Negligence

December 11, 2011

Inadequate Medical Care and the Legal Ramifications Capable of Causing Life-Changing Problems

Everyone expects adequate, timely, and complete care from medical professionals in hospitals. However, unfortunately, times come when the expected level of care fails to come to fruition, and an action for medical malpractice arises. In March of 1993, a Tallulah, Louisiana, resident began a series of trips to doctors in hospitals in which his continued back, shoulder, and neck pain eventually led to lung cancer. The Tallulah, Louisiana resident, Mr. Kerry Scarborough, died 2 years later in March of 1995.

For a malpractice claim against a hospital, plaintiffs like Mr. Scarborough’s mother, suing in her son’s name, must prove by a preponderance of the evidence first, that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty to protect against the risk involved, essentially providing a standard of care that the plaintiff was owed, second, that the defendant breached that duty or standard of care, and third, that the injury was caused by that breach. A hospital can be sued for its own negligence (such as failure to keep its facilities clean), or under a theory of vicarious liability, in which a plaintiff alleges that the hospital is liable for the negligence of one of its doctors. Of course, a medical malpractice action can be extended to any health care provider, including dentists, nurses, hospital workers, physical therapists, radiologists, and more.

Louisiana revised statute 9:2794 provides the statutory language laying out the plaintiff’s burden for a general malpractice action. The plaintiff must prove how much knowledge or skill or how much care that physicians licensed in Louisiana normally exercise in similar locations and situations. Furthermore, the plaintiff must prove that if the defendant physician specializes in a particular field, and if the allegedly negligent acts within that specialty raise unique issues, then the plaintiff must prove how much care that physicians in that specialty normally exercise. Additionally, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant did not have the knowledge or skill, or did not exercise reasonable care, diligence and best judgment in using his or her skill. Moreover, the plaintiff must prove that the plaintiff suffered injuries that were the proximate result of the defendant’s absence of the knowledge and skill, or the absence of reasonable care.

December 9, 2011

Plaintiff Learns Painful Lesson About Treating Injuries Without Delay

by Berniard Law Firm

Early in the morning of August 25, 2006, Angela Brignac visited a McDonald’s in Baton Rouge. While she was stopped at the drive-thru’s menu board, her car was struck from the rear by a truck operated by Brian Mumphrey. The collision occurred because Mumphrey’s foot slipped off the brake pedal when he bent down to retrieve his wallet from the truck’s floor. Brignac did not call the police, but did exchange information with Mumphrey. She then ordered breakfast and went on her way. Later that evening, after Brignac went home and discussed the accident with her boyfriend, she called the police to report the accident and went to the hospital to be examined.

Approximately a year later, Brignac filed a lawsuit against Mumphrey and Farm Bureau, his insurance carrier. Brignac’s complaint alleged injuries to her right shoulder, back, neck, head, mouth, and jaw as a result of the collision. The trial court awarded Brignac $3,587 in damages for past medical expenses she incurred treating her jaw injury. It also awarded her general damages in the amount of $6,000, but denied her claims for past and future medical expenses for her shoulder injury. Brignac appealed this judgment, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to award medical expenses related to her shoulder injury. Brignac alleged that she had consistently complained of right shoulder pain from the date of the accident. She testified at trial that she reported both shoulder and jaw pain in the emergency room on the evening of the accident, but the shoulder issue was not documented in the ER records which were completed by both the ER doctor and the triage nurse. The first documented complaint of shoulder pain did not come until six weeks after the accident when Brignac was seen by Dr. Johnston who diagnosed her with a strained rotator cuff. Johnston prescribed pain medications, physical therapy, and exercise, and also administered cortisone injections in Brignac’s shoulder. He testified at trial that while he believed Brignac’s shoulder injury was related to the car wreck, his opinion was “based on history and what she tells me solely.” Brignac did not follow Dr. Johnson’s physical therapy recommendations and was eventually discharged as a patient from the therapy center for failing to show up for appointments. The First Circuit observed that “the trial court was not convinced that Ms. Brignac proved that her shoulder injury was related to the accident.” And, after reviewing the record, the court could not say that the trial court’s factual determination on causation was “manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.” The court held,

“Noting other possible causes for Ms. Brignac’s shoulder injury, including the repeated lifting of her child, and considering the lapse of time between the accident and Ms. Brignac first seeking treatment for the shoulder problem, the [trial] court was not convinced that Ms. Brignac proved that her shoulder injury was related to the accident. We find no manifest error in this conclusion.”

