Pain And Suffering Claims

February 3, 2011

Lake Charles Bicycle Accident Case Leads Court to Review Role of Lay Witness Testimony

In numerous prior posts, we have explored how critical expert testimony often is in determining the outcome of a negligence trial. Although experts can play a pivotal role in helping a plaintiff build his case, they do present some limitations. Typically, expert witnesses are required to render an opinion based on the information that they or someone else (e.g., a police officer) gathered after the fact; this can mean that not all useful evidence is available, and may call for some level of educated speculation. Also, practically speaking, it can be expensive for a plaintiff to retain the services of an expert, especially when the value of the claim is not particularly substantial. It follows then that often a plaintiff must rely on non-expert, or “lay,” witnesses at trial. Commonly, lay witnesses are recruited bystanders who happened to observe the incident which gave rise to the plaintiff’s claim. Although lay witnesses are somewhat limited in the types of opinions they can offer in testimony, their input is often extremely valuable for a plaintiff.

In the recent case Mitchell v. Roy, the Louisiana Court of Appeals examined the handling of important lay witness testimony by the trial court. In March of 2008, Darion Mitchell, age 10, was riding his bicycle on 8th Avenue between 9th and 10th Streets in Lake Charles when he veered into the path of a Chevrolet minivan driven by Albert Roy, Jr. Mitchell, who was not wearing a helmet, was thrown onto the hood of the van and struck the windshield. He was transported by ambulance to Christus St. Patrick’s Hospital where he underwent a series of tests that revealed he suffered some minor soft tissue swelling but no brkoen bones. Mitchell was diagnosed with a head injury and scalp lacerations, and he received stitches before being discharged from the hospital later the same day. Within a few months, Mitchell’s mother filed suit against Roy, alleging that Roy had negligently caused the accident by driving in excess of the posted speed limit, by failing to keep a proper lookout, and by failing to take care to avoid the collision. A bench trial was held. One of Mitchell’s key witnesses was Angela Dodd, a neighborhood resident who happened to be sitting on her front porch at the time the accident occurred. Dodd offered testimony about the speed of Roy’s van: she estimated that Roy was driving between 35 and 40 MPH. This estimate was based on Dodd’s prior experience operating her own vehicle “at various speeds” and the fact that Roy’s vehicle “kicked up dust” on the street as it approached Mitchell. The trial resulted in a finding that Roy’s negligence was the sole cause of the collision, a verdict in Mitchell’s favor, and an award of damages. Roy appealed, citing as error, among other things, the trial court’s allowing Dodd to offer a lay opinion as to the speed of Roy’s vehicle.

The Third Circuit addressed this enumeration of error by first reviewing the standard in Louisiana for assessing the admissibility of a lay witness’s opinion testimony. The state Code of Evidence in Article 701 provides that such testimony is limited to opinions which are (1) rationally based on the perception of the witness; and (2) helpful to a clear understanding of her testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. Put another way, a lay witness is permitted to draw reasonable inferences from her personal observations, so long as she also explains what those observations were. As a general rule, when reviewing a trial court’s admission of lay opinion testimony, an appellate court must ask whether the testimony was an improper speculative opinion or simply an inference drawn from the witness’s observations and, if erroneously admitted, whether the testimony was so prejudicial as to constitute error that should be reversed. The court noted that in overruling Roy’s objections to Dodd’s testimony, the trial court stated that it would “take into consideration that [Dodd] is not an expert on speed” and that it would consider her opinion “in the context of just a lay impression.” After reviewing the record of Dodd’s “compelling” testimony about what she observed and how she arrived at her speed estimate, the court determined it was “satisfied that the trial court properly allowed Dodd to testify as to the inferences she drew based upon her personal observations, [and] that the trial court gave the proper weight to Dodd’s opinion testimony.” Furthermore, the court deemed the opinion, even if admitted in error, insufficiently prejudicial to Roy so as to warrant reversal.

February 1, 2011

Court Upholds Exclusion Clause in Hotelier’s Insurance Policy Following Rape of Guest

by Berniard Law Firm

Hotel owners, like other hospitality business operators, have a general duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety and security of their guests. The duty extends to protecting guests from harm caused by other guests and visitors to the premises. This does not mean that hotels are liable for any injury or loss that a guest suffers–generally, the victim must show that the hotel (through the actions of its employees) was negligent before the hotel faces liability. To help protect against this exposure, hotel owners typically buy liability insurance policies to cover the property in the event of a problem. However, these insurance policies frequently include substantial limitations. In particular, many policies exclude coverage for any injuries that arise from the service of alcoholic beverages on the premises. Other exclusions include denying coverage for physical assaults. In Piligra v. America’s Best Value Inn, Inc., No. 10-254 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2010), the court examined–and upheld–this very type of coverage exclusion.

