Articles Posted in Pain And Suffering Claims

by

big-toys-4-big-boys-1435926-1024x744Workers’ compensation pays for an employee’s medical expenses and lost wages when an employee is injured on the job. But what happens when an employee is injured while performing his or her job in a manner not approved of by the employer? Recently, a Court of Appeal for the State of Louisiana addressed this issue in a case involving a man from St. Landry Parish.

Herbert Marshall, an employee for Courvelle Toyota, injured his back picking up an automobile transmission during work. Mr. Marshall was directed to take a truck with a liftgate, pick up a transmission from a repair shop, and deliver that transmission back to the dealership. He was instructed to take the lift gate truck because the transmission was over four hundred pounds. Mr. Marshall took a standard van instead, claiming that the liftgate was not working on the truck. When Mr. Marshall arrived at the repair shop, he enlisted the help of a repair shop worker to lift the transmission into the van. It was during this lifting where Mr. Marshall felt a “pop” in his back. When he returned to the dealership, Mr. Marshall was helped by another employee to unload the transmission. Mr. Marshall made no mention of his back pain to anyone that day.

Mr. Marshall reported the accident to his boss days after the injury. After reporting the accident, Mr. Marshall saw several doctors and underwent several different treatments. Mr. Marshall also received multiple drug tests. On two drug tests, he tested positive for cocaine. Mr. Marshall claimed that these tests were a false positive and that the test actually picked up his use of lidocaine for his tooth pain. On subsequent tests, Mr. Marshall tested negative to having cocaine in his system. Mr. Marshall requested workers’ compensation benefits from Courvelle Toyota to pay for his medical bills and lost wages. Courvelle Toyota denied those requests citing the fact that Mr. Marshall did not use the lift gate truck as instructed by Courvell Toyota. Mr. Marshall then filed a disputed claim for benefits with the Office of Workers’ Compensation, where he sought wage benefits, medical treatment, penalties, and attorney fees.

Continue reading

by

thick-metal-welding-mask-for-protecting-the-eyes-1632419-1024x784Under Louisiana law, an employee who is injured while on the job is entitled to “vocational rehabilitation services” (services that help an individual overcome his or her own physical or mental disability in order for that individual to return to work) provided by a vocational rehabilitation counselor. La. R.S. 23:1226 (2016). While an injured employee is entitled to a vocational rehabilitation counselor, is the employee able to dictate his or her own rules and requirements that the vocational rehabilitation counselor must follow? And if an employee is unhappy with the performance of his or her vocational rehabilitation counselor, then what can he or she do to remove that person?

Ellis Hargrave was injured while working for the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (“DOTD”). After the injury, DOTD began providing vocational rehabilitation services to Mr. Hargrave. After juggling multiple vocational rehabilitation counselors, DOTD finally settled on assigning Elier Diaz to Mr. Hargrave. Before their first meeting, Mr. Hargrave’s attorney sent a letter containing ten conditions that Mr. Diaz had to agree to before Mr. Hargrave would allow counseling services. The purpose of these conditions was to make Mr. Diaz put Mr. Hargrave’s interests over the interests of DOTD. Mr. Diaz declined to agree with the ten conditions. Mr. Diaz sent a letter to Mr. Hargrave, explaining that he will uphold the standards of the applicable law but declined to agree to any of the extra standards or conditions demanded. Even though the parties disagreed about the ten conditions, an initial evaluation meeting took place with Mr. Diaz, Mr. Hargrave, and Mr. Hargrave’s attorney. The disagreement over the ten conditions eventually led to litigation. This issue eventually ended up at the Supreme Court of Louisiana where it held that nothing in Louisiana law required that a rehabilitation counselor must agree to certain conditions prior to providing vocational rehabilitation services. Hargrave v. State, 100 So.3d 786, 793 (La. 2012).

While the long litigation process over one issue ended, another one soon began. Mr. Hargrave filed another claim with the Workers’ Compensation Judge (“WCJ”) asking the WCJ to remove Mr. Diaz as vocational rehabilitation counselor because Mr. Diaz violated Louisiana law. At trial, Mr. Hargrave asserted that Mr. Diaz violated Louisiana law when he met with DOTD without allowing Mr. Hargrave or his counsel to attend and that Mr. Diaz violated Louisiana law when he stated that Mr. Hargrave and his attorney agreed to the meeting. The WCJ disagreed, holding that Mr. Diaz did not violate Louisiana law. Mr. Hargrave appealed.

