Pain And Suffering Claims

November 28, 2013

Appeals Court Upholds Jones Act Claim for Seaman Injured Off Gulf Coast

The Jones Act is a law that provides seamen the chance to bring personal injury suits against the owners and operators of vessels they are working on in cases where the owner or operator was negligent or in some other way at fault for the injury. One of the types of damage allowable under the Jones Act is that of maintenance and cure. In maritime law, maintenance is the employee’s daily living expenses and cure is the employee’s medical bills. If an employer has to pay maintenance and cure, they will only have to pay such costs until the seaman is either fit for duty, or at a point where added medical treatment will not improve his condition. This case goes into further detail about what is necessary for a plaintiff to receive an award for maintenance and cure in a Jones Act case, and the relationship between maintenance and cure and worker’s compensation in Louisiana.

In this case, the plaintiff was performing sandblasting and plating work on an offshore rig. While performing this work, the plaintiff slept and ate aboard the M/V Howard McCall, stored equipment on the vessel, and used the vessel as a work platform on several occasions. After the initial work on the rig was done, the plaintiff was brought back to the vessel to perform sandblasting work on the vessel itself. During this period of work, the plaintiff sustained injuries while exiting the ship’s wheelhouse. The plaintiff soon began receiving payments from the Louisiana Worker’s Compensation Commission who was the employer’s insurer.

Subsequently the plaintiff filed suit against both of the owners and the operator of the vessel under the Jones Act. The plaintiff made three basic claims: 1) the owners and operator of the vessel were negligent in maintaining the safety of the vessel, 2) the vessel was unseaworthy, and 3) the owners and operators owed him costs for maintenance and cure. During the jury trial, the negligence and unseaworthiness claims were dismissed, and the remaining claim of maintenance and cure was the only claim left. The jury found in the plaintiff’s favor and awarded him awards of maintenance and cure. The defendants appealed the jury’s award.

November 26, 2013

Parish Judge Affirms Denial of Class Certification in Oil Spill Suit

by Berniard Law Firm

A class action suit occurs when a group of people bring a case together as representatives of an entire class of people who are similarly situated. In order to bring a class action in Louisiana, a judge must certify the class. This means that the class of plaintiffs meets the requirements for their class action to go forward. One of the requirements a class must meet to be certified is that it must have what is known as numerosity. In Louisiana numerosity is defined as meaning that the class is too large for the individual plaintiffs to pursue their claims separately or it is too large for the individual plaintiffs to be joined to the case in a practical manner. The following case illustrates what happens when questions about numerosity arise in a class action.

On May 15, 2009 a vacuum truck owned and operated by Environmental Services, Inc. was driving on Louisiana Highway 27 between Singer and DeQuincy when a valve broke and 300-500 gallons of motor oil leaked out onto the highway. The leak was discovered when the truck arrived in DeQuincy, and the impacted portion of the highway was closed within approximately 15 minutes of the truck’s arrival.

The plaintiffs seeking to certify this class action brought suit alleging that they suffered physical injury due to inhaling the fumes from the spilled motor oil and also alleged that they suffered damage to their vehicles and livestock in their vehicles from driving over the spilled oil. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class that included everyone who drove over the spilled oil before it was cleaned up.

November 22, 2013

Injured Ouachita Patient Fails to Meet Burden of Proof in Medical Malpractice Action

by Berniard Law Firm

When treatment provided by a health care professional falls below the accepted standard of practice in the medical community and causes injury or death to a patient, it is said that medical negligence or medical malpractice has occurred. To establish a claim for medical malpractice, a plaintiff must prove: (1) the standard of care applicable to the defendant; (2) that the defendant breached that standard of care; and (3) that there was a causal connection between the breach and the resulting injury. These three elements must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, which is the requirement that more than fifty percent of the evidence be in the plaintiff’s favor.

Nearly a month after surgery, it was discovered that John Roberts had been suffering from a staph infection after having a vasectomy performed by, urologist, Dr. Don Marx. On November 17, 2010, Mr. Roberts filed a lawsuit against Dr. Marx seeking damages for allegedly failing to provide appropriate medical care and treatment and diagnosis of the surgery’s complications. In addition to those allegations, Mr. Roberts’ complains that Dr. Marx failed to inform him that just days before performing Mr. Roberts’ vasectomy procedure, the doctor himself had undergone eye surgery after losing part of his vision in his right eye.

After the filing of the initial complaint, Dr. Marx moved for judgement as a matter of law and argued that Mr. Roberts would be unable to adequately prove his case at trial due to the lack of expert testimony to establish a breach of duty by the Dr. Marx. Accordingly, the trial court agreed with Dr. Marx determined that no genuine issue of material fact existed and granted summary judgment against Mr. Roberts.