Susana Piligra visited the nightclub inside the America’s Best Value Inn hotel where she consumed an excessive amount of alcohol and passed out. An employee of the hotel took Piligra up to a room on the second floor and, on the way, they came upon an unknown male who helped get Piligra to the room. The hotel employee left Piligra in the room with the unknown male. When Piligra’s friend later went to check on her, the friend opened the door to find the unknown male “climbing off her with his pants down.” Piligra went to a local hospital where it was determined that she was apparently raped by the unknown male while she was unconscious. Piligra filed suit against the hotel and its liability insurance carrier, Evanston Insurance Company, alleging that the hotel negligently transported her to a room without her consent and failed to attend to her in a responsible manner given her condition. Evanston filed a motion for summary judgment based on the exclusions contained in the hotel’s policy. The trial court granted Evanston’s motion, and both Piligra and the hotel appealed.

The Third Circuit reviewed that an “insurance policy is interpreted like any other contract,” and that “[i]nsurance companies are permitted to limit coverage through policy exclusions as long as the limitations do not conflict with statutory provisions or public policy.” Ledbetter v. Concord Gen. Corp., 665 So.2d 1166 (1996). With those principles in mind, the court examined the policy Evanston issued to the hotel and found a provision that clearly excluded coverage for any claim arising out of “assault and/or battery.” The court noted that “Louisiana courts have upheld [limitations] similar to the Evanston policy [limitations] that preclude coverage for assault and battery, including rape.” Thus, the court reasoned, “[b]ecause rape is a battery and because the assault and battery exclusion in the Evanston policy is unambiguous, we find that the exclusion is applicable and precludes coverage for Ms. Piligra’s injuries.” Accordingly, the court affirmed the decision of the trial court to dismiss Evanston Insurance Company from the suit.

January 30, 2011

Asbestos Exposure Case Shows Importance of Early Medical and Legal Prognosis

by Berniard Law Firm

In late 2010, the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, shed some light on how the sale of a company may impact claims made by employees against the successor company in Pichon v. Asbestos Defendants AG. The plaintiffs in the case were the wife and children of the deceased Mr. Pichon. The plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Pichon was exposed to asbestos between 1955 and 2004. Mr. Pichon died in 2006 from Mesothelioma and Lung Cancer, which the plaintiffs argue was as a result of his exposure to asbestos. One of the defendants in the case was Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC). DDC filed for summary judgment stating that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that it was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The Court broke its discussion down into two time periods: (1) Pre-1988 exposure by Mr. Pichon, before the creation of DDC, under which plaintiffs argued that DDC is liable under the theory of successor liability and (2) Post-1988, after the creation of DDC, under which plaintiffs argued that Mr. Pichon was exposed to asbestos as a result of DDC manufacturing.

In 1970, GM merged its Diesel Division with its Allision Division to create the Detroit Diesel-Allision Division. This division manufactured marine engines at Halter Marine. In 1988 GM and Penske formed DDC as a joint venture. Subsequently, DDC purchased the assets of most of the division that produced the marine engines. The sales agreement between DDC and GM stated that DDC would not be liable for GM’s conduct or for claims relating to products manufactured, distributed, or sold by GM prior to closing. The Court stated that there were three ways in which a successor company could be held liable for the actions of the selling company: (1) When the successor company clearly assumed the liability or obligations (2) When the buying company was merely a continuation of the selling company or (3) Where is it found that the transaction occurred only to avoid liability. The Court stated that it was clear that DDC expressly denied any pre-sale liability for the actions of GM. However, the plaintiffs argued that DDC’s liability was as a result of test number two, namely that DDC was a continuation of GM’s Diesel-Allision Division.

In response to plaintiffs argument concerning the second test for successor liability, the Court cited to a U.S. Supreme Court case that held that successor liability could be found on the basis of the buying company being a mere continuation of the selling corporation where the sale was for all of the company’s assets. The issue for the plaintiffs in this case was that DDC clearly did not purchase all of GM’s assets. Further, DDC did not even purchase all of GM’s assets concerning manufacturing of marine engines. DDC only purchase those assets relating to the Redford Operations. Because the plaintiffs were unable to provide evidence that DDC purchased all of GM’s assets, the Court granted DDC’s summary judgment on this claim and plaintiffs thus lost on this point.

