by

police_handcuffs_right_1072636-1024x680Imagine being wrongfully arrested and seeking justice for the harm caused. This was the situation for Joe Bridges III, Jordan M. Bridges, and Branden J. Herring, who filed a lawsuit for damages after an arrest on July 30, 2011. The plaintiffs initiated the lawsuit by filing a petition for damages on July 20, 2012. The defendants named in the petition included the Baton Rouge Police Department, the City of Baton Rouge, and several individual police officers.

The plaintiffs alleged their arrests were unjustified and had caused them harm, leading them to seek compensation for the damages incurred. They claimed the actions of the defendants, including the individual police officers, were responsible for their wrongful arrest and subsequent suffering.

In considering the appeal, the court had to apply the relevant rules and statutes. Of particular significance was La. C.C.P. art. 561. This article outlines the concept of abandonment and specifies the conditions under which a case may be dismissed. It requires parties to take steps in the prosecution or defense of an action within a three-year period to avoid abandonment. Clark v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 00-3010, pp. 5-6 (La. 5/15/01), 785 So. 2d 779, 784.

Continue reading

by

sunsets_family_happiness_beach-1024x683The challenges posed by mental and physical disabilities can place immense strain on families, particularly when the affected individual is unaware or unable to acknowledge their condition. When individuals face difficulties managing their health, personal matters, finances, and business affairs due to mental incapacity, they must take legal steps to protect their interests. During such trying times, the guidance of a skilled lawyer can alleviate some of the pain and stress that families experience. 

Stanton Lee Cadow faced just such a situation when his mother, America Jean Morris Metzler, was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and, as a result, could no longer live independently, care for herself, or make sound personal and financial decisions. Her son, Cadow, thus sought a full interdiction to make legal decisions on her behalf. However, Metzler asserted her husband, John Metzler, Sr., was her power of attorney.

The proceedings began when Stanton filed a petition in 2014 seeking the interdiction of his mother, America Jean Morris Metzler, who was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. Cadow alleged that his stepfather, John Metzler Sr., could not care for Metzler due to his health issues. Metzler contested the petition, asserting that Metzler, Sr., had a valid power of attorney and could act on her behalf. Initially, the trial court denied and dismissed Cadow’s claims without prejudice in 2015.

Continue reading

by

texas_flag_texas_flag-1024x683It’s pretty common for large corporations to conduct business across multiple state lines. So, too, it’s expected that employees for these types of companies will also have connections with multiple states based on their employment with the corporation. In these situations determining which state and Court has jurisdiction over legal claims when such issues arise can become an incredibly fact-specific inquiry. This was the case for one Workers’ Compensation Judge (“WCJ”), who found that the Office of Workers’ Compensation (“OWC”) located in Lafayette, Louisiana had subject matter jurisdiction to decide the legal claims of a former Tyson-employed truck driver.

Frank Verret (“Mr. Verret”), a Louisiana resident, was hired as a long-haul truck driver for Tyson Foods, Inc. (“Tyson”) in 1999. Initially, he drove to a Tyson facility in Center, Texas, to apply for a position and later called to inquire about the status of his application from his home in Louisiana. During that phone call, Mr. Verret claimed that Tyson hired him for the long-haul truck driver position. Afterward, he drove back to Texas, picked up his truck, and began employment.

Years later, in 2015, while driving his Tyson truck through Oklahoma, Mr. Verret crashed into the median barrier. Mr. Verret was hospitalized and treated for his injuries in Oklahoma, then was sent to Texas for an employer-mandated drug screening before returning to Arkansas, where he had begun his route before the crash. A few months after the crash, a then-retired Mr. Verret filed a Disputed Claim for Compensation against Tyson.

Continue reading

by

inside_ambulance_ambulance_lighting-1024x576When 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. 

Continue reading

by

refinery_oil_aerial_natural_1-1024x683When 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. 

Fourteen workers at the Citgo Petroleum Corporation refinery in Lake Charles, Louisiana, were exposed to hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide following a gas release. The workers suffered various symptoms, including nasal irritation, headaches, and chest pain. The workers filed a lawsuit against Citgo, arguing their symptoms resulted from the gas release. The trial court awarded nine of the fourteen plaintiffs damages for fear of future injury. All fourteen plaintiffs received damages for mental anguish/loss of enjoyment of life. Citgo appealed.  

