Workers Compensation

December 15, 2011

Summary Judgment on Sand Built of Solid Foundation by Louisiana’s Third Circuit

Summary judgment can seem like a punishment to the defeated party. Because of the final nature of these judgments, appellate courts review them de novo. This standard of review grants the appellate court the ability to look at the entire record in the court below. The Bates family experienced an additional loss at the appellate level in Bates v. E. D. Bullard Company. They lost at the trial level as a result of a summary judgment and was later affirmed on appeal.

When a judge grants a party a summary judgment he or she is in effect saying that the opposing party has no case as a matter of law and that there will not be a trial. The party that has been defeated will, however, be able to appeal this decision to the higher court. De novo review is necessary when appealing a summary judgment so that the appellate court can make the most educated decision about whether the winning party deserved a summary judgment. This level of scrutiny is higher than most.

In the case in question, it was determined that the plaintiffs did not establish a case as a matter of law against the sand defendant for several reasons. Sand is not a dangerous instrumentality; there is nothing about sand’s very nature that makes it explicitly dangerous or harmful. The defendant sold the sand to the ill plaintiff’s employer, deemed by the court to be a sophisticated user. If a buyer is sophisticated, there is no duty on the part of the manufacturer to warn the buyer of possible ill effects of certain uses of a product. This is true even though the seller likely knew or should have known that the sand would be used for sandblasting. The sand defendant’s knowledge, real or constructive, did not bear on its lack of a duty to warn the sophisticated user buyer because there was no real way of telling what the buyer would do with the sand.

November 29, 2011

Court Determines if Injured Temp Qualifies Under Jones Act

by Berniard Law Firm

Kerry Becnel was injured while working on a barge, but his relationship with the vessel is not clear cut, making it difficult to determine whether he was a seaman under the federal Jones Act. In Becnel v. Chet Morrison, Inc., No. 2010-CA-1411 (La. Ct. App. 4 Cir. 8/31/11), the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the St. Bernard 34th Judicial District Court and sent the case back for trial.

Becnel was a cook on a quarters barge owned by Chet Morrison Contractors, Inc. (CMC). One night in 2005, he was walking from one barge to another to reach a water taxi used to get to his living quarters. Before he reached the water taxi, he fell several feet into the water. Becnel claimed that “there was no safety device, railing, chain, rope, or other safety feature to prevent falling from the side of the vessel,” and the owner knew this. To add to the danger, the only light near where he fell was not working. He said he could not avoid the danger because he could not see it.

Becnel sued his employer, Coastal Catering, L.L.C., which had contracted Becnel’s services to CMC. He also sued CMC and the companies’ insurers. The battle became one between the companies and their insurers. Coastal’s insurer, State National Insurance Co. (SNIC), claimed that Coastal’s maritime general liability insurance policy did not cover CMC’s potential liability for Becnel’s injuries, but the district court decided it did.

November 21, 2011

Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal Punishes For Duplicitous Suits

by Berniard Law Firm

As part of our Constitutional right to due process, an individual is allowed to bring grievances before a court. However, certain judicial policies may be enacted to deny plaintiffs from bringing suits that have already been litigated, are being brought with the intent to harass, or are frivolous. The purpose behind such policies is to make courts as efficient as possible by deterring such actions. A recent case out of the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal shines a light on several of these deterrents.

In Mendonca v. Tidewater, Inc., the plaintiff sought to nullify several final judgments made by the district court. Mendonca’s list of suits stretched over four years, with multiple appeals and pleas for annulment. However, none of Mendonca’s nullity claims or his appeals were successful. In his final appeal for anulment, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down three restrictions that laid Mendonca’s long line of cases to rest.

The first of these restrictions was the court’s upholding of the defendent’s plea of res judicata and failure to state a claim. When res judicata is enacted, the court declares one of two denials. First, that the claim has been subject to a final judgment and thus no longer qualifies for an appeal, or second, that the litigant cannot bring a claim against the same party in a second claim because all claims should have been brought against that party in the initial suit. The policy considerations supporting res judicata is to preserve court resources and protect defendants from being subject to litigation multiple times, with the possibility of having to pay damages more than once. A defendant’s plea that a plaintiff has failed to state a claim goes hand-in-hand with res judicata. If res judicata is applicable, then all duplicitous claims cancelled. In Mendonca’s case, this means that there were no new claims. Since there were no such claims, the court held that Mendonca’s nu

November 15, 2011

Baton Rouge Plaintiff Loses Defamation Claim Due to Prescription

by Berniard Law Firm

The following case highlights the importance of waiting no time in bringing a cause of action that is available. In 2008, Debra Goulas worked as a bookkeeper for Sunbelt Air Conditioning Supply in Baton Rouge. Jessie Touchet, owner of Sunbelt, and Diane Jones, Goulas’s manager, accused her of stealing over $500 from the company during February and April that year. This serious accusation resulted in Goulas being tried for felony theft. The crime of theft is committed when one is involved in a trespassory taking and carrying away of the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the true owner of that property. Goulas was subsequently acquitted of this particular theft.