January 28, 2011

Lawsuit Over Double Knee Surgery and Subsequent Injury Leads to Ruling Demonstrating MedMal Complexity – Part 2

by Berniard Law Firm

In a post earlier this week, we reviewed the Third Circuit’s treatment of a medical malpractice case that arose from a double knee replacement surgery. In addition to her enumeration of error about the faulty opinion returned by the state medical review panel, the plaintiff, Margie McGlothlin, also asserted there was no “reasonable factual basis” for the jury’s conclusion that the hospital was not liable for her injuries. As part of its de novo review, the court examined the record for details on the two incidents that McGlothlin pointed to as the cause of her kneecap dislocation. The first involved her transfer between a wheelchair and her hospital bed at the rehabilitation center during which a nursing assistant, working without help, dropped McGlothlin. The other incident similarly involved a nursing assistant–again working unaided–who dropped McGlothlin as she was transferring to the restroom. The court reviewed the applicable standard of care for these situations:

The transfer from wheelchair to either bed or toilet of a bilateral knee replacement patient weighing almost 300 pounds requires at least two people assisting in the transfer together with the use of a gait belt.

Whether the hospital employees breached that standard of care, and whether that breach caused McGlothlin’s injury, are questions of fact usually left to the jury. The second incident, in particular, involved several factual discrepancies. McGlothlin testified that, after she fell while attempting to make her way to the bathroom, she immediately called for her doctor, explained what happened, and submitted to an x-ray which revealed the dislocation of her kneecap. The nursing assistant caring for McGlothlin during this time, however, denied that the restroom incident occurred at all and maintained that McGlothlin never suffered injuries of any kind. The hospital further argued that McGlothlin’s kneecap became dislocated as a result of activities during rehabilitation and without any negligence on the part of hospital employees. In reviewing the account of McGlothlin’s progress, the court found no evidence of a “traumatic event” during therapy that could have caused the injury. However, the report did make note of McGlothlin’s increased pain in her left knee and a corresponding reduction in recommended exercise by her therapist. Ultimately, the court found that McGlothlin’s allegations had “credibility.” Reviewing the entire record, the court concluded that McGlothlin carried her burden of establishing that during the restroom transfer, the nursing assistant breached the duty of the care, and that this breach resulted in an injury to McGlothlin’s left knee. Accordingly, after considering the appropriate level of damages, the court reversed the trial court’s judgment dismissing McGlothlin’s claims and rendered judgment in her favor and against Christus St. Patrick Hospital. The court awarded McGlothlin the statutory maximum of $500,000.00 in damages, plus $62,341.29 in past medical costs and the expenses of reasonable future medical treatment.

January 24, 2011

Lessons and Warning Signs of Asbestos Exposure and Mesothelioma

by Berniard Law Firm

Mesothelioma, also known as asbestos cancer, is cancer of the mesothelium, and is usually found on or around the lungs an individual has had prolonged exposure to asbestos in their homes or at work. Although the disease has become easier to detect in recent years, asbestos manufacturers have actually been sued by victims who have contracted the disease since as early as the 1920s and there is evidence that people were getting sick as early as the end of the 19th century.

Despite this long history, and high profile cases that have gone as far as the Supreme Court with nearly a billion dollars in compensation paid out, no Federal laws have been passed to delineate the compensation available to victims. The sad reality is that many suffering patients end up not getting the compensation they truly deserve due to the lack of regulation and confusion over what victims are entitled. This would seem to be an obvious case of injustice and is an unfortunate reality as working men and women simply cannot afford to aggressively pursue legal action against corporations, especially those that may have closed decades before.

The link between meso and asbestos was officially proven in the 1960s when scientists confirmed the presence of the disease in over 30 people who had been exposed to asbestos in South Africa. In 1962 mine workers were discovered who had mesothelioma and the condition was proven to cause cancer. Once workers are diagnosed with mesothelioma they can no longer work. This is just one reason why they must be properly compensated by their employers for their lost wages. Employers my be hesitant to pay damages; the reality is they could have provided the proper protective equipment to their workers that would have allowed them to work safely with asbestos and remain disease free. The question then significant to many is how you can tell if a person has contracted mesothelioma?

