana when he was approved for work release. His work release was assigned to the waste management department, where he worked as a “hopper” on the back of a garbage truck. He would jump off the back at each stop and grab the trash and throw it into the truck. During one of his jumps he fell and was injured. He sued several defendants, including Sheriff Tubbs, for their failure to provide a safe work environment. The trial court dismissed the case after the Sheriff filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that he owed Mr. Thomas no duty to provide a safe work environment. The trial court held that Mr. Thomas was an employee of the waste management company and thus his only remedy was workers’ compensation. Mr. Thomas appealed, but the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal.

The work release program that is run by the Morehouse Parish jail requires that the prisoner fill out an application for a job that seems suitable. In this case, Mr. Thomas applied for a job with the Morehouse Parish Police Jury, who reviewed his application and determined that he could work for the waste management company, Morehouse Parish Solid Waste, which is a third-party company. He was then assigned duty as a “hopper” by the company. He was injured in the course of his employment. According to the Court of Appeal, an employee’s exclusive remedy when injured in the course of his employment is workers’ compensation. However, Mr. Thomas argued that his situation was unique because he was a prisoner and out only due to the work release program. In his view, the sheriff was also responsible because he had assigned him to work, arranged what hours he would work, and was the one who negotiated how much he would be paid. He also pointed out that he received his payment through the inmate banking system. Thus, he argued that this level of participation by the sheriff also bound the sheriff with a duty of care to provide a safe work environment. The trial court and the Court of Appeal did not agree. They pointed to substantial case precedent for the settled principle in Louisiana that when a prisoner is released through a work release program they are an employee of the private company that provides employment, and that private employer enjoys immunity provided by the workers’ compensation program. The factual situation, wherein the prisoner applies for a job and is solely supervised by the employer during the release period, also backed up this finding,

Continue reading

by

When you are injured on the job, you expect for your medical expenses to be covered through worker’s compensation. However, when your employer denies your recommended medical treatment to recover from your injury, what do you do? First, you file a disputed claim for medical treatment form (Form 1009) with the Medical Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Administration. If that claim is denied administratively, then you are entitled to a hearing before a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ). However, sometimes the process does not go as planned. For example, in this instance a Workers Compensation Judge ordered the defendants claim be paid but the employer appealed the WCJ’s decision.

Robert Friedman was an employee of Ecolab, Inc. when he injured his back on the job in October 2007. At first, his course of treatment was mild and done by a primary care physician, then a pain specialist. However, his symptoms persisted into 2011, when he was referred to an orthopedic surgeon. That surgeon first did a lumbar interbody fusion, which is a surgical procedure where a damaged disc is removed and replaced with bone graft material.  Symptoms persisted into 2013 when the orthopedic surgeon referred Friedman to a neurosurgeon, who ran additional tests. The neurosurgeon’s tests revealed loosened screws/hardware from the initial lumbar interbody fusion. Eventually, the neurosurgeon suggested a new lumbar interbody fusion that would both fix the initial procedure as well as provide additional support. EcoLab approved the portion that would fix the initial procedure but denied the portion that would provide additional support as they did not feel it was medically necessary. Friedman then filed a Form 1009 with the Office of Workers’ Compensation Administration, which was denied due to insufficient clinical information. Friedman then re-filed his Form 1009 to get a hearing before a WCJ in Ouachita Parish, who granted Friedman to get his entire prescribed procedure, as well as legal fees covered once evidence was submitted. Ecolab appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeal.

Workers’ Compensation Claims are determined under guidelines in Title 40 of the Louisiana Administrative Code. At issue is whether the evidence supports that extended lumbar interbody fusion is medically necessary. Workers’ Compensation is supposed to cover the costs of medical treatment that is reasonably necessary for treating medical conditions caused by a workplace injury. See La. R.S. 23:1203. Medically necessary treatment is supposed to be that which is consistent with the diagnosis and treatment of a specific condition rather than solely based upon a patient’s preference. A claimant’s appeal of the Medical Director’s decision to a WCJ is based upon clear and convincing evidence, which means evidence has to be substantially more likely to be true than not true. 40 LA ADC Pt. I, §2715 sets the criteria about what evidence is necessary. As this procedure was a follow-up to his 2011 surgery, Friedman did not need to send inasmuch documentation.  For that reason, the Appeals Court determined that the Medical Director erred in their judgment and thus upheld the WCJ’s ruling in favor of Friedman, as well as awarded attorney fees.

