Miscellaneous

March 5, 2011

Baton Rouge General Medical Center Slip-and-Fall Case Confirms Hospital’s Premises Liability Standard

Previously on this blog, we have looked at a variety of cases involving premises liability. Most have centered on an injury that occurs when the plaintiff visits a store or other commercial enterprise; in those cases, the defendant faces a heightened “merchant” standard of care under state statute, namely La. R.S. 9:2800.6. This post will add to the discussion by reviewing a recent case in which the First Circuit Court of Appeal considered the premises liability standard applicable to a hospital in a trip-and-fall case.

On August 14, 2007, Marion Terrance visited the cafeteria at the Baton Rouge General Medical Center. Terrance allegedly slipped on the mat in front of the ice machine that had become soaked with water. She injured her groin and lower back in the resulting fall. Terrance filed suit against the hospital alleging negligence due to the “unreasonably dangerous foreign substance” on the floor (water) and that the hospital had failed to clean it up. The hospital denied that the fall occurred at all and argued that it had no knowledge of any foreign substance on the floor. Conflicting testimony was presented during the bench trial. The cafeteria supervisor, upon being informed of Terrance’s fall by another employee, immediately inspected the floor around the ice machine and found a dry mat and no spilled water. She also reported that the fall would have occurred just shortly after her most recent routine floor inspection, during which no water was noted. In fact, hospital employees had never noticed any water dripping from the ice machine. Nevertheless, the trial judge entered judgment in favor of Terrance and awarded her $26,910 in damages. The trial court’s decision rested on the “unreasonable condition” that existed around the ice machine that caused Terrance to slip and fall. The hospital appealed, arguing that there was no evidence that an unreasonably dangerous condition existed at the time of Terrance’s injury.

The First Circuit Court of Appeal began its analysis by establishing that hospitals are not covered by the merchant standard for premises liability contained in La. R.S. 9:2800.6. Instead, general negligence theory would apply. Under this standard, a hospital owes a duty to its visitors to “exercise reasonable care for their safety,” but the duty owed is less than that required of a defendant engaged in a commercial enterprise. The court explained that once Terrance made her allegation that she slipped, fell, and injured herself because of a foreign substance on the hospital’s premises, the burden then shifted to the hospital to show that it “acted reasonably to discover and correct the dangerous condition reasonably anticipated.” The court noted the dispute at trial over the existence of a wet floor at all, but did not find any error in the trial court’s factual finding that the water did, in fact, exist and that it caused Terrance to fall. However, the court did take issue with the trial court’s immediate award of damages to Terrance without permitting the hospital to attempt to rebut the presumption of negligence:

March 4, 2011

Duty of Care Doctors Owe their Patients and Medical Malpractice

by Berniard Law Firm

The level of care required of medical practitioners is very high. This is because people put their trust, and sometimes their lives and well being in the hands of a doctor or surgeon. The level of care is high because we must attain the very best from the people who perform the most delicate and important tasks the affect our lives. This is true of doctors, lawyers, and anyone else who has the position of a fiduciary. When the level of care falls below the bare minimum, the result can be disastrous. In a recent case, Ronald and Peggy Bianchi v. Dr. Ernesto Kufoy, the Third Circuit Louisiana Court of Appeal had to decide whether damages done to a patient were a result of the doctor’s negligence or were an acceptable outcome of the procedure.

On October 30, 2002, Mr. Bianchi went to Dr. Kufoy for a cataract surgery and the implantation of an artificial lens in the right eye. The lining of the old lens was to remain intact so as to allow the placement of the new artificial lens on that lining. However, during the surgery, the old lining was torn out. It was found that this could occur without any negligence. Another artificial lens was used due to this complication, and it was not argued that anything had occurred during this setback that amounted to medical negligence. When Mr. Bianchi returned for his post surgery check-up, he complained of pain in his right eye. Dr. Kufoy checked the eye, but did not investigate the cause of the pain and the resulting loss of eye sight. Over the course of the next few days, Mr. Bianchi’s eye pain increased. When he came to see Dr. Kufoy next, Dr. Kufoy diagnosed him with a form of glaucoma and referred him to a specialist. By the time he went to the first specialist, Dr. Jeff Lanier, Biachi had only light perception in his right eye. This was one step above total blindness. Dr. Lanier disagreed with Dr. Kufoy’s glaucoma diagnosis, and found that there was a hemorrhage in the choroid, which likely began during the initial surgery. The second specialist drained the hemorrhage.