Following the criminal trial and Goulas’s ultimate accquital, she filed a lawsuit against Touchet and Jones in July, 2010 alleging defamation. Specifically, Goulas argued that Touchet and Jones “intentionally and negligently inflicted emotional distress” upon her, and that their accusations were “founded in malice to damage her person and reputation.” The complaint sought damages for medical expenses, physical and mental pain and suffering, and loss of wages. The defendants filed an exception of prescription. The basis of the exception was that Goulas’s claims were based on the defendants’ actions that allegedly occurred during February and April of 2008. By the time Goulas filed suit in 2010, more than one year had passed, thereby prescribing the claims. In October, 2010, the trial judge granted the defendants’ exception of prescription and dismissed Goulas’s claims with prejudice.

Goulas appealed, alleging error on the trial court’s ruling that her defamation claim was prescribed. Goula’s reasoned that she could not initiate her defamation action until her criminal trial was concluded in March, 2010; accordingly, she argued that prescription did not begin to run until Frederick Jones publicly accused her of theft when testifying at her trial. The First Circuit noted that Louisiana recognizes a qualified privilege that protects parties from charges of defamation related to statements they make during a trial. “It necessarily follows that, during this time, the one-year period that applies to the filing of a defamation action is suspended.” However, the court explained, the suspension of prescription applies “only to allegedly defamatory statements made by parties to a lawsuit.” In this situation, Frederick and Jones were not parties to Goulas’s criminal prosecution, so the prescription suspension did not apply. The court concluded that “since there has been no suspension of the 2008 alleged defamatory statements,” the trial court properly granted the defendants’ exception of prescription.

November 5, 2011

Failure to Properly Serve a Personal Injury Lawsuit Does Not Require Dismissal, Louisiana First Circuit Court Rules

by Berniard Law Firm

In a recent Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, a plaintiff successfully appealed an earlier dismissal of his case for failure to properly serve all of the correct parties.

After Hurricane Gustav, Mr, Preston was working on the Southern University campus removing debris, including trimming tree branches, when he slipped and fell into a hole in the ground. He sustained injuries and sued Southern University for negligence, claiming that the campus allowed an unreasonably dangerous condition to exist and it failed to warn him of the dangerous condition.

Under a Louisiana statute (La. R.S. 13:5107), when a plaintiff sues the State of Louisiana or a state agency, he must serve the Louisiana attorney general and the head of the agency. Furthermore, if the suit is a personal injury lawsuit (tort lawsuit), the Office of Risk Management must be notified and served as well, according to La. R.S. 39:1538.

October 13, 2011

Injury At Sea And Indemnification: Who Pays?

by Berniard Law Firm

Transferring from the deck of your boat to an offshore platform in the Gulf of Mexico to begin your day’s work should not be a terrifying experience. While the transfer involves getting into the personnel basket that transfers you onto the platform and little else, the process itself is not as simple as one plain act. Tragically, this simple transfer does not always occur as planned. A recent case highlights importnat legal principles associated with this scenario.

In Channette v. Neches Gulf Marine, Inc. and Seneca Resources Corporation, injured seaman Michael Channette was being transferred from the M/V GOLIAD, operated by Neches Gulf Marine, to an offshore platform operated and owned by Seneca Resources. When the transfer went wrong and Channette was injured, Neches Gulf Marine sought indemnity from Seneca Resources. Indemnification is “The act of making another “whole” by paying any loss another might suffer. This usually arises from a clause in a contract where a party agrees to pay for any losses which arise or have arisen.”

In this case, this is exactly what Neches Gulf Marine asserted – that Seneca Resources was contractually obligated to indemnify them. Unfortunately for Neches Gulf Marine, the district court granted a summary judgment motion for Seneca Resources, thus ruling they had no duty to indemnify Neches Gulf Marine.

October 1, 2011

Issues of Law Involving Water Complicated, Require Admiralty Understanding

by Berniard Law Firm

At times accidents on bodies of water are governed by a unique set of federal laws called admiralty laws. The court will thus apply admiralty law as opposed to federal or state law. This law of the water plays an important part in the administration of justice in Louisiana because of the great amount of water-based industries operating out of the state, and the high potential for lawsuits to occur within these industries.

Whether or not admiralty law can or need be applied can be very important to cases because the different set of laws can actually change a party’s rights. For example, under admiralty law if you make a Rule 9(h) declaration designating your maritime claims as claims governed by admiralty jurisdiction, then there is no right to a jury trial, even where you could get a jury trial under state or federal law.

The application of admiralty law was recently at issue in the case Apache v. GlobalSantaFe Drilling Company. In this case, a mobile offshore drilling unit, owned by GlobalSantaFe, collided with an offshore oil and gas production platform, owned in part by Apache Corporation. Apache sued GlobalSantaFe to recover the damages caused to the platform. Apache asserted that the suit could be under both admiralty law and federal law.

