Articles Posted in Pain And Suffering Claims

by

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.

Continue reading

by

In August 2007, Dwight Phillips was dropping off his step-son, Joseph Shelvin, at school. The school’s principal, Louella Cook, noticed that Phillips’ vehicle was in the school’s bus-unloading area. After noticing Dwight’s vehicle, Phillips approached Dwight and informed him that he was unloading the child in the wrong area. She then directed him to the car drop-off area. According to Cook, Dwight then began screaming at Cook. During this screaming, Dwight told Cook that he would return and “get her.” Cook contacted the police because she feared for her safety as well as for the safety of the staff and visitors of the school.

When the police arrived, the investigating officer interviewed both Cook and Dwight. According to the officer, Dwight admitted that he threatened Cook and Dwight was subsequently arrested for disturbing the peace by threats. Sometime prior to this incident, a bus driver reported that during a bus stop, a man, who was talking loudly, got on the bus and refused to get off. Cook and her staff questioned the students who were on the bus during the incident including Joseph Shelvin, Dwight Phillips’ step-son. After speaking with the students, Cook and her staff learned that the man was Dwight Phillips. After Phillips’ arrest, Shelvin, Phillips and his wife Joy filed suit against the Lafayette Parish School Board and Dr. Louella Cook. On appeal to the fifteenth judicial district court, the court only examined the claims against the Board and Cook for Dwight Phillips’ defamation and Shelvin’s emotional distress.

To successfully assert a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), the person bringing such a claim must show an (1) intent to cause (2) severe emotional distress by (3) extreme and outrageous conduct. According to Louisiana courts, “[t]he conduct must be so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” Because tortious or illegal conduct does not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous, “[t]he distress suffered must be such that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.” Essentially, one cannot be liable for IIED for “mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.” In this case, the Phillip’s and Shelvin failed to successfully assert a claim for IIED. There was no evidence that Cook’s conduct was extreme and outrageous or that she intended to cause Selvin severe emotional distress. In relation to the “drop-off” incident, Cook never spoke to Shelvin about it. When Shelvin and the other students were questioned about the incident where the man refused to get off the bus, Cook was never alone with any of the students. Moreover, none of the interviews lasted over ten minutes.

Continue reading

by

In 1988, Louisiana enacted the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) which provides for strict liability causes of actions against manufacturers of alledgedly defective products. This case is important because the ruling provides a guideline in which lawyers can litigate their client’s cases and attempt to provide them the financial recovery they deserve.

Under the LPLA, set forth in La.R.S. 9:2800:53(A):

The manufacturer of a product shall be liable to a claimant for damage proximately caused by a characteristict of the product that renders the product unreasonably dangerous when such damage arose from a reasonably anticapated use of the product by the claimant or another person or entity.

Continue reading

by

As we have discussed previously on this blog, summary judgment is a procedural device for expediently resolving a case without a full trial where there is “no genuine issue of material fact.” Johnson v. Evan Hall Sugar Co-op, Inc., 836 So.2d 484, 486. (La. App. 1st Cir. 2002). It is well settled in Louisiana that summary judgment is appropriate if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact” and that party requesting judgment is entitled to it as a matter of law. See La. Code Civ. P. Art. 966(B). A trial court’s analysis of whether summary judgment is proper can involve the review of a considerable volume of documents which may contain conflicting information. The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled on a summary judgment motion in a medical malpractice case that turned on the trial court’s treatment of the defendant doctor’s deposition and subsequent affidavit.

On June 9, 2007, Percy Bethley, 80, was admitted to Baton Rouge General Medical Center Mid-City (“BRGMC”) with breathing difficulties. He had a five-year history of serious heart and lung disease. Bethley underwent various treatments in the hospital and received a pulmonary consultation by Dr. Reza Sheybani. After examining Bethley, Dr. Sheybani decided to replace the Bethley’s tracheostomy tube. A respiratory therapist, Cecilia Eason, was brought in to perform the replacement. Eason had great difficulty with the procedure and, sadly, as a result of a series of further complications, Bethley expired.