November 17, 2013

Public Entities Afforded Special Treatment by the Law in Injury Cases

by Berniard Law Firm

Public entities, such as the food bank in the City of Kenner, get special treatment when it comes to personal injuries. A plaintiff must prove that a hazard was not open and obvious in order to collect damages for their injuries. The thing must also pose an unreasonable risk of harm. However, if there is an unreasonably dangerous condition, the owner of the premises is supposed to either correct the danger or post some kind of warning for people passing by or using the premises.

Louisiana courts use a four-part test to determine whether a risk is unreasonable. First, the court will consider the utility of the thing, or its overall usefulness. Then, the court considers the likelihood and degree of the harm. Part of that determination considers the openness and obviousness of the condition. That is, they will attempt to consider how likely it is that someone will not notice the condition, and if they did not notice the condition, how badly they will be injured. Third, the court considers the cost of preventing the harm, or how much it would cost to fix the condition. Finally, the court will address how dangerous the plaintiff’s actions were in the first place. For example, if Plaintiff trips on a crack in the sidewalk, but he was running with scissors on public property, then the court will take that into consideration when determining if the crack in the sidewalk is related to his stab wound.

If Plaintiff satisfies all of these prongs, then the public entity will likely be to blame for the plaintiff’s injuries. The public entity faces strict liability if Plaintiff passes all four prongs. Strict liability is a very difficult standard for the public entity to face because there are no degrees of fault. It is either the city’s (or other pubic entity’s fault) or it is not. If Plaintiff meets all four prongs, fault has pretty much already been determined.

November 14, 2013

Louisiana Court Says Widow of Paper Mill Employee in Mansfield Unable to Recover Damages

by Berniard Law Firm

The appellate court has affirmed a summary judgment dismissing a widow’s case against Stebbins Engineering and Manufacturing Company. She filed suit after her husband died while he was working at International Paper Company in Mansfield, Louisiana.

An employee died when, while attempting to repair a valve on the platform surrounding a white water tank/tile chest, he fell into the tank. Pulp debris around the opening cover may have been dislodged due to overflow before his fall. Thus, the widow brought suit against the manager of the Mansfield paper mill, International Paper, and Stebbins, which designs and constructs the tanks. Over 20 years ago, it manufactured the tank that the deceased fell into, and Stebbins also inspects tile chests at some of its locations, though not at the Mansfield mill.

Whether the widow had a case or not turned on the legal duties of Stebbins. The widow argued that inspections at other plants provided notice to Stebbins that some of the tile chests were over-pressurized and overflowing, which caused the dislodging of the access opening covers, thereby endangering International Paper employees working around the tanks. She argued this created an obligation for Stebbins to inform International Paper employees about the safety issue.

November 12, 2013

Westlake Head-on Collision Leads to Serious Injuries, Examination of Responsibility

by Berniard Law Firm

Throughout Louisiana there are many roads that do not have marked center lines. When an accident occurs on one of these roads, a careful investigation must be made to determine which side of the road the accident occurred on. Then, if a lawsuit is filed, the trier of fact can determine which driver was responsible for the accident. A recently decided case that was affirmed by the Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit serves as an example of how such fault determinations are made and how the law plays into these accidents.

In that case, a woman was on an unmarked road getting ready to turn left into a private driveway. From the other direction, another vehicle crossed the center of the road in order to pass cars parked along the side of the road. By doing so, the second driver failed to re-enter his lane before reaching the first vehicle. The second car slammed into the first, causing serious injury to the first driver and severe damage to her vehicle. An investigation of the crash, particularly of skid marks, showed the accident did indeed take place in the first driver’s lane and that the second driver was driving much faster than the posted speed limit. The first driver filed a lawsuit against the other driver and won compensation for her damages. To find the second driver at fault, the judge in the case examined existing statutes to determined the second driver broke the law by moving into the other lane to pass vehicles when the other lane was not clear for a reasonable distance and f or traveling at excessive speed.

As evidenced by this case, when one is injured in an accident, a lawsuit may be filed against another driver in an attempt to recover damages. To succeed on such a claim, the plaintiff must show the other driver was negligent and that negligence caused the plaintiff’s injuries. If a driver is speeding, crosses the center line, or is drunk, for example, the driver is likely to be found negligent. If injuries are sustained as a direct result of that negligence, then compensation may be obtained to cover medical expenses, pain and suffering, and lost wages. Then, the plaintiff can focus on moving past the accident and getting life back to normal.

November 11, 2013

Employer Had No Duty to Prevent Caregiver’s Lifting Injury

by Berniard Law Firm

To a certain extent, employers are legally required to guard their employees against the risk of on-the-job injuries. But for an injured employee to prevail in a lawsuit against the employer, the employee must be able to prove that the employer owed him or her a duty to prevent the particular accident that occurred. The Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal recently affirmed this rule in the recent case of Chaisson v. Drake.

