Pain And Suffering Claims

August 27, 2017

Workers’ Compensation Suit Claiming Benzene Exposure Caused Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Fails

oil-refinery-1240489-1024x599 Often, the facts of a lawsuit are unclear. One strategy that lawyers often use to prove their version of events is to use an expert witness to corroborate their side’s story. Expert witnesses are individuals who possess knowledge in a field or area that the average person knows little to nothing about. Frequently, both sides in a lawsuit end up utilizing experts who often times have differing opinions about the facts surrounding the lawsuit. But how does a judge or jury determine which expert is correct? Recently, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal for the State of Louisiana addressed these questions in a workers’ compensation case.

David Allensworth worked for two different companies, Gulf South Systems (“GSS”) and Grand Isle Shipyard (“GIS”) as a cleaner, cleaning storage tanks containing gasoline, crude oil, diesel fuel, and condensate. One day, Mr. Allensworth visited an urgent care center with complaints of abdominal pain and weight loss. A CT scan revealed a large abdominal mass which was later diagnosed as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. A cause of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is toxic exposure to benzene with is contained in crude oil and gasoline. Mr. Allensworth filed a lawsuit against GSS and GIS for workers’ compensation benefits claiming that his exposure to benzene while working for the companies caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Workers’ compensation pays for an employee’s medical expenses and lost wages when an employee is injured on the job.

At trial, Mr. Allensworth submitted the sworn statement of Dr. Jack Saux as an expert oncologist. Dr. Saux concluded that Mr. Allensworth’s non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was caused by toxic exposure to benzene, which most likely happened when Mr. Allensworth cleaned his employers’ storage tanks. GIS and GSS countered with its own medical expert, who testified that though there is some association between benzene and lymphoma, there is no evidence that benzene exposure caused Mr. Allensworth’s non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (“WCJ”) concluded that Mr. Allensworth did not prove that his disease was a result of his employment. In doing so, the WCJ noted that Dr. Saux based his opinion on Mr. Allensworth’s statement in which Mr. Allensworth claimed he only wore a regular shirt and overalls while cleaning the tank. It was based only on this statement, and not on an examination, that Dr. Saux concluded that exposure to benzene from Mr. Allensworth’s job likely caused Mr. Allensworth’s disease. The WCJ also noted that the testimony of GIS and GSS’s expert stated that Mr. Allensworth did wear protective equipment when cleaning the tanks.

August 25, 2017

Louisiana Court Finds Employee Did Not Prove Injury Occurred at Work

by Berniard Law Firm

billiard-2-1434095-1024x683 When an employee is injured in the course of his or her job, then the employee will receive wage replacement and medical benefits in the form of workers’ compensation. Workers’ compensation takes the place of a lawsuit an employee can bring when he or she is injured on the job by someone’s negligence. Because employers are responsible for providing a safe work environment, it stands to reason that employers are responsible when that environment is unsafe. While workers’ compensation provides a necessary service to injured workers, there are always those who would try to take advantage of the system. This struggle to try to provide for those who are legitimately injured while at work and deny claims for those who try to defraud the system gives rise to a complex body of law. One reoccurring issue that often surfaces in workers’ compensation cases is whether an employee is injured while on the job. Recently, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal examined this issue when determining whether an employee for a pool table installing company injured his back while on the job.

Nunzio Galiano worked for Lucky Coin Machine Company (Lucky Coin) as a pool table installer. Mr. Galiano was regularly required to lift and move large objects during the course of his duties, including 200-pound slates for pool tables. In August of 2013, Mr. Galiano began to experience pain in his lower back. He did not tell his employer about the pain until he could no longer stand it. Mr. Galiano hesitated to inform his employer of the extent of his back pain because he feared being fired if he told the whole truth. When Mr. Galiano finally went to a doctor, the doctor told him that the pain was not caused by kidney issues, which Mr. Galiano had assumed to be the cause prior to the doctor visit, but rather sacroiliac (SI) joint dysfunction. When told that Mr. Galiano’s work environment involved heavy lifting, the doctor indicated that there may be a connection between that and the bad back. Mr. Galiano then filed for and was awarded, workers’ compensation benefits. Mr. Galiano’s employer, Lucky Coin, appealed this decision arguing that Mr. Galiano’s injury was not caused while he was on the job.