Following Bethley’s death, his widow and children (the plaintiffs) filed a medical malpractice complaint with the Louisiana Patients’ Compensation Fund. The panel found that the evidence supported the possibility that Dr. Sheybani failed to meet the applicable standard of care and that his conduct had been a factor in Bethley’s death. The plaintiffs then filed suit against BRGMC and Dr. Sheybani, alleging that Dr. Sheybani and the hospital employees who treated Bethley negligently contributed to his death. BRGMC answered and filed a motion for summary judgment. Dr. Sheybani responded with a pleading that opposed summary judgment and which included a personal affidavit that contained his own expert medical testimony. This testimony was offered to prove that genuine issues of material fact existed in the case: Dr. Sheybani alleged that Eason, a BRGMC employee, had been negligent in her treatment of Bethley. BRGMC then filed a motion to strike the affidavit of Dr. Sheybani, which the trial court granted after a hearing. The trial court also granted BRGMC’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs’ claims against BRGMC. Dr. Sheybani filed a motion for devolutive appeal.

Continue reading

by

A Union Carbide Corporation plant facility in Taft, Louisiana, leaked a toxic chemical compound for at least seventeen hours on September 10th and 11th in 1998. Rainwater accumulation from Tropical Storm Frances caused partial collapse of the floating roof on a large tank storing liquid naphtha. Consequently, a tank seal broke allowing escape of liquid naphtha which volatilized and exposed workers and surrounding residential areas to naphtha fumes including the towns of Montz and Killona. An estimated 4.6 million pounds of naphtha vaporized before application of a chemical foam to the tank roof effectively stopped the volatilization hazard.

In the case of Howard v. Union Carbide Corporation, the Supreme Court of Louisiana reduced to negligible amounts the already decided damages awarded to plaintiffs exposed to the naphtha fumes. Specifically, original damages awarded were $3,500, $2,500, and $1,500. However, the Supreme Court reduced these damages to amounts of $500, $250, 150, and $100 based on proximity to the leak with higher awards to those within the plant and lower awards to those in the surrounding residential areas.

Exhibiting a controversial impression of the dangerous chemical involved, as well as defining exposure injuries, the Court concluded “simply no reasonable relationship” exists between the injuries and the original damages awarded. Assuming all fumes are equal regardless of the vastly different compounds which any given chemical leak may constitute, the Court cited other negligible awards in other cases despite the fact that the other cases involved unrelated chemicals.

Continue reading

by

As we have examined in several prior blog posts, expert testimony plays a very important part in the resolution of many tort suits, especially those involving medical malpractice claims. Because the details of medical procedures can add considerable complexity to a case, expert witnesses are commonly relied on by both plaintiffs and defendants to help the jury better understand the facts. The input of experts is essential to the jury’s analysis of whether a doctor’s conduct which caused the plaintiff’s harm met the applicable standard of care; the recent case of Verdin v. Hospital Service District No. 1 of the Parish of Terrebonne, No. 2010 CA 0456 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010), offers a look at the considerations a court may give when qualifying a witness as an expert.

On February 27, 2002, Don Verdin underwent back surgery at the Terrebonne General Medical Center to repair a herniated disc. Dr. Henry Haydel, an orthopedic surgeon, performed the procedure. During the surgery, Dr. Haydel’s tool punctured an artery, which required emergency surgery to repair. It was also discovered that Verdin’s bowel had been punctured, which necessitated yet another surgery to correct. Following these procedures, Verdin developed a severe infection that required an extended hospital stay, during which he experienced a number of other complications prior to his release from the hospital nearly a month later. Verdin filed a medical malpractice complaint with the Louisiana Patient’s Compensation Fund against Dr. Haydel, alleging that Dr. Haydel breached the standard of care in performing the back surgery and failed to properly treat the injuries that occurred during the surgery. Verdin also included similar claims against the surgeons who repaired the artery and bowel perforations. The Medical Review Panel found that none of the doctors who treated Verdin failed to meet the applicable standard of care as charged in the complaint. Nevertheless, Verdin filed a medical malpractice suit against Dr. Haydel in June of 2005, alleging the same claims as were denied by the Review Panel. Following a four-day trial, during which numerous expert witnesses testified, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Haydel, finding that he did not breach the standard of care in his treatment of Verdin. Verdin then filed an appeal in which he attacked the jury verdict as manifestly erroneous.