December 7, 2011

Court Explores Standard of Review in Baton Rouge Car Wreck Case

by Berniard Law Firm

On August 7, 2002, James Wilson was driving his car southbound on Essen Lane in Baton Rouge. When he attempted to make a left turn onto the on-ramp for I-10, Wilson pulled into the path of an oncoming car driven by Barbara White northbound on Essen. The crash left Wilson with serious injuries. Following the incident, Wilson filed suit against the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (“DOTD”). His complaint alleged that the DOTD negligently installed lane delineators on Essen Lane at the intersection with I-10; Wilson’s negligence theory was based on his assertion that the lane delineators blocked drivers’ view of oncoming traffic. Wilson asserted that the DOTD’s negligence caused his accident because he couldn’t see White’s car when he attempted to turn onto I-10. After a trial the jury returned a verdict in favor of the DOTD. It found that the DOTD was not negligent and that its installation of lane delineators did not cause the accident. Wilson filed a motion requesting a JNOV which was denied by the trial court. Wilson then appealed on the basis that the jury’s verdict was not supported by the evidence.

The First Circuit began it analysis with a recitation of the standard of review for a challenge based on the jury’s alleged manifest error. Because the determination of negligence is a factual one, an appellate court must apply a two part test to reverse the jury’s finding. Part one involves the appellate court’s deciding that a “reasonable factual basis” does not exist in the record for the jury’s finding; part two requires the appellate court to determine that the record establishes that the jury’s finding is “clearly wrong.” Additionally, when

factual findings are based upon the jury’s weighing of witness credibility, “great deference” must be given its decision. The rule of thumb is that where there are two or more permissible views of the evidence, the jury’s choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous.

December 5, 2011

Louisiana Wrongful Death and Punitive Damages Award in Oil Refinery Release (Part II)

by Berniard Law Firm

The Bailey case, as discussed, was determined based upon the precedent set forth by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Bulot v. Intracoastal Tubular Services, Inc. The focus here is on two causes of action, Whether a plaintiff can file both, and receive punitive damages for, a wrongful death and survivorship cause of action.

The Plaintiffs in Bulot were two families who sued the defendant oil refinery for wrongful death and survival. The District Court granted summary judgment, meaning there were no genuine issues of material fact, in favor of the defendant as to one family’s wrongful death action and its claim for punitive damages in its survival action. The Court also granted the defendant’s exception of no right of action as to punitive damages for the second family’s wrongful death action.

Each family had a family member that died after being exposed to radioactive waste. One family alleged that the deceased had worked for a company that engaged in the cleaning of oilfield tubing and pipes. He died of pancreatic cancer in 1999, allegedly as a result of exposure to radioactive waste while employed by the company. The second family’s family member died while La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2315.3 (‘the statute’) was in effect (between 1984 and 1996). The statute provided that punitive damages may be awarded, in addition to general and special damages, if it is proved by the plaintiff that the sustained injuries were caused by the defendant’s “wanton or reckless disregard for public safety in the storage, handling, or transportation of hazardous or toxic substances.”

December 3, 2011

Louisiana Wrongful Death and Punitive Damages Award (Part I)

by Berniard Law Firm

The Bailey v. Exxon Mobil Corporation case finds its conclusion based on the precedent set forth in Bulot v. Intracoastal Tubular Services. The focus is on the application of a statute, and differentiating events that take place prior to the statute’s enactment, and how the Court will analyze events that continuously occur which began before the enactment of the statute and continue after its enactment.