Louisiana law requires that an employee prove 1) that there is an injury, 2) arising out of the employment, 3) caused by an accident, and 4) that the injury is more than simply a gradual deterioration or progressive degeneration. La. R.S. 23:1031 (2016). An employee bringing a workers’ compensation claim is only required to prove the injury more likely than not occurred while the employee was on the job. Marange v. Custom Metal Fabricators, Inc., 93 So.3d 1253, 1257 (La. 2012).

August 24, 2017

Pre-Existing Injury Not an Automatic Bar to Receiving Workers’ Compensation Benefits

by Berniard Law Firm

sprinkler-1316192-1024x681 Accidents can happen at any time, even at work. Sometimes these accidents can aggravate a pre-existing injury. In a claim for workers’ compensation benefits, employers may use the existence of an old injury to deny payment of benefits despite a clear work accident with medical repercussions. This was the case for a government employee in Winnsboro, Louisiana.

Mr. Jay Marshall was an employee of the Town of Winnsboro’s water department for 33 years where he worked as a supervisor. For years he had back pain from injuries but always sought treatment and returned to work. Mr. Marshall had been taking pain medication since 2002. On November 2012, while working with his crew, Mr. Marshall pulled a rod out of the ground, hurt his back, and was unable to work the rest of the day. After the accident, Mr. Marshall went to his physician, Dr. Roland Ponarski, complaining of back pain. Dr. Ponarski did not recall Mr. Marshall mentioning a recent work accident during the visit. Mr. Marshall was referred to neurosurgeon Dr. Bernie G. McHugh. Mr. Marshall provided a patient history to Dr. McHugh which included back pain from a work injury originating in the 1990s. Dr. McHugh opined that someone with a disease like Mr. Marshall’s should only be performing sedentary work and that the most recent workplace injury in conjunction with his degenerative disease certainly worsened the pain. Risk Management, Inc., the worker’s compensation adjuster for Winnsboro, sent Mr. Marshall to Dr. Jorge Rodriguez for a second opinion in 2013. Dr. Rodriguez concluded that no surgery was needed and that over the counter pain medication was enough if Mr. Marshall was restricted to light duty work.

In January 2013, Mr. Marshall filed an injury report on the November 2012 accident with Winnsboro. Risk Management denied Mr. Marshall’s claim, did not pay an indemnity and did not provide for any medical treatment. Subsequently, Mr. Marshall filed a dispute with the Office of Workers’ Compensation. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (“WCJ”) found Mr. Marshall was entitled to temporary disability benefits beginning September 2013, covering supplemental earning benefits, as well as $500 as a penalty and $2000 in attorneys fees.

August 21, 2017

Port Allen Automobile Accident Lawsuit Results in Victory for Plaintiff and a Discussion of Damages and Trial Strategy

by Berniard Law Firm

money-money-money-1241634-1024x768 There are many questions involved in filing and pursuing a lawsuit. How do I file? When must I file? Against whom do I file it? What amount of damages do I seek? Most people are unaware that there are different types of damages. An attorney’s trial strategy not only plays a critical role in if the plaintiff is awarded compensation but also in how much the plaintiff is awarded, as highlighted by the following case.

Lana Averette was driving on Highway 1 in Port Allen when she was struck by an Entergy bucket truck driven by an employee of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C. (“Entergy”). On June 11, 2013, Ms. Averette filed a lawsuit against Entergy and the employee (“Defendants”), asserting that she had suffered spinal injuries from the accident. During his closing statement to the jury at the end of the trial, Ms. Averette’s attorney asked the jury not to award her future general damages, but to award her the cost of the future medical treatments she would be required to undergo because of her injuries. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Ms. Averette in the amount of $42,373.00 for past lost wages, $58,378.00 for past medical expenses, $75,000.00 for past mental anguish and emotional distress, $75,000.00 for past lost enjoyment of life, $75,000.00 for past pain and suffering, and $500,000.00 for future medical expenses. Defendants filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or alternatively a motion for new trial, arguing that it was error as a matter of law to award Ms. Averette future special damages without awarding future general damages. The Judicial District Court for the Parish of West Baton Rouge denied the motions and Defendants appealed to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal. On appeal, Defendants argued that because Ms. Averette waived her claim for future pain and suffering, she waived her claim for future medical expenses.

