Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
Peanuts and cracker jacks are two cornerstones of the game of baseball. However, surgery is not. Yet, when one little leaguer got struck by a baseball during practice, the league’s insurer tried to get out of picking up some of his medical bills. The Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal, however, was not going to let the insurance company off so easily.
On June 1, 2010, nine-year-old Michael Folley was hit in the mouth by an errant baseball during his baseball team’s practice. On May 20, 2011, Tonya Csaszar, on behalf of her son Michael, brought suit against Nationwide Insurance, alleging that Michael would require future medical treatments and surgeries as he got older. Nationwide, having paid some medical expenses, denied further coverage based on a provision of the policy limiting coverage to medical expenses incurred within three years of the accident. Nationwide moved for summary judgment arguing coverage for Michael under the policy had terminated. The Judicial District Court for the Parish of LaFayette denied the motion and Nationwide appealed.
The parties disputed when the injuries were “incurred” and thus subject to coverage. Nationwide argued that there was no ambiguity in the meaning of “incurred” in the language of the policy and any medical treatment beyond the three-year cap was not subject to coverage. The Plaintiffs contested however that due to Michael’s young age, he would need additional medical treatment to accommodate physical changes as he grew. Nationwide’s policy did not define the word “incur.”
Upon entering a facility for medical treatment, we all hope that we will be treated properly. However, what happens when a medical or health care professional deviates from the profession’s standards? What happens if there is a mistake in the diagnosis or treatment? Such victims certainly have an opportunity to seek redress however sometimes a jury verdict can prove disappointing. This case out of Jefferson Parish demonstrates what happens when a trial court jury does not get the proper instructions necessary for deciding a complex medical malpractice claim in Louisiana. 
What starts out as an entertaining night out for a concert with friends, ends with painful injuries. Instead of enjoying your favorite music with companions, you must go to the hospital to treat injuries sustained due to negligent maintenance of the concert venue. You are now recovering from your injuries and are faced with medical expenses. You know that you shouldn’t be responsible for the medical bills; after all, you are hurt because someone failed to do their job. But who exactly is responsible? Determining the party responsible for personal injuries was a recent issue in a case out of Baton Rouge. 
School bullying is a commonly discussed problem in our generation. Parents are often faced with dilemmas on how to protect their children and instruct them in dealing with bullies at school. In earlier eras perhaps this was considered a problem for the individual family to bear alone. In a recent case out of Plain Dealing, Louisiana however, the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed that school teachers and the school board can now be held liable for such bullying and its effects. 
During litigation, a party may attempt to claim some form of privilege as an avenue not to produce certain evidence. There are various types of privileges that may be asserted. One that is familiar to many is attorney-client privilege. One that is not as familiar is work-product privilege. Work-product privilege is claimed in civil cases and is used to keep materials that are created in anticipation of litigation from being discovered by opposing counsel. However, to assert work-product privilege the party claiming it must be an adverse party in the lawsuit. A non-party is not entitled to work-product privilege, as Louisiana State recently learned when the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed that work-product privilege can only be claimed by an adverse party.
When are you on the job? While seemingly a simple question, many personal injury cases revolve around the issue of whether an individual was acting within the scope of his or her employment. The ramifications of the answer to this question determine whether a business is on the hook for its employee’s negligence. Recently, a Louisiana Court of Appeal (“the Court”) addressed this question when determining whether a Coca-Cola Bottling Company United, Inc. (“Coca-Cola”) employee was working for the company at the time of an accident.
As if having car troubles was not bad enough, imagine also losing your toe in the process. Well, that exact scenario happened to Valerie Babin. After her vehicle broke down in Gonzales, Louisiana, Ms. Babin called American Towing Enterprises to tow her vehicle. An American Towing Enterprises’s employee, Floyd Russo, arrived to help Ms. Babin. At this point, Ms. Babin’s day went from bad to worse. As Mr. Russo partially loaded the vehicle onto the truck’s flatbed, Ms. Babin went to turn off her vehicle’s emergency flashers. At the same time, Mr. Russo lowered the truck bed, which landed on Ms. Babin’s foot, crushing her big toe. Despite attempts to save her big toe, Ms. Babin eventually required surgery to remove it.
No legal case is without controversy, but some of the most controversial types of cases involve a slip and fall injury. For some, it is hard to believe that a “little fall” could actually cause substantial injury. Often times, those who bring a slip and fall action are seen as milking the situation to try to get money from a business. However, when a person is injured he or she must prove that the injury was the result of someone’s alleged negligence. This proof requires that the injured individual show that the facts surrounding the incident support his or her claim. When coupled with a stringent legal standard, a dispute of what occurred at the time of the injury complicates the matter. The following slip and fall lawsuit filed against the Albertsons in Shreveport, Louisiana, shows the difficulty in bringing such claims to trial.
When a case goes to trial, there are many nuances that a lawyer might have to address, including a motion for a continuance or a dismissal. A continuance is the postponement of a hearing, trial or other scheduled court proceeding at the request of either party or by the judge. A dismissal occurs when the court ends a legal action before completing the trial process. This case out of the Parish of East Baton Rouge demonstrates Louisiana’s requirements for a continuance or a dismissal in the district courts.
The majority of cases, civil and criminal alike, never make it to trial. The parties may settle the case out of court or the claims may simply be dropped by the plaintiff. A third reason why a case may not make it to the jury is if a judge grants a party’s motion for summary judgment; a fate that almost befell Orleans Parish citizen John Ludlow’s negligence