Articles Posted in Litigation

inside_ambulance_ambulance_lighting-1024x576Physically demanding jobs can result in workplace injuries that prevent employees from working and earning a wage. However, it is essential when filing a worker’s compensation claim not only to prove your claim but to do so within the timelines required by the courts. A workplace accident claim filed in Metairie, Louisiana shows the importance of timeliness in workers’ compensation lawsuits and helps answer the question; What is the Deadline to File a Workers’ Compensation Claim in Louisiana?

Tramaine Eugene-Robinson was working as an EMT for East Jefferson General Hospital in late 2014. While transporting a patient on a stretcher, a malfunction occurred, causing her to drop the patient and injure her back and knees. When EJGH did not pay her wage benefits, Ms. Eugene-Robinson sued in 2017, alleging that she had suffered an injury of a “developmental nature,” meaning that the injury developed sometime after the actual accident. Although EJGH acknowledged that the plaintiff had experienced an injury at work, they argued that her claim was untimely under La. R.S. 23:1209(A).

La. R.S. 23:1209(A) sets time limits on worker’s compensation claims. The courts have recognized two different situations that establish the date that an injury turns into a disability: 1) the date the employee must stop working due to the injury or 2) the date that an employee is diagnosed as disabled. Winford v. Conerly Corp.

washing_machine_dryer_laundry-1024x768Many jobs require physical labor, which comes with some risks of injury on the clock, especially for those who install and move equipment. Sometimes you get injured while working, and you think, “maybe I can just work through this.” However, if you attempt to work through an injury and don’t report it immediately to your employer, they may try to avoid paying you workers’ compensation benefits. This happened to James Payton, a veteran and previous employee of NASA. Payton’s case helps answer the question; Can I get Workers’ Compensation Benefits if I Don’t Immediately Report My Injury? 

James Payton began working for Sears in 2013. Before this position, Payton served in the military and worked for NASA for 31 years. He was hired at Sears as an appliance technician, which requires some physical labor. During a shift, Payton was installing a washer/dryer in a residence and injured his back. Payton had never been involved in another accident or had injured his back before his employment with Sears. 

Payton continued working after his injury in the hope it would correct itself. Unfortunately, the injury worsened over the next few days, and Payton found it challenging to complete simple actions, such as getting out of bed or driving a car. After visiting a physician and receiving an MRI, it was confirmed that Payton had herniated discs in his lower back, and he was advised to avoid heavy lifting. He then reported his medical diagnosis to Sears approximately a month after the initial injury.  

request_hooks_chain_steel-1024x683If you are involved in a lawsuit, you probably have a lot of things on your mind. However, you must pay attention to the required deadlines and time to respond to documents from the other side, including requests for admission. If you do not respond on time, you might be deemed to have admitted to facts that are helpful to the other side. That could cause significant implications for your lawsuit. The following Louisiana lawsuit shows the deadline to answer and the effect of admission requests.

Steven Richard was involved in a car accident in Concordia Parish, Louisiana, involving a vehicle driven by Fred Taylor. Richard later sued Taylor, Fred’s Automotive (the shop where Taylor’s vehicle was repaired), and Caitlin Insurance, the insurance company that covered Fred’s Automotive. 

Fred’s Automotive and Caitlin Insurance brought a motion for summary judgment. They argued they could not be liable to Richard because their limited liability company had not existed when the accident occurred. As evidence, they introduced a printout with the relevant recording and other operating information for their limited liability company. The trial court granted their motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claims against Fred’s Automotive and Caitlin Insurance.

wooden_pallets_pallets_stack-768x1024If you have ever watched a legal television show, you have seen the wide variety of evidence presented. Even if your lawsuit is not as high-stakes as the latest murder mystery show, it is still important to present sufficient evidence to satisfy your burden of proof and prevail on your claim. Otherwise, your case could get dismissed on a motion for summary judgment. The following lawsuit involving a slip in fall in a Louisiana convenience store discusses the concept of open and obvious risks.

Moore drove his car to a Murphy Oil gas station in Hammond, Louisiana. After he had purchased some items in the convenience store, he walked towards the door.  While he reached for the door, he turned back and talked to the store manager.  As he left the store, his foot contacted a pallet display stand with water bottles that were located right outside the door.  He tripped and stumbled but did not fall.  Moore reported this to the store manager. Afterward, he received treatment for his back pain. Murphy Oil paid for this treatment for about four months.  

When Murphy Oil stopped paying for his treatment, Moore filed a lawsuit alleging that the display with water bottles was an unreasonably dangerous condition. The defendants, Murphy Oil and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance, filed a motion for summary judgment. The court denied this motion, and the case went to trial.  Before trial, Moore agreed that his damages were not over $50,000. At the trial, the court ruled in favor of Moore and awarded damages of $37,500. After they lost, Murphy Oil and Liberty Mutual appealed, arguing that the trial court incorrectly denied their summary judgment motion. 

money_finance_house_mortgage-1024x678What happens if you win a lawsuit but the other side moves to reduce the amount of money you were awarded? This is the situation Marcus Berry found himself in after he was awarded over a million dollars in damages due to injuries he suffered in a car accident. 