At trial, the jury found that Dr. Kufoy’s actions were lower than the level of care required by his profession. The jury also found that there were clear damages to Mr. and Mrs. Bianchi. In a medical malpractice case, the plaintiff has two levels of burden. First, plaintiff must prove by preponderance of the evidence that the doctor’s treatment fell below the standard of care required for the profession. Second, the plaintiff must prove that the sub-par standard of care resulted in the injury. The jury based its determination that there was no causation shown on the fact that there was contradicting evidence. The Appellate Court cited to the standards it was using to judge the jury’s determination:

March 3, 2011

Springfield Injury Reminds Homeowners to Use Caution Around Power Lines

by Berniard Law Firm

In several previous posts on this blog, we have explored cases involving premises liability where the plaintiff is injured while visiting a

“restaurant”, “store”, or other “business”. But what about a plaintiff who is injured on his own property by a device that is owned by another party but which is on his property for his own benefit? This situation can arise in the case of utilities, where the dangerous conditions are created by electric power lines, natural gas lines, propane tanks, and the like. The case of Flowers v. Entergy Corp. offers an example.

On January 5, 2001, just outside of Springfield, Louisiana, Randall Flowers parked his truck and trailer in the driveway of his home. He parked the vehicle near a small pump house that served as a water source for washing the truck. When Flowers climbed on top of the trailer to wash it, he came into contact with a power line that provided electricity to his house and was severely injured. Flowers sued Entergy Corp., the local utility that owned and maintained the power line. At trial, both parties produced experts who testified about the National Electric Safety Code (the “Code”), which, though not officially adopted by the state of Louisiana, was relied upon by utilities for minimum safety standards. The Code set minimum heights for power lines in various applications so as to provide clearance for people and equipment passing below. Flowers’ expert testified that the power line over the driveway failed to meet the Code requirements for the location where it was installed in that it sagged one and one-half feet too low at its midpoint. He also offered the opinion that Entergy should have performed more frequent inspections, which would have allowed the company to discover the problem sooner. Entergy’s witness, who was certified as an expert in electrical engineering, Code interpretations, and accident reconstruction, read the Code differently and established that the height of the power line did not violate the Code. Ultimately, the jury found no fault on the part of Entergy and assigned 100 percent fault to Flowers.

March 2, 2011

Court Upholds Lower Level of Standard of Duty for Louisiana Governments

by Berniard Law Firm

In many circumstances, state and federal governments are protected by governmental immunity. In some circumstances, e.g. where government acts as a market participant, these immunities are set aside due to the nature of the actions taken by the government. In Louisiana, the Lafayette Consolidated Government (LCG) runs a bus service for its citizens. On one bus drive, a customer of a LCG run bus was injured due to the malfunction of a pull cord that came loose striking the customer in the eye. In Willie Mae Scott (plaintiff) v. LCG, the Appellate Court upheld a trial court decision that granted summary judgment to LCG.

In August of 2006, plaintiff was riding a bus run by LCG. Another customer of the bus pulled on the cord to inform the bus driver that he should stop. Upon pulling the cord, a clamp holding the cord in place came loose striking plaintiff in the eye causing damage needing medical care. Plaintiff sued LCG as a common carrier and argued that, due to LCG’s common carrier status, it was under a stronger duty of care than most.