Mary Elizabeth Chaisson was working as a private caregiver for Dr. Winbourne Macgruder Drake. She had been helping him get in and out of his wheelchair for three years when one day something went wrong.

Chaisson was attempting to transfer Drake from a lift chair to his wheelchair when he suddenly began to fall forward. When Chaisson grabbed him to prevent the fall, she pulled muscles in her neck and back.

November 9, 2013

Nursing Home Injury Leads to Medical Malpractice Claim

by Berniard Law Firm

Recently, an individual from the Parish of St. Tammany was injured as she was transported from a nursing home to another health-care facility. She fell from her wheelchair when the driver had to slam on his brakes. The wheelchair had neither a seatbelt, nor was the wheelchair strapped down in the van. The individual sued her nursing home based on the failure to adequately secure her for her journey. Questions regarding the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act arose that considered whether the nursing home was a healthcare provider and whether her injury constituted medical malpractice.

The Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (“Act”) requires that individuals take their medical malpractice complaints against qualified health care providers to a medical review board before taking the claim to a court. The State of Louisiana employs this administrative process because the state is self-insured, and it covers some health-care providers. They want to be sure that a medical malpractice claim exists before it gets into the courtroom. The medical review board generally consists of two healthcare professionals and one attorney. Generally, the healthcare professionals are in the same field as the doctor accused of malpractice. For more information on the medical review panel, see http://www.doa.louisiana.gov/MedReview/index.htm.

If a claimant does not use the medical review panel and tries to take their claim directly to court, then it will be dismissed because it is premature. Dismissing for prematurity is a dilatory exception, which means that it only delays the progress of a lawsuit, but does not defeat the action. In medical malpractice suits, the defendant has the burden of proving that he is entitled to a medical review panel, which only applies to only malpractice, not other tort actions, and that he or she is a qualified medical provider.

October 27, 2013

5th Circuit Rules Wal-Mart Not Liable for Slip-and-Fall Caused by Leaky Roof

by Berniard Law Firm

When a hazardous condition on a merchant’s property causes a slip-and-fall accident, the victim can file suit for his or her injuries. But in Louisiana, the merchant can only be held liable for those injuries if the merchant created the danger or had actual or constructive notice of it before the accident. This law saved Wal-Mart from liability in Gray v. Wal-Mart, a recent case from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On September 1, 2008, Hurricane Gustav made landfall near Cocodrie, Louisiana as a Category 2 storm, causing considerable casualties and damages along its track. That day, Louisiana resident Jean Gray was shopping at a Wal-Mart in Pineville. As she was pushing her cart down an aisle, she slipped in a puddle of clear liquid and fell, injuring her right knee. In an internal incident report, a Wal-Mart supervisor identified a hole in the store’s roof as the source of the puddle, an assumption he made based on his knowledge of other leaks in the roof and the heavy rain pouring down outside.

Gray and her husband sued Wal-Mart for her injuries, claiming that she slipped in a puddle of rainwater that had leaked from a hole in the store’s roof. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart. The Grays appealed, and the case went to the Fifth Circuit.

October 22, 2013

Standing in Wrongful Death Cases: Who May Initiate a Lawsuit?

by Berniard Law Firm

The term wrongful death refers to cases in which the decedent’s death was the fault of another. The other “person” could be one individual, such as someone driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol; it could also be a group of people or a business, such as the decedent’s employers or the manufacturers of a product whose defect or malfunctioning resulted in the user’s death. Wrongful death lawsuits may be initiated by family members of the decedent in order to obtain monetary benefits, such as for wages the decedent would have earned if he were still alive. Before filing a lawsuit, it is important to establish whether the person bringing the case has standing to do so. Standing indicates that the moving party has a sufficient connection to or is substantially affected by the harm being alleged, in this case the wrongful death of the victim.

In order to bring a wrongful death lawsuit, the plaintiff must have standing as a close relative of the deceased. The first family members who would be favored to have standing would be the decedent’s spouse and children. Louisiana Civil Code states that the surviving mother or father of the deceased may only have standing if there is no spouse or child surviving the decedent. If the deceased had no surviving parents, spouse or child, then his or her brothers or sisters would have standing to bring a lawsuit. Finally, if the decedent had no surviving siblings, spouse, parents or children, then his or her grandparents would have standing to file a wrongful death claim. Note that a mother or father who abandoned the decedent while he or she was still a minor would not have standing.

Though children are the first to have standing in a wrongful death case, standing may be challenged when the parentage is called into question. A Louisiana court stated that “a filiation action inherently accompanies an illegitimate child’s wrongful death and survival action.” Thus, children born out of wedlock, that is, to parents who were not married at the time of birth, must be able to prove paternity in order to have standing. According to Louisiana law, a husband will be presumed to be the parent of a child when the child is born within 300 days of the termination of a marriage (300 being considered the maximum possible time of gestation). Outside of this exception, proceedings must be conducted to establish standing.