General damages seek to compensate the plaintiff for losses of life or lifestyle which cannot be measured definitively in terms of money, such as pain and suffering. See McGee v. A C and S, Inc., 933 So.2d 770, 774 (La. 2006). In contrast, special damages are those which may be calculated with relative certainty, including medical expenses. In reviewing a jury’s award of special but not general damages, a reviewing court must ask if the award is so inconsistent that it is an abuse of discretion. See Wainwright v. Fontenot, 774 So. 2d 70 (La. 2000). Under certain circumstances, the Court of Appeal noted that evidence presented at trial could support an award of medical expenses without an award of general damages. Thus, the question before the Court of Appeal was whether the jury made inconsistent awards based on the record of evidence.

August 20, 2017

Marrero Winn Dixie Not Liable for Slip and Fall Injuries Due to Lack of Notice

by Berniard Law Firm

There really can be several hazards in a grocery store: rogue carts, other shoppers, scattered merchandise, to name a few. Even more common is the infamous puddle of water. Inevitably in a store full of liquids, patrons can slip and fall in a neglected puddle. But when should the grocery store (or any merchant) be required to compensate a patron for injuries sustained in a slip and fall case? This was the subject of a recent case out of Marrero, Louisiana.

Carol Evans was shopping at the Marrero Winn-Dixie when she slipped in a puddle of standing liquid. Ms. Evans brought a lawsuit against Winn-Dixie for her injuries alleging that she slipped in the puddle of liquid in the meat section of the store. The store’s co-director, Mr. Scioneaux, helped Ms. Evans complete an incident report. Subsequently, Mr. Scioneaux successfully tracked down what he believed to be the source of the moisture, a leaking 24-pack of water. He then reviewed surveillance video of the aisle where the incident occurred and saw no evidence of any other injuries. He further testified that the person who had the leaking 24-pack of water in their grocery cart was in the aisle only one minute prior to the accident. Ms. Evans testified that she did not notice any liquid on the floor until after she fell, and further described it as being clear. She also had no way to account for the length of time it had been present, and there were no prior complaints of water before Ms. Evans sustained her injuries. Winn-Dixie filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that Ms. Evans could not show that Winn-Dixie had actual or constructive notice of the condition prior to her accident, which was required for a successful case. The Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson granted Winn-Dixie’s motion for summary judgment based on Ms. Evan’s failure to prove notice as required. Ms. Evans filed an appeal with the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal.

Merchants are tasked with the duty of keeping their premises in reasonably safe condition. This means that a merchant must exercise reasonable care in keeping aisles, passageways, and floors free from any hazardous conditions that could reasonably cause injury. A plaintiff who sustains injuries while lawfully on the merchant’s premises must prove: [1] the condition created an unreasonable risk of harm that was reasonably foreseeable; [2] the merchant was aware of the condition that caused the damage, through either actual or constructive notice, prior to the injury; and [3] the merchant failed to exercise reasonable care to remedy the condition. See La. R.S. 9:2800.6. To succeed under a theory of constructive notice, a plaintiff must show that the hazardous condition existed for a period of time that it would have been discovered if the merchant exercised reasonable care. See Trench v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery LLC, 150 So.3d 472,475 (La. Ct. App. 2014). A plaintiff must present “positive evidence” of the existence of the condition prior to the accident. For employee presence to constitute constructive notice, a plaintiff must show that an employee either knew or should have known of the condition. The burden of presenting solid evidence in these cases is high; a plaintiff cannot successfully bring a slip and fall case based on speculation.

August 19, 2017

Court of Appeal Affirms Damages Award in Lost Chance of Survival Case Out of Ouachita Parish

by Berniard Law Firm

Good medical treatment, even in a first-world country, can, unfortunately, be difficult to find. Doctors make mistakes and sometimes even entire hospitals can be at fault. In a recent case out of Ouachita Parish, a woman was delayed admission to a hospital for an extended period which ultimately led to her diminished chance of survival. While relief under several theories of recovery was debated, her survivors were eventually compensated despite opposition from the Louisiana Patients’ Compensation Fund.