Verdin’s primary enumeration of error centered on the expert testimony of Dr. Chad Millet, who was called as a witness by Dr. Haydel during the trial. Verdin objected to Dr. Millet’s qualifications, arguing that he did not have the necessary knowledge to qualify as an expert witness because he had not performed spine surgery in the six years prior to Verdin’s procedure in 2002. Verdin further asserted that because Dr. Millet had not taken any continuing medical education courses in the area of spine surgery during that time, he was not qualified to testify regarding the surgical procedure employed by Dr. Haydel. In reviewing the trial court’s decision to nevertheless accept Dr. Millet as an expert in the field of orthopedic surgery, the court reviewed La. R.S. 9:2794(D)(l)(b) and (c). These provisions require that in order to qualify as an expert witness, a physician must have knowledge of accepted standards of medical care for the treatment involved in the claim, and that the physician must be qualified on the basis of training to offer an expert opinion regarding those accepted standards of medical care. The court also reaffirmed the long-standing view “trial courts have great discretion in determining the qualifications of experts and the effect and weight to be given to expert testimony. In the absence of a clear abuse of this discretion, [appellate courts] will not disturb a trial court’s ruling on the qualification of a witness.” See Bradbury v. Thomas, 757 So.2d 666, 673 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1999). “It is well settled,” noted the court, “that the law does not require an expert to be actively practicing in the particular specialty about which he or she will testify.” Instead, “the court need only be satisfied that the witness is qualified to give testimony regarding the applicable standard of care. Bradbury, 757 So.2d at 674.

Continue reading

by

In a prior post, we explored the elements that a plaintiff must prove in order to recover against the owner of a business due to an unsafe condition on the property. There, the plaintiff, Lisa Beckham, tripped and fell over some loose asphalt in an unpaved parking lot of a children’s play facility in West Monroe. The case hinged on the analysis of whether the asphalt posed an “unreasonable risk of harm” to the customers who visited the property. The Second Circuit determined that under the facts of the case, the question was best left to a jury and was not appropriate for summary judgment. In the recent case of Bias v. Scottsdale Insurance Co. the Third Circuit also examined the requirement for the plaintiff to prove that there was a defect in the property that presented an unreasonable risk of harm, but reached a different result. Ray Bias injured his knees when he fell in the parking lot of David & Lori’s Kitchen Restaurant in Mamou. Bias’s fall was caused by several pieces of loose pea gravel on the concrete surface just outside the restaurant’s takeout window. Bias didn’t notice the gravel as he approached the window because he was looking up at the menu board posted above the window. In a complaint for damages against the establishment, Bias alleged that the gravel presented an unreasonably dangerous condition for restaurant patrons. The restaurant and its insurer, Scottsdale Insurance Company, filed a motion for summary judgment. At the hearing, Bias presented no expert testimony or other evidence to support his assertion that the gravel was unreasonably dangerous. Accordingly, the trial court granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed Bias’s action. Bias appealed, citing as error that there existed issues of fact as to the danger posed by the gravel.

The Third Circuit declared that “[t]he record contains no evidence to support [Bias’s] opinion that the presence of ten to twenty pieces of pea-sized gravel on [the restaurant’s] cement pad created an unreasonably dangerous condition.” The court further noted that Bias admitted he was “not exercising ordinary care” when he walked into the cement area while looking up at the menu board. After reviewing the state’s position that Louisiana property owners are not “insurers of the safety of visitors,” but instead simply “owe a duty to keep their premises in a safe condition for use,” the court concluded that the trial court’s dismissing Bias’s complaint at summary judgment was appropriate. Bias “did not present any evidence to support his allegation … [and] it was incumbent on [him] to do so in order to survive summary judgment.”

By contrast, the defective condition in the Beckham case required a more fact-intensive analysis. The plaintiff put forward evidence that painted a vivid picture of the overflow parking lot where she fell: the lot was unpaved and consisted of dirt, grass, rock, gravel, and chunks of crushed asphalt. Also, there was no evidence that she was not exercising ordinary care when she fell. Accordingly, the court concluded that based on the facts of the case, the determination of the lot’s level of dangerousness should left to a jury.

Continue reading

by

The parties to a legal dispute, such as the payment of damages resulting from a car accident, can reach an agreement between themselves to resolve the matter and avoid litigation. This agreement, under which the parties “give and take” to arrive at a solution that is satisfactory to both, is called a compromise. Under Louisiana law, a compromise is considered a contract which must be made in writing, but there is no specific requirement as to the form. What is important is that a compromise resolves only those differences that the parties clearly intend to settle, which under general contract law requires a “meeting of the minds.”