January 22, 2011

Recent Decision Illustrates Need for Legal Understanding When Filing Health Damages

by Berniard Law Firm

A recent Louisiana 1st Circuit Court of Appeal decision has raised many eyebrows by overturning a large portion of a lower courts award of $1 million to a group of residents in Baton Rouge’s University Place subdivision. The 360 plaintiffs joined in alleging that the nearby Sewage Treatment Plant was causing them numerous problems. Specifically, the plaintiffs were alleging that the “operation and maintenance of the waste treatment facility caused petitioners personal inconvenience, mental suffering, embarrassment, and personal injuries. Plaintiffs also alleged a grave threat to health and safety by exposure to contaminated air and increased risk of serious disease to themselves, their family, and their progeny.” The plaintiffs further contended that their property value had been permanently damaged by the presence of the sewage treatment plant. The court ultimately held that only one plaintiff out of the 360 plaintiffs initially named in the suit deserved compensation. The court came to this decision after the plaintiffs did not pass procedural requirements and/or missed vital legal requirements in order to remain in the suit. Exploring this case will illustrate that if proper procedural steps are taken and legal requirements understood and applied then case decisions are more likely to be affirmed and not overturned.

One of the major issues the court explored was the issue of prescription. The law governing the prescriptive period in this matter is La. R.S. 9:5624, which provides, “When private property is damaged for public purposes any and all actions for such damages are prescribed by the prescription of two years, which shall begin to fun after the completion and acceptance of the public works.” This affected the plaintiff group’s case due to the fact that the treatment plant had been originally built in 1960, yet, had been expanded several times, the last expansion began in 1997 and was completed in 1998. Thus, the time period of the last expansion to the filing of the suit would be the determined to be the legal time period in which plaintiffs would be allowed to complain and allege damages. This led the lower court to find that the last expansion of the sewage plant must be viewed as a new public work event for purposes of La. R.S. 9:5624, stating, “After all, it would neither be equitable nor just to hold parties responsible for filing a suit within two years of the plant’s original completion date (i.e. 1960) when their property was not damaged until the plant was expanded in 1998.” Thus, damages had not prescribed when the suit was filed; however, only the time period in which the last expansion was completed to the time the plaintiffs filed their claim would count towards calculating any potential damages.

The number of plaintiffs steadily declined as the lower court progressed due to the fact that they either did not follow legal requirements or they were not legally recognizable. The first 148 plaintiffs who testified gave conflicting testimony or testified that the expansion of the sewage treatment facility produced little or no change in their prior circumstances. Thus, most of these class members failed to establish that the action taken by the City-Parish in so far as expanding the treatment plant had caused them any health problems or defects that did not exist prior to the expansion. Essentially, the plaintiff’s needed to allege that the expansion, which was what was legally at issue, was the main source of their problems, problems which did not exist prior to the expansion. A further dilemma the plaintiffs faced was that their expert testimony further supported the Court’s conclusion that the plaintiffs had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that they had suffered any legal damages caused by the sewage treatment plant. One expert even stated that it was hard to have a sewage treatment plant without an odor. Additionally, many plaintiffs lived in the area prior to the expansion without bringing suit. As a result, these individuals were aware of the various odors and impacts the sewage plant had upon the neighborhood. Therefore, the court held that since the plaintiffs gave conflicting testimony, did not prove their claims, and did not have supporting expert testimony, the 148 testifying plaintiffs should be dismissed from the case.

January 16, 2011

Defendant’s Motion to Switch Courts is Approved in Negligence Suit Against Hospital

by Berniard Law Firm

Mar’Kirney Holland, only four years old, died tragically in Orleans Parish after allegedly receiving negligent medical care in Lincoln Parish six years ago. This story provides a lesson on how important procedural motions are to a case. Plaintiffs often choose a certain jurisdiction because of different factors. Sometimes certain jurisdictions are chosen because of ease and convenience to parties and witnesses. Other times, plaintiffs have heard that certain courts or judges are more amenable and therefore, more likely, to rule in their favor. No matter the reasoning, deciding which court to proceed in is an essential decision that plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ attorneys must make. In this case, Holland v. Lincoln General Hospital, No. 2010-CC-0038 (La. Oct. 19, 2010), Defendants were successful in having the case moved from Plaintiffs preferred location of Orleans Parish to Lincoln Parish.

Mar’Kirney was born prematurely on November 12, 1999, and from an early age suffered from hydrocephalus, a condition where cerebrospinal fluid pools in the brain. At Tulane Hospital in New Orleans, doctors inserted a shunt to drain this fluid. Most, if not all, of the treatment related to the shunt took place at Tulane Hospital. The most recent “shunt revision” took place at Tulane Hospital two weeks before her death.