The issues in the case were summarized by the Appellate Court as follows: (1) whether LCG had actual or constructive notice of the pull cord (2) whether LCG was a common carrier, subjecting it to a higher duty of care and (3) whether the existence of other pull cord defects created a genuine issue of material fact. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of LCG stating that there was no genuine issue of material fact. At the appellate level, the Court views the case de novo under the same summary judgment standards used at the trial court level.

March 1, 2011

Odd, Sudden Emergency Collision Leads to Discussion of Responsibility in Highway Car Accident

by Berniard Law Firm

In a very recent Louisiana Court of Appeals Case, the Court took a rare action to uphold summary judgment when considering whether the lead vehicle in multi car pileup was negligent. The Court found the lead driver, Martin Lopez, was not negligent because he acted with ordinary care. This idea of ordinary care is extremely important

The accident in question occurred in Shreveport, Louisiana. Adam Parisy was driving north on I-49 with 3 passengers. He exited on a high rise ramp that curved over I-49 to Highway 3132, behind a freightliner driven by Lopez. The turbocharger on the 18 wheeler exploded, engulfing the area in smoke. Lopez pulled the liner over, unaware of any collission. Parisy stopped at the top of the ramp because he couldn’t see and was rear ended by another drive, who was also rear ended.

Parisy and two of his passengers were seriously injured. Several separate lawsuits were filed, including against Lopez, his insurer, and his employer, which were dismissed via summary judgment.

February 28, 2011

Court Outlines Responsibilities of Dockowner in Employee Injury

by Berniard Law Firm

A gangway is a pathway that connects the ship to the dock at which it has stopped. It is the means by which the crew and cargo of a ship are moved onto and off of the ship. Usually ships have detachable gangways that the ship crew put on the side of the ship when the ship is docked. Other times, docks have policies that require the ships to use gangways that are provided by the dock owner. As in any other legal field, the use of gangways are subject to rules of negligence and duties of care. The question in a recent case, Landers v. Bollinger Amelia Repair, was whether a dock owner was liable for a gangway provided to a ship under the stated policy of the dock owner that all ships must use gangways provided by the dock.

On June 12, 2006, the M/V Roseanna docked on the Bollinger Amelia Repair (BAR) dock. The reason for docking there was that the Roseanna’s hull had been breached, and it needed repair. The Roseanna had a gangway on its ship, but it was full of cargo and could not be used to access the dock. In any case, BAR had a policy of requiring all docked ships to use a BAR provided gangway. Thus, Landers, an employee of the Roseanna, and another Roseanna employee got a gangway from BAR and installed it.

The gangway was inspected by a Roseanna employee and was found to be in good condition. The gangway was used many times that day. The crew of the Roseanna discovered that the hull of the ship could be fixed without the aid of BAR and proceeded to do so. At the end of its use, the gangway was removed by Landers and another member of the Roseanna crew. Upon removal, the gangway sprung up hitting Landers in the back and causing injury. Subsequently, Landers brought suit against BAR arguing that due to BAR’s stated policy of requiring the use of BAR gangways, BAR was liable for the injury caused to him under general Maritime negligence law.

February 26, 2011

Court Dissects Nursing Home Wrongful Death Case

by Berniard Law Firm

Many families in America have had to move their loved ones into a nursing home. Whether the reason is that they don’t have the room to care for the elder, they don’t have the time or money to provide adequate care, or their elder wishes to be in the nursing home, the decision to send them to a nursing home is a difficult one. Families may be concerned about the level and amount of care their elders receive at the nursing home. Continuous stories of abuse at nursing homes may also be a cause of concern for families. Nursing homes are given a high level of trust in the care of their patrons. When this level of trust is broken, the results can be horrific and unacceptable. The law provides for levels of care that nursing homes and medical practitioners have to live by. Once these levels of care are ignored, the law steps in to provide relief for families.