injection-1-1323670-544x1024 In November 2002, Ms. Annette Toston died at St. Francis Medical Center from complications from an underlying kidney infection. Prior to her death, Ms. Toston was a patient at E.A. Conway Hospital where physicians determined she requested a surgical procedure only available at St. Francis. Ms. Toston arrived at St. Francis on November 25, 2002, however, was not admitted until approximately fifteen hours after arrival. Ms. Toston subsequently died during the operation. Following the death of Ms. Toston, her seven children filed suit in the Fourth Judicial District Court. On July 14, 2014, the Judge entered a judgment in favor of Ms. Toston’s seven children. The written judgment assessed St. Francis with $100,000, damages and the Louisiana Patient’s Compensation Fund (“PCF”) with $400,000. The PCF automatically covers all state healthcare providers and caps the recovery of damages against a qualified healthcare provider at $100,000, plus interest per patient per incident. Any award in excess of the cap is paid directly by the PCF. St. Francis entered into a settlement agreement with Ms. Toston’s family for the $100,000, under the conditions that it would be released from all liability, and reserving all rights to proceed against the PCF.

The PCF appealed to the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal. The PCF argued that the Trial Court erred in finding St. Francis liable in Ms. Toston’s death. The PCF also argued that the Trial Court erred in finding that St. Francis breached the standard of care during Ms. Toston’s transfer to St. Francis. Additionally, the PCF challenged the damages award, arguing that Ms. Toston could not have had a close relationship with her children because of the ages and locations of her children.

August 16, 2017

Jefferson Parish Employee Cannot Prove Work-Related Injury From Unwitnessed Accident

by Berniard Law Firm

supermarket-kart-1-1413356-1024x683 In any lawsuit, the party seeking relief must carry its burden by proving every element of the claim or claims which it has raised. By doing so, the party satisfies to the court that it is entitled to the relief which it seeks. One such element pivotal to all claims for workers’ compensation benefits is that the alleged injury arose out of and during employment. Proving a work-related injury solely on the injured person’s testimony can, however, doom a workers’ compensation case. This is a lesson that workers’ compensation claimant Isaac Garcia, who worked for Rouses Market in Metairie, Louisiana, learned the hard way.

In early November of 2013, Mr. Garcia filed a claim for failure to pay benefits, naming both Rouses Enterprises, Inc., as well as its insurer, Strategic Comp, for a work-related injury he allegedly sustained while working for Rouses Market in Metairie. Mr. Garcia claimed that on September 15, 2013, while moving a box during work he felt a sharp and immediate pain, beginning in his wrist and right thigh, and radiating to his lower back. The incident was not witnessed by anyone other than Mr. Garcia himself. Mr. Garcia returned to work for a brief period, but left work shortly after the incident. Mr. Garcia failed to inform his supervisor of the injury out of fear of termination. This was in direct violation of Rouses’ policy which required all on the job injuries to be reported immediately.

In the days that followed, Mr. Garcia spoke with his supervisor over the phone but again failed to mention the injury sustained on September 15. On September 20, the day before Mr. Garcia’s next shift, the pain had escalated to the point that Mr. Garcia considered seeking medical attention at the emergency room, but decided to consult an attorney first. The attorney referred Mr. Garcia to a doctor who found Mr. Garcia’s condition consistent with lumbar disc displacement. Mr. Garcia saw a second doctor in relation to medication for pain management. Finally, on September 24, 2013, more than a week after Mr. Garcia’s injury and subsequent to seeking medical treatment, Mr. Garcia returned to Rouses and filled out an accident report in relation to the September 15 injury. Yet Mr. Garcia failed to disclose neck and back injuries he sustained approximately a year and a half prior to being hired by Rouses. Ultimately, Rouses and Strategic Comp denied Mr. Garcia any form of workers’ compensation benefits. The claim was submitted to the Workers’ Compensation Judge (“WCJ”) who found Mr. Garcia was not entitled to benefits, a decision which was later upheld by the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal.

August 15, 2017

Tell It to the Jury: Louisiana Court of Appeal Reverses District Court in Medical Malpractice Case

by Berniard Law Firm

historical-medical-devices-3-1566087-1024x678 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.