The issue before the Court in Bailey is whether the plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages in a wrongful death action are precluded by Bulot. The plaintiffs in Bailey alleged that either they or their decedents were exposed to naturally occurring radioactive material at over 600 pipe yards throughout Louisiana, six other states, and overseas, through their work with, or with a subsidiary of, the Exxon Mobile Corporation. They also alleged they were entitled to punitive damages under former Louisiana Civil Code Article 2315.3.

Punitive damages are intended to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in similar conduct to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Punitive damages are not intended to compensate the plaintiff, however, the plaintiff often receives most if not all of the punitive damages award. The Court states that the statute in question, La. C.C. art. 2315.3, effective September 3, 1984 and repealed April 16, 1996, provided for punitive damages “if it [were] proved that plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the defendant’s wanton or reckless disregard for public safety in the storage, handling, or transportation of hazardous or toxic substances.” The court in Bulot states that “punitive damages cannot be recovered by way of a wrongful death action. The right to a punitive award is a different kind of right or legally enforceable claim than the right to compensatory damages. As such, a claim for damages pursuant to La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2315.3 cannot exist as a component of a wrongful death action, as that is limited to compensatory damages for the survivor’s (victim’s) own injuries.”

December 1, 2011

Trial Necessary to Determine Jones Act Applicability (Part 2)

by Berniard Law Firm

Not all employees furthering a vessel’s mission are seamen. They can provide short-term or even land-based support. If so, they aren’t seamen under the federal Jones Act. Whether Kerry Becnel was a seaman when he was injured was the issue considered in Becnel v. Chet Morrison, Inc., No. 2010-CA-1411 (La. Ct. App. 4 Cir. 8/31/11). The court of appeal reversed the St. Bernard 34th Judicial District Court and sent the case back for trial.

In the U.S. Supreme Court case of Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, the first question to determine whether an employee is a seaman is simple: did the employee “contribute[ ] to the function of the vessel or accomplishment of its mission.” Becnel did contribute. He worked 17-hour days in preparing meals, cooking food, and cleaning. He sustained injuries when he fell off a barge at the end of one of those long working days. The parties did not dispute that Becnel met this test.

The second part of the Chandris test is harder: “whether that employee had a connection to a vessel in navigation which was substantial both in terms of duration and nature.” Two questions arise. Did the employee have a connection to a vessel in navigation? Was that connection substantial in its duration and nature.

November 29, 2011

Court Determines if Injured Temp Qualifies Under Jones Act

by Berniard Law Firm

Kerry Becnel was injured while working on a barge, but his relationship with the vessel is not clear cut, making it difficult to determine whether he was a seaman under the federal Jones Act. In Becnel v. Chet Morrison, Inc., No. 2010-CA-1411 (La. Ct. App. 4 Cir. 8/31/11), the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the St. Bernard 34th Judicial District Court and sent the case back for trial.

Becnel was a cook on a quarters barge owned by Chet Morrison Contractors, Inc. (CMC). One night in 2005, he was walking from one barge to another to reach a water taxi used to get to his living quarters. Before he reached the water taxi, he fell several feet into the water. Becnel claimed that “there was no safety device, railing, chain, rope, or other safety feature to prevent falling from the side of the vessel,” and the owner knew this. To add to the danger, the only light near where he fell was not working. He said he could not avoid the danger because he could not see it.

Becnel sued his employer, Coastal Catering, L.L.C., which had contracted Becnel’s services to CMC. He also sued CMC and the companies’ insurers. The battle became one between the companies and their insurers. Coastal’s insurer, State National Insurance Co. (SNIC), claimed that Coastal’s maritime general liability insurance policy did not cover CMC’s potential liability for Becnel’s injuries, but the district court decided it did.

