Negligence

November 27, 2011

Lawsuit Alleging Medical Malpractice Against Nurse Highlights Cap Limitation Elements

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.

November 21, 2011

Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal Punishes For Duplicitous Suits

by Berniard Law Firm

As part of our Constitutional right to due process, an individual is allowed to bring grievances before a court. However, certain judicial policies may be enacted to deny plaintiffs from bringing suits that have already been litigated, are being brought with the intent to harass, or are frivolous. The purpose behind such policies is to make courts as efficient as possible by deterring such actions. A recent case out of the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal shines a light on several of these deterrents.

In Mendonca v. Tidewater, Inc., the plaintiff sought to nullify several final judgments made by the district court. Mendonca’s list of suits stretched over four years, with multiple appeals and pleas for annulment. However, none of Mendonca’s nullity claims or his appeals were successful. In his final appeal for anulment, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down three restrictions that laid Mendonca’s long line of cases to rest.

The first of these restrictions was the court’s upholding of the defendent’s plea of res judicata and failure to state a claim. When res judicata is enacted, the court declares one of two denials. First, that the claim has been subject to a final judgment and thus no longer qualifies for an appeal, or second, that the litigant cannot bring a claim against the same party in a second claim because all claims should have been brought against that party in the initial suit. The policy considerations supporting res judicata is to preserve court resources and protect defendants from being subject to litigation multiple times, with the possibility of having to pay damages more than once. A defendant’s plea that a plaintiff has failed to state a claim goes hand-in-hand with res judicata. If res judicata is applicable, then all duplicitous claims cancelled. In Mendonca’s case, this means that there were no new claims. Since there were no such claims, the court held that Mendonca’s nu

November 15, 2011

Baton Rouge Plaintiff Loses Defamation Claim Due to Prescription

by Berniard Law Firm

The following case highlights the importance of waiting no time in bringing a cause of action that is available. In 2008, Debra Goulas worked as a bookkeeper for Sunbelt Air Conditioning Supply in Baton Rouge. Jessie Touchet, owner of Sunbelt, and Diane Jones, Goulas’s manager, accused her of stealing over $500 from the company during February and April that year. This serious accusation resulted in Goulas being tried for felony theft. The crime of theft is committed when one is involved in a trespassory taking and carrying away of the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the true owner of that property. Goulas was subsequently acquitted of this particular theft.

Following the criminal trial and Goulas’s ultimate accquital, she filed a lawsuit against Touchet and Jones in July, 2010 alleging defamation. Specifically, Goulas argued that Touchet and Jones “intentionally and negligently inflicted emotional distress” upon her, and that their accusations were “founded in malice to damage her person and reputation.” The complaint sought damages for medical expenses, physical and mental pain and suffering, and loss of wages. The defendants filed an exception of prescription. The basis of the exception was that Goulas’s claims were based on the defendants’ actions that allegedly occurred during February and April of 2008. By the time Goulas filed suit in 2010, more than one year had passed, thereby prescribing the claims. In October, 2010, the trial judge granted the defendants’ exception of prescription and dismissed Goulas’s claims with prejudice.

Goulas appealed, alleging error on the trial court’s ruling that her defamation claim was prescribed. Goula’s reasoned that she could not initiate her defamation action until her criminal trial was concluded in March, 2010; accordingly, she argued that prescription did not begin to run until Frederick Jones publicly accused her of theft when testifying at her trial. The First Circuit noted that Louisiana recognizes a qualified privilege that protects parties from charges of defamation related to statements they make during a trial. “It necessarily follows that, during this time, the one-year period that applies to the filing of a defamation action is suspended.” However, the court explained, the suspension of prescription applies “only to allegedly defamatory statements made by parties to a lawsuit.” In this situation, Frederick and Jones were not parties to Goulas’s criminal prosecution, so the prescription suspension did not apply. The court concluded that “since there has been no suspension of the 2008 alleged defamatory statements,” the trial court properly granted the defendants’ exception of prescription.

November 9, 2011

Oil Company Wins Another Chance to Recover Money It Paid to Clean up Gulf Oil Spill

by Berniard Law Firm

The case of Jefferson Block 24 Oil and Gas, Inc. v. Aspen Insurance UK Limited highlights an important battle over money set aside for oil spill recovery, an obviously sensitive and important topic in the Gulf Coast. At the federal district court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, the defendants won a motion for summary judgment and the court dismissed the case. The plaintiffs appealed the determination and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the decision and remanded the case for further hearing.

The plaintiff, Jefferson Block, owned and operated offshore gas leases, pipelines and a platform in the Gulf of Mexico. In November 2007, a drop in pressure in one of the pipelines was discovered that showed that oil was spilling into the Gulf. Jefferson Block cleaned up the oil under the direction of several government agencies and incurred a cleanup cost of approximately $3 million.

At that time, Jefferson Block owned an insurance policy which provided some coverage in the case of a leak, but was limited to the items set out in a “Declaration.” This declaration listed the oil interests that Jefferson Block had in the area but did not specifically reference the 16-inch pipeline that was the cause of the spill.

