Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
When medical emergencies strike, the rapid response of emergency medical technicians (EMTs) can mean the difference between life and death. However, the high-pressure nature of their role can also give rise to complex legal questions when outcomes take a tragic turn. Richard Miller’s case sheds light on the intricate landscape of EMT liability, illuminating the balance between legal protections afforded to these healthcare professionals and the pursuit of justice for patients and their families. It also helps answer the question: Can an emergency medical technician or their employer be held liable when things go wrong?
Richard Miller was injured in a motorcycle crash. Following the crash, emergency medical technicians employed by Northshore Emergency Medical Service transported Miller to Riverside Medical Center, where he was found to be in critical condition. Northshore transported him there before contacting Louisiana Emergency Response Network, a clearinghouse used to determine which medical center can best provide for a patient. Because Riverside did not have the proper resources to treat Miller’s severe injuries, the emergency room doctor had to contact the Louisiana Emergency Response Network to determine where to transport him. While in transit to the new hospital, Miller’s condition worsened. Unfortunately, he passed away when he arrived at the new hospital.
Miller’s estate and family filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against numerous companies and individuals, including Northshore, the company that transported him to Riverside initially. Northshore filed a summary judgment motion claiming Northshore was not liable to Miller for his injuries. The evidence it provided included an affidavit from the Northshore paramedic, medical records, and deposition testimony. The trial court granted Northshore’s summary judgment motion and dismissed Miller’s case. Miller appealed.
When multiple people are injured in the same incident, you might expect they are all eligible to recover the same type of damages, even if the precise dollar amount varies. This case indicates how the categories of damages awarded can vary by plaintiff, depending on the testimony and other evidence presented at trial. 
While headlines often tout substantial monetary awards for injured workers, the intricacies of such compensation might remain shrouded in mystery. Behind every high-stakes verdict lies a meticulous process of presenting compelling evidence to substantiate the array of damages claimed. In a recent case involving workers at a Firestone Polymers plant, the multifaceted nature of damages is unveiled, shedding light on the need for robust legal representation to navigate the diverse categories of compensation.
In the realm of medical malpractice, the intricacies of the legal process can often appear daunting, especially when juxtaposed against the heart-wrenching backdrop of a stillborn baby’s tragedy. K Arceneaux found herself entangled in this very confluence of circumstances, seeking justice for her devastating loss while grappling with legal procedure demands. As the mother’s quest for accountability unfolds, a crucial question emerges: Can a plaintiff prevail in a medical malpractice case without the indispensable backing of expert testimony?
The rugged world of oil well labor often serves as a crucible of challenges, where hard work meets unforeseen perils. Within this demanding landscape, a legal saga unfolds, revealing the harrowing tale of two injured workers and the intricate journey through a labyrinthine appeals process. Their journey from the fiery depths of an explosion to the halls of justice sheds light on the complexities that can arise even after a jury’s verdict, providing a stark reminder of the importance of legal expertise in navigating this tumultuous terrain.
Imagine walking through your neighborhood only to be seriously injured from tripping over a wire frame on a storm drain. The following case considers whether such a condition is open and obvious. This is an important consideration because if a condition is found to be open and obvious, then defendants do not have a duty to protect people from the condition. 
The vibrant spirit of Mardi Gras parades, with their kaleidoscope of colors and joyous revelry, often paints a picture of unadulterated celebration. Yet, beneath the surface of these festivities, unexpected tragedies can unfold, turning the jubilation into a legal labyrinth. Such was the case in Franklin, Louisiana, where a moment of revelry took a distressing turn as a float participant was tragically injured during a parade. What followed was a legal showdown, entangling federal regulations, contractual intricacies, and the question of liability. Amidst the sparkle and confetti, a courtroom drama unfolded, revealing the complex legal considerations surrounding the incident.
At the end of a trial, you are focused on whether or not the Judge ruled in your favor. However, it is not enough to only know who won the case, especially if you are considering an appeal. This case indicates the importance of paying attention not only to the outcome but also to the language in the final judgment the trial court issues. Louisiana has strict requirements for language that must be included in a final judgment for it to be valid so that an appellate court can hear the appeal. 
If you are considering filing a lawsuit, there are numerous procedural requirements with which you must comply. One of these requirements is that you file your lawsuit within the required period of time after the at-issue incident occurred. While the date you file your lawsuit is typically determined by the day the court receives your petition, the following case involves a special exception that applies to prisoners in certain situations. 
Homeowners often have to deal with contractors, such as plumbers, completing work in their homes or yard. What happens when a homeowner is injured from a condition on the property the contractor created? The following case helps answer that question.