Louisiana courts have recognized that a check can serve as a compromise if it recites that it is in full payment for all claims and the check is endorsed and deposited by the payee. But as the parties in the case American Century Casualty Company v. Sale, discovered, the courts will scrutinize a compromise based entirely on the endorsement and deposit of a check to ensure both parties’ objectives were in alignment.

On August 9, 2008, a car accident occurred between Dr. Charles F. Sale and Michelle Barett. Barrett, who was at fault, was driving a vehicle owned by her parents and insured by American Century Casualty Company (ACCC). A short time thereafter, an ACCC representative contacted Sale and discussed settlement. ACCC then mailed the following to Sale: a letter describing the steps that Sale would be required to take to resolve the claim; a settlement and release form; and a settlement check in the amount of $1,820. The enclosed letter directed Sale to sign the release and return it to ACCC, at which point ACCC would issue the settlement check. (Although the letter indicated that a settlement check would follow a “properly executed release,” ACCC erroneously mailed all three documents in the same envelope at the same time to Sale.) The front of the settlement check included the following text: “CHARLES SALE, ONLY: IN F/F SETTLMT/RELEASE OF ACCC/… BARRETT FROM ANY/ALL CLMS/LNS ON D/L 8/9/08, CLM 10995-9.” Sale, finding the amount of the settlement check insufficient, put the documents aside. Later, Sale’s wife discovered the check and deposited it without his knowledge. When Sale filed suit against Barrett and ACCC in August of 2009, ACCC filed a motion for summary judgment contending that Sale had previously compromised and released his claims against the company and Barrett by endorsing and depositing the settlement check issued to him. The trial judge granted summary judgment in ACCC’s favor and found that Sale had released all future personal injury claims. Sale appealed.

Continue reading

by

Time is of the essence when filing a claim; a person can essentially lose the case before it even begins if the claim is not filed “in time”. But the question is when is a claim “on time?” In the recent case holding of Casborn v. Curran and Northshore Regional Medical Center, the court explained that under Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:5628, “no action for damages for injury or death arising out of patient care shall be brought unless filed within one year from the date of discovery of the alleged act.” What has become an issue for many to understand is from what point does the court consider a person to have “discovered” the injury or wrongful act? Exploring the cases’ analysis sheds some light on the issue and hopefully provides an answer to this dilemma.

Prescription is a legal term that is a powerful tool that many litigants utilize to dismiss a case. Specifically, prescription is defined as “the loss or forfeiture of a right, by the proprietor’s neglecting to exercise or prosecute it during the whole period, which the law hath declared to be sufficient to infer the loss of it.” The prescription clock starts ticking as soon as the person who feels they have been damaged discovers the alleged injury; if they wait too long, the time limit is up and the clock stops ticking, resulting in the loss of their claim.

In the case of Cosborn, prescription ultimately ended the case before it even began, causing the plaintiffs to be completely out of luck in obtaining any relief. Dates are extremely important when a court explores the issue of prescription, which is why the dates of the plaintiff’s alleged injury, eventual discovery, and final act of filing is vital in the analysis. The plaintiff, Mrs. Casborn, went to the Northshore Regional Medical Center on May 5, 2007, suffering from severe tongue swelling and difficulty breathing. The examining staff physician, Dr. Curran, administered the medication Benadryl —however, Mrs. Casborn continued to suffer and the symptoms actually began to grow worse. Eventually, she had to be taken into surgery and had a mechanical ventilator inserted, where it remained until May 18, 2007. In total, Mrs. Cosborn stayed in the hospital for almost an entire month, suffering from other complications including pneumonia, anemia, and acute renal problems.

Continue reading

by

Resuming where we last left off in this important case…

The court then turned to the deposition of Rigoberto Garcia, an employee of Maxum. Garcia had testified that while he was at work the day before the accident, all safety barricades were set up. He said that Maxum employees never removed the safety barricades when they worked around or passed through the holes. Instead, they would climb over or through the cables. Garcia finally stated that he left work every day at 5 p.m. The depositions of two other Maxum employees supported Garcia’s testimony. The combined testimony of these Maxum employees tended to show that the removal of the cables occurred when Maxum workers were not on site.

Finally, the court examined the testimony of Glenn Russo, an employee of Corrosion. Russo testified that his foreman, also an employee of Corrosion, had confirmed he’d been the one to place the plastic sheeting over the manhole. This admission effectively eliminated Maxum as the culprit behind the plastic sheeting that obscured the hole from Cotone’s view.

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 – 2025, Berniard Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design