Continue reading

by

concrete-tiles-1140575-575x1024Be it alleged abuses in the welfare system or lying on their tax return, individuals abusing the system has been a hot button issue for the past couple of years. But what happens when someone gets caught? How does the law handle the people who abuse the system? Recently, a Louisiana Court of Appeal held that concealing previous injuries resulted in a forfeiture of workers’ compensation benefits (insurance that pays wages and medical costs for an injury occurring while at work) and the payment of restitution (compensation ordered by the court for restoration of money to its rightful owner) for a Saint Martinville concrete finishing business owner.

Darrell Wiltz is the sole owner of Wallace Wiltz Concrete, Inc. He worked as both the manager of the business and as one of the laborers for the company. On October 21, 2009, Mr. Wiltz was lifting a tool used in the concrete finishing business when he allegedly injured his lower back. He filed a claim with LUBA, the workers’ compensation insurance provider for Wallace Wiltz Concrete. Initially, LUBA only paid for some of Mr. Wiltz’s medical treatment and did not pay any wage benefits. But after Mr. Wiltz inquired with LUBA why all of his medical treatment and wage benefits were not being paid, LUBA sent an adjuster to record a statement from Mr. Wiltz. In the statement to the adjuster, Mr. Wiltz admitted to previously having one minor back injury. He also denied being in any vehicle accidents. Based on these statements, LUBA began approving all the medical treatment benefits and started paying Mr. Wiltz total temporary disability benefits.

On April 6, 2010, LUBA performed a claim index search on Mr. Wiltz which revealed that Mr. Wiltz had been involved in at least two vehicle accidents. LUBA then obtained Mr. Wiltz medical records which indicated that Mr. Wiltz had undergone at least three MRI’s of his lower back due to complaints of pain. The medical records also indicated that Mr. Wiltz had various disc issues such as bulges or herniations in his lower back and one medical provider diagnosed him with lumbar disc disease.

Continue reading

by

old-abandon-farm-house-1408741-1024x768A good lawyer must be on top of his or her case. Not only must a lawyer know the facts of the case and the applicable law, but the lawyer must also meet certain deadlines and procedure requirements by the court. While little activity on a case might mean it has gone stale, no activity at all can mean abandonment, which is exactly what happened to one plaintiff in Jefferson Parish.

George Segerstrom brought a personal injury claim against police officer Desmond Julian and the City of New Orleans. Mr. Segerstrom alleged that Officer Julian crashed into him with a police car. Three years after Mr. Segerstrom’s filing of the case, the City of New Orleans filed a motion asking the trial court to consider the case abandoned and dismiss the action. The trial court agreed with the City of New Orleans, finding the case abandoned and dismissing it.

Abandonment occurs when there is inactivity in a case for three or more years. La. C.C.P. art. 561. If a lawsuit is considered by abandoned, then the trial court must dismiss the case. Abandonment is automatic and a side cannot “breathe new life into the [case]” once the case is abandoned. Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 785 So.2d 779, 784, 789 (La. 2001). Acceptable ways to ensure that a case stays active is by filing motions, going through discovery (the information gathering part of a trial), and other formal trial procedures.

Continue reading

by

coke-1483373-1024x768When 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.

It all began when Ralph McFarland, a salaried employee for Coca-Cola, rear-ended a vehicle belonging to Darius Jack. Prior to the accident, Mr. McFarland had just finished meeting with his final Coca-Cola client for the day and was on his way home from work. At the time of the accident, Mr. McFarland wore a Coca-Cola polo shirt and was in possession of his Coca-Cola cell phone and laptop. Mr. Jack sued both Mr. McFarland and Coca-Cola. At trial, Mr. Jack insisted that Coca-Cola was vicariously liable for Mr. McFarland’s actions. Vicarious liability attributes the actions of a company’s employee onto the company itself. It is normally found when an employee’s action is closely connected to his or her employment duties. See LeBrane v. Lewis, 292 So.2d 216, 218 (La.1974). Courts usually consider many factors when determining vicarious liability like the payment of wages by the employer, the employer’s power of control over the employee, and the time, place, and purpose of the act in relation to service of the employer. See Orgeron on Behalf of Orgeron v. McDonald, 639 So.2d 224, 227 (La. 1994); see also Reed v. House of Décor, Inc., 468 So.2d 1159, 1161 (La. 1985).