In Braud v. Woodland Village, LLC, the issue was whether the trial court instructed the jury to view the case under the right legal standard. Mr. Braud was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and Pick’s dementia. This combination of diseases left Mr. Braud with many issues including an eating disorder and a higher chance of heart attack. Mr. Braud was moved to Woodland Village nursing home (Woodland). After his arrival at Woodland, Mr. Braud began showing signs of aggression towards staff. He was prescribed anti-psychotic medication as part of his treatment. After some time, Mrs. Braud reported to her husband’s physician that Mr. Braud seemed very zombie-like. The physician instructed the Woodland staff that they were to check on Mr. Braud every 15 minutes for signs of distress. This was carried on for some time. The method used to check on Mr. Braud was to look through the window into his room to observe whether he was under any distress. The Woodland staff were never instructed to enter the room to check close-up. On September 2, 2004, after a 45 minute period of no Woodland staff checking on Mr. Braud, he was found to be unresponsive. Woodland staff called paramedics who arrived to the scene to find that Mr. Braud was likely dead for at least an hour before their arrival from a heart attack. At no point did any member of the Woodland staff attempt CPR on Mr. Braud. Mr. Braud’s family (collectively “plaintiff”) filed suit against Woodland for wrongful death and were awarded an amount of $1,650,000. After trial, defendants argued that (1) there was no harm from alleged medication errors (2) there was no evidence that Mr. Braud could be resuscitated (3) the award of $1,650,000 was far above the $500,000 statutory amount (4) there was no evidence that Woodland caused the heart attack and (5) evidence presented proved, at most, that there was a loss of chance of life, not that there was wrongful death. Woodland lost on all of these claims except that the amount of damages was reduced to $500,000. Woodland appealed the decision stating that the trial court’s refusal to include jury instructions for the “loss of a chance of survival” claim was a grounds to reverse the jury decision. The plaintiff appealed the decision to reduce the damages to $500,000.

In Louisiana, pursuant to LA.Rev. Stat. Section 9:2794(A), to find medical malpractice, the plaintiff must establish the standard of care applicable to the charged physician, a violation by the physician of that standard of care, and a causal connection between the physician’s alleged negligence and the plaintiff’s injuries resulting therefrom. The standard attributed to the physician is the standard used in Louisiana, based on the type of field, locale, and community in which the physician or medical practitioner practices. Further, in order for an appellate court to overturn a fact-finder’s decision, a two-prong test is used to analyze the result. First, the appellate court must find from the record that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding in the trial court. Second, the court must further determine that the record established that the finding is manifestly erroneous.

February 25, 2011

First Circuit of Louisiana Allows Lost Chance of Survival Tort Case to Go Forward and Specifies Burden of Proof

by Berniard Law Firm

In June 2010, the First Circuit of the State of Louisiana Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the case of Lena Hebert et al. v. Plaquemine Caring, L.L.C. due to a legal error committed by the Eighteenth Judicial District Court for Iberville Parish. This legal error proved to be a compelling element to the case and demonstrates why a competent attorney is highly important, especially in the case of a loss of a family member or other personal injury element.

The plaintiffs in this case are the survivors of the deceased, Mr. Morgan Hebert. He suffered a fractured hip from falling, but had a heart attack before he was able to undergo surgery. Upon leaving the hospital, Mr. Hebert was discharged to a long-term skilled nursing facility owned by the defendants, Plaquemine Caring, L.L.C. At the time Mr. Hebert was admitted to the nursing facility, he had been diagnosed with several serious conditions, which required him to be dependent upon a ventilator. On October 19, 2001, his family members found him cold and nonresponsive. They notified the staff at once and Mr. Hebert was pronounced dead from respiratory failure, cerebrovascular accident, and cervical neuropathy.

Mr. Hebert’s surviving spouse and children alleged that the defendants’ fault and negligence caused Mr. Hebert’s loss of a chance of survival. After a bench trial, the judge granted the defendant’s oral motion for involuntary dismissal, finding that plaintiffs had not established that a breach of the standard of care was a cause of Mr. Hebert’s death. The First Circuit Court of Appeal reversed and remanded because the trial court used the incorrect legal standard in granting defendant’s motion.