Doris Greathouse was admitted to East Jefferson General Hospital on June 2, 2008 for elective heart surgery. Shortly after Dr. Cougle and CRNA Wilkinson intubated Mrs. Greathouse, she suffered cardiac arrest and her brain was deprived of oxygen. Mrs. Greathouse was transferred to the Intensive Care Unit with fatal brain damage until her family removed her life support. Mrs. Greathouse’s children then filed a wrongful death and survival action against Dr. Cougle and Ms. Wilkinson alleging that they committed medical malpractice resulting in their mother’s injuries and death.

Pursuant to La. R.S. 40:1299.47(B)(1)(a)(i), health care providers in Louisiana cannot be sued for medical malpractice under the the Medical Malpractice Act (“MMA”) unless the plaintiff submits a complaint to a Medical Review Panel (“Panel”), composed of three healthcare providers and an attorney. The Panel’s sole duty is to express its expert opinion as to whether the evidence supports the conclusion that the defendants complied with the standards of care. See La. R.S. 40:1299.47(G). The Panel may not render an opinion on any disputed issue of material fact that does not require its medical expertise. See La. R.S. 40:1299.47(H).

August 14, 2017

Entertainment Company Not Responsible For Concert Goer’s Injuries Sustained at Baton Rouge Centroplex, Despite Venue Hazards

by Berniard Law Firm

concert-1436178-1024x768 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.

In March of 2006, Ms. Shannon Rodrigue went to a concert with her friends at the Riverside Performing Centroplex in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. As Ms. Rodrigue and her friends waited in line to enter the Centroplex, a Spectator Management Group (“SMG”) employee instructed the group to go around the side of the building and go down a flight of stairs in order to get their seats. As the group proceeded to head down the stairs, Ms. Rodrigue missed a step and fell down the flight of stairs. The fall was the result of a poorly lit stairwell. Ms. Rodrigue sustained several injuries to her head, back, neck, knees, and wrists.

Ms. Rodrigue filed a lawsuit against several parties whom she believed were responsible for the poorly lit stairwell that ultimately led to her injuries. The parties included the Centroplex, the Centroplex’s insurer, and the City of Baton Rouge-Parish of East Baton Rouge; SMG and its insurer. In response to Ms. Rodrigue’s filing of the lawsuit, SMG and its insurer filed a motion to have Ms. Rodrigue’s lawsuit against them dismissed. SMG asserted that Ms. Rodrigue had no claim against them and their insurance company because they did not have custody of the stairwell where Ms. Rodrigue fell. SMG further claimed that even though Ms. Rodrigue and her friends were directed to the stairwell by one of its employees, SMG was not aware of the lighting situation of the stairwell before her fall. The District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge granted SMG’s motion and Ms. Rodrigue’s claims against it were dismissed. Ms. Rodrigue appealed to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal.

August 13, 2017

Louisiana Court of Appeal Upholds Jury Award for Bossier Parish Family in School Bullying Case

by Berniard Law Firm

management-school-3-1524193-1024x348 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.

On December 10, 2012, a fourth-grade boy, J.B., at Carrier Martin Elementary School in Plain Dealing, Louisiana broke his arm during playground recess when three boys knocked him to the ground to keep him from tattling. J.B.’s parents filed a lawsuit on behalf of their son against the Bossier Parish School Board (“Board”), and teacher Tricia Huckaby seeking damages. After a trial before the Judicial District Court for the Parish of Bossier, Louisiana, the jury found in favor of the parents and awarded $125,000 in general damages, $12,674.14 in special damages, and $25,000 to the mother for the loss of consortium for a grand total of $166,784.63 with legal interest. The Board appealed the finding of liability and argued that the award was excessive.

A school board, through its agents and teachers, owes a duty of reasonable supervision over students pursuant to La. C.C. art. 2320. For liability to be imposed on a school board for inadequate supervision of students, there must be (1) proof of negligence and (2) proof of a causal connection between the negligent supervision and the resulting damage to a student. See Creekbaum v. Livingston Parish School Board, 80 So. 3d 771 (La. Ct. App. 2011). The standard of care required by the school supervisors over the students is only what would be expected of a reasonably prudent person in same or similar circumstances. The risk of injury had to be both foreseeable and preventable if a requisite degree of supervision had been exercised. In awarding damages, a jury is empowered with great discretion and the award will only rarely be disturbed on appeal if an abuse of discretion is found.