Mr. Jack, in arguing that Coca-Cola was vicariously liable, emphasized that Coca-Cola paid for Mr. McFarland’s mileage, that Mr. McFarland met with a Coca-Cola client prior to the accident, and that Mr. McFarland wore a Coca-Cola polo shirt at the time of the accident. Coca-Cola argued against vicarious liability. It pointed out that Mr. McFarland was on his way home from work and that Mr. McFarland did not do any further work after leaving his final Coca-Cola client’s place of business. Coca-Cola also pointed to a statement made by Mr. McFarland where he said that he made a personal stop at a gas station after finishing his last appointment and that while it is possible that he could be called back to office before its closing at five o’clock he could count on one hand the number of times where that happened. Coca-Cola also emphasizes that Mr. McFarland’s typical work day was over by half past three. The trial court held that Mr. McFarland was not working within the scope of his employment with Coca-Cola at the time of the accident and that Coca-Cola was not vicariously liable for Mr. McFarland’s actions.

Continue reading

by

toes-1438916-1024x683As 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.

Ms. Babin filed a lawsuit against Mr. Russo and American Towing Enterprises. At trial, the court awarded $673,380.35 in damages, finding Mr. Russo and American Towing Enterprises 60% at fault and Ms. Babin 40% at fault. When the injured individual is found partially at fault for his or her injury, his or her damages are reduced by the amount he or she was at fault. In Ms. Babin’s case, her fault reduced the total amount of damages to $404,028.21. Ms. Babin appealed the trial court’s determination of damages, claiming that the awarded amount was insufficient. Conversely, Mr. Russo and American Towing Enterprises appealed the trial court’s determination claiming that the amount awarded was excessive.

The Louisiana Court of Appeals (“the Court”) was tasked with determining whether the damages were insufficient or excessive. The Court examined two types of damages, general damages, and special damages. General damages often include mental or physical pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of gratification or intellectual or physical enjoyment, or other losses of lifestyle. McGee v. A C And S, Inc., 933 So. 2d 770, 774 (La. 2006). The goal of general damages is to make the injured party whole. In other words, put the injured party in the same position he or she was at prior to the injury. Special damages are damages that the injured person will experience in the future. Ms. Babin argued that at minimum she should have received $400,000 for general damages and $557,028 in special damages for future medical care. The Court found that the trial court’s determination of general and special damages was reasonable. When addressing the amount of special damages for future medical care, the Court noted that the trial court awarded Ms. Babin $223,77.00 based on the testimony of two doctors at trial. When seeking future medical expenses, “the appellate record must establish that future medical expenses will be necessary and inevitable.” Bass v. State, 167 So. 3d 711, 716 (La. 2014). In addition, future medical expenses will not be supported when there is not medical testimony. The Court found the trial court’s determination of special damages was reasonable and disregarded the defendants’ argument that the awarded amount was unsupported by evidence. Lastly, the Court examined the loss of future wages. The loss of future wages requires the trial court to determine how much work the injured party will miss in the future because of his or her injury. For Ms. Babin, the trial court determined that Ms. Babin will lose $81,735.00 in future wages. The Court also found this amount reasonable.

Continue reading

by

pillow-and-sheet-1499969-1024x769Is it cruel and unusual punishment for a prison to not provide an extra pillow and mattress to an injured prisoner?  According to Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, it is not.  It is unsurprising that inmates often complain about mistreatment from prison officials. But what is required for a prison official’s conduct to be considered cruel and unusual punishment?

Amongst other things, the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. U.S. Const. amend. VIII. Prisoners have a very high standard of proof when claiming that prison officials are guilty of such conduct.  The prisoner must show that the prison official acted with “deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs, constituting an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Easter v. Powell, 467 F.3d 459, 463 (5th Cir. 2006).

In this case, Mr. Davis, an inmate at Avoyelles Bunkie Detention Center, was involved in an accident while traveling in an Avoyelles Parish Sheriff’s Office transport vehicle. The driver of the transport vehicle hit another vehicle while in reverse. Mr. Davis and the other inmates involved in the accident were taken to the hospital two hours after the accident occurred.

Continue reading

by

big-oli-rig-1239227-1024x769Decisiveness can be an excellent quality, especially in a judge.  Court dockets are usually quite full and it can take a very long time for cases to be resolved. Whenever there is a confusion over which law to apply, however, patience is the greater virtue.  In a lawsuit, lawyers will often request relief under various laws in hopes that one will bring success.   In a recent case out of Venice, Louisiana, the  Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal reminded an Office of Workers’ Compensation Judge (“WCJ”)  just how important patience is when issuing an order in a case with competing theories of recovery.   