Continue reading

by

mercantile-bank-building-dallas-1228577-771x1024There is no shortage of frivolous lawsuits. As a result, courts have developed many different ways to nip these sorts of lawsuits in the bud. One way is by allowing defendants to file an exception of no cause action, which is essentially a request that asks the court to drop the plaintiff’s lawsuit because there is no factual support to justify the lawsuit. In the case below, the plaintiff truly believed she was wronged by her employer, but because the facts she provided in her lawsuit did not support a valid claim, her lawsuit was ultimately denied. So, how can you avoid your lawsuit being dismissed by no cause of action in Louisiana? 

Gina K. Lusich worked as the branch manager at Capital One Bank in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana. Lusich’s employment with Capital One was terminated in June 2013. She then filed a lawsuit against Capital One for wrongful termination. Lusich argued in her petition that she was terminated wrongfully because of a false accusation claiming that she instructed other employees to falsify time cards. She also claimed that her personal property was stolen by Capital One. Capital One responded by filing an exception of no cause action. The trial court granted this exception in favor of Capital One, and Lusich appealed to Louisiana’s Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal.

When an appellate court reviews an appeal of an exception of no cause of action, it must examine the sufficiency of the claims within the lawsuit. In other words, the court must seek to determine whether the law can sufficiently provide a remedy for the plaintiff. Badeaux v. Southwest Computer Bureau, Inc., 929 So.2d 1211, 1217 (La. 2006). In doing so, the court must accept the facts as stated by the plaintiff’s petition to be true, asking whether the plaintiff would be entitled to a remedy based on those facts. Jackson v. State, 785 So.2d 803 (La. 2001). However, the lawsuit should be dismissed if the plaintiff cannot show some theory under which he can prove the facts that would support his claim. Wallace C. Drennan, Inc. v. Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans, 753 So.2d 861 (La. Ct. App. 1999).

Continue reading

by

rusty-car-1207835-1024x680Witnesses can be critical to winning a personal injury lawsuit after an auto accident. Without an impartial third party to attest to what happened, the case can devolve into he said/she said situation. Even worse, when one party is mentally unable to recall the events of the incident, the outcome becomes even more uncertain. Some may be tempted to think their case becomes a slam dunk after that. With one party not even sure of the facts, the other side has to prevail, right?

Plaintiff Lauren Condon (“Condon”) claimed she was rear-ended by Defendant Carol Logan (“Logan”) on the Pontchartrain Expressway in New Orleans on March 25, 2011. Logan denied fault, but Condon claimed a traffic ticket issued to Defendant for following too closely proves Logan was at fault. Condon filed a lawsuit against Logan and her insurer. After several unsuccessful attempts to depose Logan, Logan’s lawyer eventually divulged that Logan has been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and would not be able to testify, either in deposition or in court. Condon then moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. Summary judgment is a procedure where the court makes a ruling without a full trial, based on the information provided in the pleadings and the discovery process. If there is no “genuine issue of material fact,” then the court makes a ruling as a matter of law. La. C.C.P. art. 966. In the case of partial summary judgment, the court rules on one facet of the case, rather than the entire claim.

Logan’s defense team tried to combat the summary judgment motion with affidavits from Logan’s husband and a statement from Logan in the police report. Condon argued these are not admissible and moved to strike the documents. Logan’s attorneys argued that, since Logan has been stricken by mental impairment since the accident, her statement to the police should be admitted under La. C.E. art. 804.

Continue reading
Contact Information
1140 St Charles Ave
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 521-6000
Fax: (504) 617-6300

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2025, Berniard Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design