September 13, 2011

Jones Act Lawsuit Fails Under Seaman Claim

by Berniard Law Firm

“Plaintiff Lost at Seaman Claim”

Robert Teaver may have fancied himself a man of the sea but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana that there was no way he could establish his status as a “seaman” for purposes of the Jones Act.

When dealing with litigation, especially when making a claim under a premise, words mean everything. To clarify, words mean specific things and those specific definitions are everything. Robert Teaver attempted to sue his employer under the Jones Act. The Jones Act was crafted to protect seamen who are injured in the course of their employment. This statute lays out the elements that must be met in order for a potential plaintiff to file a successful suit under it. Robert Teaver was a crane operator and installer for Seatrax of Louisiana, Inc. This company makes and installs cranes for offshore drilling platforms. Mr. Teaver’s work took him over water but he was not employed on a maritime vessel.

September 9, 2011

3rd Circuit Ruling Regarding Workplace Injury – Part 3 of Series

by Berniard Law Firm

Though Mr. Herbert’s primary argument was that he was outside the scope of his employment, he argued in the alternative that, even if the injury occurred within the scope of employment, the Defendants committed an intentional tort. Such a tort is the only recourse available to defeat a workers’ compensation defense when the injury occurs within the scope of employment. When making an intentional tort claim one must prove that the act that resulted in the injury was intentional. An intentional act requires the actor to either consciously desire the physical result of the act or know that the result is substantially certain to occur from his conduct. “Substantially” in this context requires more than a probability that an injury will occur and “certain” alludes to inevitability. Negligent, reckless, or wanton action is not enough to satisfy an intentional tort. These high standards make it difficult to succeed in a suit for intentional tort within the workplace.

Mr. Herbert was unable to succeed in his alternative argument because no proof was provided that either Industrial or GMI desired to harm Mr. Herbert or that the companies were substantially certain that the injury would occur from the companies’ acts. The court concluded that there was no evidence to prove that safety modifications made to the helicopter were an intentional cause of the injury. Neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendants felt that the safety harness used was unsafe, which defeated any claim that the Defendants knowingly acted to cause harm to Mr. Herbert.

In addition to the intentional tort, Mr. Herbert also claimed that the Defendants were responsible for spoliation of evidence. Spoliation of evidence is an intentional tort that impairs a party’s ability to prove a claim due to negligent or intentional destruction of evidence. In essence, the ability to make a claim for spoliation of evidence protects not only the claimant’s rights to suit, but also the court’s ability to provide justice. The key question in these claims is whether or not the defendant had a duty to preserve the evidence for the plaintiff. A duty of preservation may arise through contract, statute, special relationship, agreement, or an already acted upon undertaking to preserve the evidence. Because spoliation of evidence can be satisfied by an act under a negligence standard, this claim is easier to succeed on than one for any other intentional tort.

September 7, 2011

Discussion Regarding Employment Injuries – Part 2

by Berniard Law Firm

The issue of injuries within the scope of employment is not always black and white. Two concepts have somewhat complicated the matter: the borrowed employee and joint employment. Under the borrowed employee doctrine, a permanent employer may loan an employee to another, temporary employer. While under the temporary’s employ, the employee’s actions are that of the temporary employer. This doctrine means that if an employee is injured while working for the temporary employee, the questions regarding scope of employment apply only to the temporary employer. If the injury falls within the scope of the temporary employment, then the temporary employer may invoke workers’ compensation as an affirmative defense to tortious liability.

Figuring out whether an employee is borrowed or not is not always easy. Several questions can be asked to help classify the employment: Who has control over the employee? Who is paying the employee’s wages? Who has the right to terminate the employment? Who furnished the necessary tools and location for the employee’s work? How long was the temporary employment? Whose work was being done at the time of the injury? Was there an agreement between the permanent and temporary employers? Did the employee agree to the new temporary employment? Did the permanent employer relinquish control over the employee? The answers to these questions should paint a clear picture of whether or not the employee was in fact a borrowed employee. As in the Herbert case, if an employee agrees to do work for a temporary employer only because he is afraid of being fired by his permanent employer for refusal and is paid by the regular employer, then the employee has not fully acquiesed to the new job and the permanent employer has not relinquished control over the employee; it is still responsible for paying the employee’s wages. If this were the case, an injury that occurred while conducting the temporary employer’s work would fall outside the scope of employment because the employee is not a borrowed employee and the work would not be consistent with typical work conducted by the employee for the permanent employer. However, remember that the answer to each question proposed above is not determinative but rather should be analyzed within the totality of the circumstances.

In Herbert v. Richards, the court found that because GMI had no payroll, no equipment, and no contracts for leased land where the deer netting took place, the company was not an entity separate from Industrial. Since GMI was not a separate entity, it was not possible for GMI to have borrowed Mr. Herbert from Industrial. Thus, the court of appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants with regards to the issue of borrowed employee status.