November 27, 2011

Lawsuit Alleging Medical Malpractice Against Nurse Highlights Cap Limitation Elements

by Berniard Law Firm

This post serves as a concluding piece on the Oliver Medical Malpractice case reviewed in our previous two entries:

The higher burden in a medical malpractice case requires that the state show that the discrimination furthers a legitimate governmental interest. The Taylors argued that by including nurses in the categories of medical practitioners who have limited liability, those in Taylor’s shoes have inadequate remedy. The state argued that it was creating this distinction for the overall purpose of protecting individuals who are in situations just like Taylor.

Ultimately, the state argued that by creating the liability limit for nurses in the act, it had in mind the future consequences of unlimited liability. They argued that by creating the cap the amount of liability is reduced, which means that it costs less overall for a nurse to practice within the state of Louisiana. The state goes on to argue that this reduction in cost insures that there will be a sufficient number of nurse and medical practitioners who practice within Louisiana. This, they argue, ensures people like Taylor that someone will be there to help them. Moreover, the state argues that a lower liability limit means that nurses like nurse Duhon will have at least enough money to cover the costs up to the cap and that with unlimited liability, it would not be guaranteed that nurses would have the sufficient amount of resources to compensate victims of malpractice.

November 25, 2011

Medical Malpractice in Oliver Case Sees Ruling Highlighting Financial Disparity

by Berniard Law Firm

Ultimately, the Olivers sued the nurse practitioner alleging malpractice. A jury awarded them over one million dollars in damages. Eventually, the award of general damages, which in Louisiana included medical and non-medical costs, was reduced to $500,000 as required by the statute. Needless to say the Olivers were distraught at the low value the court ascribed to Taylor’s injury.

The Oliver’s challenged the constitutionality of the statute by alleging that it violated the principle of equal protection. When a statute is constitutionally challenged one of the most important aspects of the case is what burden the state has in defending the act. If the act does not violate the equal protection clause of the 5th and 14th amendment, the state only needs to prove that the act has a rational basis connected with a legitimate government interest. Generally, this standard is not very hard to meet. On the other hand, if the act violates equal protection, a higher standard is used to evaluate the act. The Louisiana equal protection clause states the following:

“No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law. No law shall discriminate against a person because of race or religious ideas, beliefs, or affiliations. No law shall arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably discriminate against a person because of birth, age, sex, culture, physical condition, or political ideas or affiliations.”

November 23, 2011

Oliver Medical Malpractice Case Sees New Opinion From Courts

by Berniard Law Firm

In some states, the legislative branch creates certain protections for classes of residents. These protections can come in the form of protective presumptions, statutory liability limitations, or any other form which the legislative branch thinks is necessary for its state. In most states, statutes protect those in the medical field from unlimited liability. The reality is that these protections are necessary in order to protect doctors and hospitals from being involved in numerous civil cases. If doctors could be sued freely, chances are that the cost of liability insurance would sky rocket. If this happens, medical professionals would be wary to establish a practice in that particular state. Needless to say, this would create a huge crisis in the medical field.

These protections generally do not apply if there has been an egregious act by a doctor. Moreover, these protections do not apply if a doctor has intentionally committed an act against a patient. In Louisiana, for a general claim of malpractice, the award of general damages is limited to $500,000. This protection exists for doctors, hospitals, and some types of nurse practitioners. However, if an exception to the statutes application exists, the shield will not be helpful to medical practitioners.

In a recent case Joe Oliver vs. Megnoila Clinic, the protection did not apply to a nurse practitioner. The statute involved was expanded to include nurse practitioners of the type the defendant was. However, one of the requirements was that the nurse practioner consult with a medical doctor on issues before giving medical advice. Susan Duhon, one of the defendants in the case, was a nurse practitioner. She was seeing the Taylor Oliver who was an infant at the time that she was first brought to Ms. Duhon’s office. Taylor was brought in because she was crying a lot and the parents could not figure out what the problem was.