November 7, 2011

Class Action Plaintiff Has High Bar to Avoiding Federal Courts

by Berniard Law Firm

Under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), federal courts have jurisdiction over class action claims. There are exceptions, however, including what is known as the “local controversy exception.”

The plaintiff, Opelousas General Hospital Authority, sued in state court three defendants, located in Texas, Illinois and Louisiana, for violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act. The defendants removed the case to a federal district court under the Class Action Fairness Act and diversity of jurisdiction. The defendants were able to claim diversity of jurisdiction because they asserted that joinder of the only in-state defendant, LEMIC, was fraudulent. The plaintiffs then attempted to remand the case back to state court, asserting that the case fit within CAFA’s narrow “local controversy exception.”

The “local controversy exception” of the CAFA allows a plaintiff to bring a class action lawsuit in state court rather than federal court when several requirements are satisfied. These requirements are that: 1) more than 2/3 of the proposed plaintiffs (as a class) are citizens of the state in which the action was originally filed; 2) principal injuries resulting from the alleged or related conduct of each defendant occurred in-state, and 3) at least one defendant falls under a very specific category. This category covers defendants who meet all of the following: 1) significant relief is being sought from that defendant, 2) the defendant’s conduct forms a significant basis for the claims, 3) it is a citizen of the originally-filed state, and 4) the principal injuries the plaintiffs suffered happened in the originally-filed state. In such a case, the federal district court will “decline to exercise its jurisdiction” and the case will go back to state court. Additionally, for the 3 years before the original class action is filed, no other similar class action, alleging similar facts, can have been filed against any of the defendants.

November 5, 2011

Failure to Properly Serve a Personal Injury Lawsuit Does Not Require Dismissal, Louisiana First Circuit Court Rules

by Berniard Law Firm

In a recent Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, a plaintiff successfully appealed an earlier dismissal of his case for failure to properly serve all of the correct parties.

After Hurricane Gustav, Mr, Preston was working on the Southern University campus removing debris, including trimming tree branches, when he slipped and fell into a hole in the ground. He sustained injuries and sued Southern University for negligence, claiming that the campus allowed an unreasonably dangerous condition to exist and it failed to warn him of the dangerous condition.

Under a Louisiana statute (La. R.S. 13:5107), when a plaintiff sues the State of Louisiana or a state agency, he must serve the Louisiana attorney general and the head of the agency. Furthermore, if the suit is a personal injury lawsuit (tort lawsuit), the Office of Risk Management must be notified and served as well, according to La. R.S. 39:1538.

November 3, 2011

Baton Rouge Pedestrian Strike Reminds Drivers of Duty to Keep a Lookout

by Berniard Law Firm

It is well settled in Louisiana law that automobile drivers are required to exercise care to avoid colliding with pedestrians. Motorists are charged with the duty to see what an “ordinarily prudent” driver should see to prevent striking pedestrians in the roadway. In fact, La. R.S. 32:214 requires drivers to

“exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon any roadway and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary and shall exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any confused or incapacitated person upon a highway.”

A driver’s liability for injury to a pedestrian is based on ordinary negligence principles. The traditional duty/risk analysis is used to compare the driver’s behavior to “how a reasonably prudent person [would] have acted or what precautions [he would] have taken if faced with similar circumstances and conditions; the degree of care required is dependent upon the foreseeable dangers facing the driver. It can be particularly challenging for a court to conduct the duty/risk analysis when a victim dies as a result of his injuries and there are no eyewitnesses to the accident other than the defendant himself. The “trier of fact is free to believe in whole or part the testimony of any witness,” which means that the a judge or jury may disregard a defendant’s own testimony about whether he saw–or should have seen–the victim. Scoggins v. Frederick. However, under Louisiana civil procedure, “a court cannot make [such] credibility determinations in ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” This rule of procedure led to the First Circuit Court of Appeals’ reversal of the trial court in Woodward v. Hartford Insurance Co.

November 1, 2011

Third Circuit Court Orders Prevailing Defendants in Class Action Suit to Pay Court Costs

by Berniard Law Firm

In a recently published case, a four-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal for the State of Louisiana upheld a trial court’s determination that the defendants pay all of the court costs, even though they prevailed on the merits of the case. This kind of decision is highly unusual; typically, the losing party pays court costs, which can include, for example, filing fees, expert witness fees, and costs of depositions. They can be substantial, especially in a decade-long court case such as this one. Here, the defendants were ordered to pay court costs of $326,307.09, which they promptly appealed.

In order to appeal a judgment of costs, the costs must be substantial and a hearing on the subject must be held after the case has resolved on the merits. Here, the trial judge, Judge Hebert, did in fact hold a hearing where both sides were allowed to present briefs and arguments as so why the opposing party should be forced to bear the costs.

The judge acknowledged that the lawyers for both sides were aggressive advocates and did not fault them for that. Though Judge Hebert took one of the plaintiff’s attorneys to task for losing his temper and throwing a pencil, he also pointed out that the defendants’ attorneys engaged in behavior that was calculated to mislead the court, intimidate and harass witnesses, and impede litigation.