However, when Mar’Kirney began to suffer headaches, nausea, and vomiting, her mother, Latisha Holland, took Mar’Kirney to the closer hospital, Lincoln General Hospital. There, after fruitlessly waiting an hour, leaving, and coming back, Latisha claims that the doctor diagnosed Mar’Kirney with an upper respiratory infection. This was not the case. Mar’Kirney worsened and had to be transferred to Tulane Hospital after CT scans revealed that the shunt was blocked. Mar’Kirney died less than 24 hours after arriving at Tulane’s Pediatric Unit. Latisha brought a wrongful death and survival action against Lincoln General Hospital.

January 10, 2011

Hannie v. Guidry Spells Out Standards for DeNovo Appeal

by Berniard Law Firm

On the day after Thanksgiving in 2003, plaintiff Nicol Hannie’s vehicle was struck by another vehicle driven by defendant Ray Guidry in LaFayette, Louisiana. Due to the holiday shopping sales offered that day, traffic was very heavy. Hannie, who had just finished eating at a restaurant, attempted to make a left hand turn onto a five lane roadway. The middle lane of the roadway was a turning lane. Because traffic was completely backed up in the two travel lanes immediately closest to Hannie, several cars in those lanes graciously created a space for Hannie to traverse and waved him through. As Hannie cautiously passed through the space created in the immediate two lanes, he inched onto the turning lane to complete his left hand turn. However, as soon as he began to pass through the turning lane in order to merge onto the distant travel lanes, he was struck by Guidry, who was allegedly using the turning lane as a passing lane and also traveling at a high rate of speed.

At trial, the district court agreed that Guidry was impermissibly using the turning lane as a passing lane. They reached this conclusion by noting that Guidry’s intended turn-off was nearly 700 feet away from the scene of the collision, and he could have stayed in the inside travel lane several hundred feet further before entering the turning lane. Furthermore, the high rate of speed Guidry was driving, as witnessed by others, tended to show that Guidry may have been impatient and did not want to remain in the travel lanes before commencing his left handed turn in the turn lane. Accordingly, the district court held Guidry to be 100% at fault for Hannie’s resulting injuries.

Dissatisfied with the verdict, Guidry appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals of Louisiana. Guidry denied all fault and contended the Court of Appeals should review the district court’s finding under a de novo standard of review.

January 8, 2011

Mesothelioma and Asbestos: Part II

by Berniard Law Firm

This post constitutes part two of an introduction to mesothelioma:

Tissue changes resulting from asbestos exposure cause fluid to become trapped between the lung and the chest wall. This trapped fluid induces three symptoms which are often the initial symptoms a patient notices comprising coughing, chest pain, and shortness of breath. The trapped fluid creates uncomfortable pressure between the chest wall and lungs which the patient describes as chest pain under the rib cage. Coughing may accompany these symptoms which are typically the initial symptoms a patient experiences.

Additional symptoms may begin developing over several decades. For instance, weight loss may occur which is a symptom often seen in conjunction with cancerous tumors. Also, anemia may result when mesothelial cells comprising the pleura (lungs) and pericardium (heart) are involved. Blood clotting abnormalities typically present only in severe mesothelioma cases.

January 6, 2011

Mesothelioma and Asbestos: Part I

by Berniard Law Firm

Asbestos was recognized to be a toxic substance as long ago as the 1890’s although it was not linked with specific diseases until recently. A multitude of lawsuits have been filed against asbestos manufacturers since 1929 with cases even traveling up to the United States Supreme Court. Nonetheless, no Federal Laws were ever created to address compensation for those suffering as a consequence of asbestos exposure leaving many sufferers without any assistance at all. Compensation is meant to address not only medical costs but also the pain and suffering resulting from the asbestos exposure as well as loss of income.

Although asbestos exposure is often ‘on the job’ exposure, a spouse simply washing the clothes of a family member subjected to ‘on the job’ asbestos exposure is likewise subjected to inhalation of asbestos dust and fiber. Even such seemingly minimal asbestos exposure places the spouse at risk for also succumbing to asbestos induced health problems. Residents living near factories or mines utilizing asbestos are also at risk for developing asbestos inhalation health disorders.

Unfortunately, asbestos inhalation may trigger a multitude of health problems. For example, a condition termed asbestosis refers to an inflammatory, chronic and prolonged lung disease that may inflict permanent lung damage. Moreover, asbestos exposure places an individual at risk for developing cancer. Due to the ubiquitous nature of asbestos and the magnitude of the damage it inflicts, compensation for asbestos related injuries lies in the billion dollar range. In general, the symptoms of asbestos related diseases include, but are not limited to, shortness of breath, wheezing, hoarseness, a persistent cough and/or coughing up blood, difficulty swallowing, chest pain, loss of appetite, weight loss, fatigue, or anemia.