February 23, 2011

Disastrous Results for Plaintiffs that Wait Too Long to File Suit

by Berniard Law Firm

In Louisiana, there are certain steps that need to be taken in order to file a case for medical malpractice. In order to get a case to trial, a plaintiff must first submit a malpractice petition to a medical review board. The board reviews the facts surrounding a case and compares health care providers with a basic standard of care required for those practitioners in the locale in which they practice. If the board decides in favor of the defendants, the plaintiff can take the case to a judicial proceeding. A civil case in Louisiana must be filed or settled within a year.

This is the basic fall-back provision of how long a case can remain in effect. The legislature has the authority to add to this period for certain causes of action, in certain circumstances. For example, a medical malpractice claim must usually be filed within one year from the negligent treatment. However, if the plaintiff did not know that the medical malpractice occurred, the plaintiff can file within one year of discovering the malpractice. In any case, no claim can be filed more than three years after the alleged negligent treatment. Thus, even if the negligent treatment is not discoverable until four years have gone by, the plaintiff will be out of luck and the time for filing the suit will have expired.

The medical review board takes a great deal of time to make a decision. Thus, while the review board is making a determination, the one year prescription period is stopped to allow the board to make its decision without taking away the plaintiff’s time to bring a case. However, once the review board has made a decision, the plaintiff only has 90 days plus any additional time left over from the one year prescription period to file a claim.

February 22, 2011

Understanding Medical Malpractice and Legal Caps to Awards

by Berniard Law Firm

The Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Third Circuit, recently held the Medical Malpractice Act’s (MMA) award limitation unconstitutional when applied in violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 1974 Louisiana State Constitution. In Oliver v. Magnolia Clinic, a minor child was treated by a nurse practitioner who failed to identify tell-tale signs of neuroblastoma, a form of childhood cancer originating in the nerve tissue, and failed to refer the child for more specialized care in a timely manner. The matter was originally tried before a jury, which returned a verdict against the nurse practitioner in favor of the child’s family, for $6,000,000.00 in general damages. The MMA’s $500,000.00 award cap would have severely limited this verdict, to one-twelfth of the jury’s award. Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief asserting the MMA is unconstitutional. The plaintiffs made a number of claims that the MMA cap violates the Louisiana State Constitution, including an argument based on the equal protection guarantee of La.Const. art. I, § 3. Because the court found the “equal protection” argument had merit, it did not address the other constitutional challenges raised by the plaintiffs.

The Louisiana Supreme Court made clear in Everett v. Goldman that unless a fundamental right is impacted or a separate or suspect classification is created, the legislature is constitutionally free to limit damage recoveries or to grant immunities from suit so long as it articulates a rational basis for the discriminatory treatment reasonably related to the governmental interest sought to be advanced. The Supreme Court has also held that the right of malpractice victims to sue for damages caused them by medical professionals does not involve a fundamental constitutional right, and requires only rational basis review. However, because the MMA, on its face, discriminates between classes of people based on physical attributes, the Louisiana Supreme Court held in Sibley II that the State must articulate more than a “rational basis” for the cap in cases involving severely or catastrophically injured victims of malpractice to avoid Article 1, §3’s constitutional bar to its enforcement.

In this case, the minor child is a severely injured victim of malpractice. She was injured as a baby and she will endure a lifetime of devastating and debilitating effects on her capacity to perform even basic human functions. The State failed to present evidence to the contrary. Thus, on appeal, the Court decided that “there simply is no rational reason why the most severely injured malpractice victims should be singled out to pay for special relief for a nurse practitioner who operated in derogation of her statutorily mandated duties.” The Court also concluded that “the cap, to the extent it includes nurse practitioners within its ambit, violates the equal protection guarantees of the Louisiana Constitution and La.R.S. 40:1299.41(A)(1), and, thus, is unconstitutional.” The Court reinstated the jury’s award of damages to the plaintiffs.