Shawn Johnson was a mechanic for The Wood Group working on its oil production platforms when he was injured in a boat collision on Grand Pass on March 12, 2014.  Grand Pass is a fishing channel, known as “the jump”, which is located close to Venice, Louisiana, in St. Bernard Parish.  After the accident, Mr. Johnson filed claims for compensation under both the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act (“LWCA”) and the federal Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (“LHWCA”).  At a December 19, 2014, hearing, the WCJ dismissed Mr. Johnson’s LWCA claim with prejudice asserting the WCJ lacked jurisdiction because the claim did not fall under the LWCA. The dismissal with prejudice would prohibit Mr. Johnson from refiling his LWCA claim.  Mr. Johnson’s LHWCA claim before a federal court was still pending at the time of the dismissal.

In the judgment, the WCJ did not explicitly find that Mr. Johnson’s claim was covered by the LHWCA.  Instead, she found that his claim did not fall under the LWCA. In her reasoning, the WCJ said that there is no longer concurrent jurisdiction so if a claim falls under any federal statute, that would preclude a state claim. The WCJ did not wait however for a definitive determination by the federal court on whether Mr. Johnson’s claim fell under the LHWCA.  If both claims were dismissed with prejudice Mr. Johnson would be completely deprived of relief.  Mr. Johnson appealed the case to the Fourth Circuit only requesting that the case is dismissed without prejudice (meaning it could be refiled) just in case the LHWCA claim did not survive.

Continue reading

by

handicap-parking-1444248-1024x606Accidents in the workplace can rob one of the ability to work or even do simple daily tasks. The system of workers’ compensation exists to ensure that injured workers are compensated for their injuries. However, certain rules exist to ensure money is distributed efficiently.  In a recent case out of Opelousas, the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal confronted the rules governing permanent or temporary disability status.   

Donald Stelly was an employee of Fresenius Medical Care NA (“Fresenius”). In September of 2005, Mr. Stelly fell from a ladder at work and was injured. At the time of his injury, Mr. Stelly was 67 years old and had suffered other medical conditions including heart disease and diabetes. As a result of his injury, Fresenius paid his medical expenses and workers’ compensation benefits.   In 2014, Mr. Stelly filed a claim against Fresenius disputing his disability status.  Mr. Stelly had a “Functional Capacity Evaluation” (FCE) test performed on him in 2009.  An FCE is a schedule of tests and evaluations to assess one’s abilities, especially in the workplace.  Based on the FCE doctors opined that he was totally disabled and would not be able to return to work.  Fresenius petitioned for another FCE to be performed and Mr. Stelly petitioned for a finding of permanent disability as shown by the earlier tests.

After a trial before the Office of Workers’ Compensation for the Parish of St. Landry, the Worker’s Compensation Judge (WCJ) found in favor of Fresenius, ruling that Mr. Stelly was only temporarily disabled, finding that there was not enough evidence to find him to be permanently disabled.  Mr. Stelly appealed his case to the Third Circuit.

Continue reading

by

hard-hat-area-1455626-1-1024x732Getting seriously injured on the job is always a terrible experience, but what if it is unclear for purposes of a lawsuit who you even work for? You know that someone owes you compensation for your injuries, but in this recent case out of Natchitoches Parish that “someone” may not be where your employment application was filed.  

International Paper Company (“IPCO”) hired Turner Industries Group, LLC (“Turner”) to perform maintenance work on IPCO’s recovery boiler.  Garred Whotte, an employee of Turner, was sent to IPCO to construct scaffolding necessary to the maintenance work. While on the job, his feet started burning, resulting in chemical burns to his feet and ankles. Mr. Whotte brought a personal injury lawsuit against IPCO. IPCO filed a successful motion for summary judgment arguing that it was immune from a personal injury lawsuit under the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act (“Act”) which limits recovery to the provisions of the Act. The Tenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Natchitoches specifically found that Mr. Whotte was a “statutory employee” of IPCO at the time of the injury limiting Mr. Whotte to workers’ compensation benefits. Mr. Whotte appealed to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal.

The remedies provided to a worker under the Act are the exclusive remedy an employee can seek against his employer or principal pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1032(A)(1)(a).  A “principal” is a person who has contracted with another to perform work as part of the business at the time of worker’s injury.  The principal, as the statutory employer, is protected from tort lawsuits and given the protections of the Act as the exclusive remedy for those injured on the job.  La. R.S. 23:1061.  In the event of a contract between the principal and employer, the contract must contain language recognizing the principal as the statutory employer.  Language to this effect creates the presumption of a statutory employer, however, this presumption can be overcome only by showing that the work is not an integral part of or essential to the ability of the principal to generate their goods, products, or services.  

Continue reading
Contact Information
1140 St Charles Ave
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 521-6000
Fax: (504) 617-6300

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2024, Berniard Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design