Following a car accident, Berry sued the driver of the car that hit him, Leon Berry, and his insurer, Auto-Owners Insurance Company. The other driver admitted liability but contested the nature and extent of the damage Berry suffered. 

At trial, the jury agreed Berry was injured as a result of the accident.  They awarded him a total of $1.29 million in damages.  This consisted of $900,000 for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life previously, presently, and in the future, as well as $390,000 for medical expenses.  Following this award, the defendants moved for a new trial or remittitur (a procedure where the court can reduce an excessive verdict), arguing that the jury had awarded excessive damages. 

massage_relaxation_massage_389727-1024x685Spas, health clubs, and wellness retreats are a few places that prioritize the self-care of their patrons, offering relaxing services like manicures, mud baths, and massages. These places also owe a legal duty to their patrons by using reasonable care to avoid causing any injuries. After a massage went wrong at Massage Envy (ME), a jury for the Fifteenth Judicial District Court for Parish of Lafayette (“District Court”) awarded the plaintiff, Julie Roy (“Roy”), $65,000.00 for her future medical expenses. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Roy appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal for the State of Louisiana (“Circuit Court”), claiming that the jury failed to award her sufficient damages to cover her future medical expenses, especially in the light of her physician’s testimony.

 Roy’s injuries at Massage Envy resulted from falling off a massage table. Originally, Roy had scheduled a 90-minute massage, but she asked the massage therapist to stop after about 45 minutes, half of her scheduled time. The massage therapist, who was over six feet tall, had raised the massage table to reach Roy better during the massage. However, before Roy got off the table, the massage therapist left the room without lowering the table back to its standard height. Therefore, when Roy attempted to get off the table, she lost her balance and fell, injuring her knee, shoulder, back, and neck. Before leaving Massage Envy, Roy reported her injury to the management there.

 A year later, Roy sued ME for her fall injuries. A jury returned a verdict, finding equal, 50/50, fault of both Roy and ME and awarding $65,000 to Roy for her future medical expenses along with damages for her past medical experiences and general damages. Yet, Roy appealed this decision to the Circuit Court, arguing that the jury’s award of $65,000 for her future medical expenses was an abuse of discretion because it ignored the testimony of her physician.

tire_repairer_tire_mounting-1024x681Injuring 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.

surgery_medicine_science_1501907-1024x683Scheduling a post-accident surgery promptly may be essential to ensure complete physical recovery. Sometimes, the scheduling of post-accident surgery matters less. However, scheduling your surgery prudently may pay off when recovering damages in court, as one plaintiff found in a recent appeal discussed below. 

In 2010, Karl Kimsey was involved in a car accident in DeRidder, Louisiana. Mr. Kimsey alleged a left knee injury and underwent an arthroscopic procedure in late 2010. Kimsey filed a lawsuit against his car insurance company. In 2013, an initial judgment awarded damages, lost wages of $300 a week limited to his period of recovery and required the scheduling of a recommended reconstructive surgery. The defendant’s insurance company would pay for the surgery, provided it happened within one year of the judgment. If the surgery did not happen within one year, any party could return to court. Both parties appealed that order, but their appeals were dismissed because the judgment was conditional and thus not final. Mr. Kimsey did not have the surgery within one year and appealed the final trial court order. 

Mr. Kimsey’s main issues on appeal were that the court erred in not awarding future medical expenses, not awarding the argued lost earning capacity of Mr. Kimsey; and erred in the amount awarded of an expert fee for Mr. Kimsey’s expert. The relevant standard of review for these issues are“manifest error” or “clearly wrong”——a demanding standard to meet in Louisiana that requires the reviewing court to review the record in its entirety “to determine whether the trial court’s finding was clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous.” Stobart v. State through Department of Transportation and Development,

oil_rig_technology_sea-768x1024Personal 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.

coins_currency_investment_insurance_0-1024x683Auto insurance can be beneficial when you are in a car accident. However, it isn’t uncommon to have specific provisions in your insurance policy that can limit your coverage. A recent case out of Kenner, Louisiana, interpreted whether certain caveats in an insurance policy can limit a client’s uninsured motorist coverage (UM/UIM).

Denise Breaux was driving on Interstate 10 behind a truck driven by Jonathan Blum. When a ladder fell off the back of Blum’s truck, Breaux tried to dodge the ladder that fell right into her path. Unfortunately, Breaux’s vehicle collided with Danny Castille’s tractor/trailer while attempting to avoid the ladder. Castille and his wife filed a lawsuit against Breaux, her insurer, and Blum, and then later added Lloyds at Lloyd’s, London (Lloyds) as a defendant. The Castilles were seeking UM/UIM coverage from Lloyds under a surplus lines insurance policy that was issued to Mr. Castille.  

Lloyds asserted that the Castilles were not entitled to UM/UIM coverage because they specifically issued an insurance policy that applied when the tractor did not have the trailer attached, known as Bobtail Liability insurance. Further, they argued that liability insurance was only available when the tractor was bobtailing; therefore, UM/UIM coverage only applied in the same scenario. Since, at the time of the accident, the Castilles’ tractor had a trailer attached and was not bobtailing, Lloyds sought summary judgment. 

Contact Information