On appeal, Citgo argued the trial court erred in awarding nine plaintiffs damages for fear of future injury because there was no evidence that the gas release could cause them future health problems. To recover for fear of future injury, a plaintiff must show a possibility of such damages from the tortious conduct. See Broussard v. Olin Corp. At trial, even the plaintiff’s expert witness did not testify that the plaintiffs were at risk for future health problems from the gas release. Additionally, there were studies presented indicating there were no known future health issues from similar exposures. Therefore, the appellate court found the trial court’s award of damages for future injuries was “mere speculation” and reversed the trial court’s award of damages for fear of future injuries to the nine plaintiffs. 

Continue reading

by

refineries_haifa_israel_night-1024x682While 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.

Workers at Firestone Polymers plant near CITGO Petroleum Company’s refinery in Lake Charles, Louisiana, were exposed to higher than permitted sulphur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide levels. Eight individuals who worked at Firestone filed a lawsuit against CITGO. At trial, the court held the employees’ exposure to the higher than permitted levels of sulphur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide caused their injuries, including headaches, coughs, eye and sinus irritation, and sore throats. The trial court awarded damages based on the workers’ injuries over three years. Although CITGO agreed it was liable, it appealed the damages awarded to the injured workers.

On appeal, CITGO argued the trial court’s award of damages for fear of future injury was duplicative of the mental anguish damages. CITGO also argued there was insufficient evidence to support the fear of future injury and medical expense damages awarded to the workers. 

Continue reading

by

medical_instruments_examination_424729-1024x768In 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?

K Arceneaux’s baby died in utero while she was hospitalized. The baby had hydrocephalus, or excess fluid in the brain. Arceneaux claimed the child’s death partly resulted from a failure to monitor its heart rate. She also claimed that the Lafayette General Medical Center (“LGMC”) nursing staff forced her out of bed after delivery. She claimed she fell on the floor, injuring her neck. 

Arceneaux filed a medical malpractice claim against LGMC and Dr. Bobby Nevils. The medical review panel determined there was no breach of the required standard of care. She then filed a lawsuit against LGMC. 

Continue reading

by

car_wrecked_accident_collision-1024x617To succeed in a lawsuit, it is not enough that your claim has merit. Rather, you must also comply with sometimes complex procedural requirements. These requirements include strict time limits in which you must file your claim. Otherwise, even if your claim has merit, it could be dismissed because of a peremptory exception of prescription. The following lawsuit involving bad faith insurance claims shows just how critical timely filing and proper crafting of a lawsuit are to preserve all of your claims. 

While Harold Fils was driving a vehicle owned by Bilfinger Salmis, his employer, he was hit by a vehicle driven by an uninsured motorist. Bilfinger’s uninsured motorist insurer was Starr Indemnity. Fils submitted a claim to Starr for his injuries and other damages. Starr paid Fils $45,000 but refused to make any additional payments due to Fils’s purported pre-existing conditions. 

Fils filed a lawsuit against Starr for additional payments. Fils claimed his medical expenses alone were over $45,000. He later amended his petition to claim Starr had acted in bad faith and sought penalties and attorney fees under La. R.S. 22:1973 and 22:1892. Starr filed a peremptory exception of prescription, claiming Fils’ bad faith claim was barred as it had been filed more than one year after he filed his lawsuit against them. The trial court ruled in favor of Starr and dismissed Fils’ bad faith claim. Fils appealed.

Continue reading

by

news_stock_newspaper_glasses-1-1024x732A homeowner’s insurance policy can help protect you if someone is injured on your property. However, like any insurance policy, a homeowner’s insurance policy can include many exclusions that limit what type of injuries your insurance policy will cover. If such an exclusion applies to your claim, your insurance company will likely try to claim it is not responsible for the pay the damages claimed. This can result in complex litigation, including complicated procedural devices such as the peremptory exception of no right of action at issue in the following case.

Terry Leone was a bail bondsman who was injured after falling out of the back door of a mobile home in Woodworth, Louisiana. The mobile home was owned by Don Ware and occupied by his son, Aaron, whom he was a guarantor for on a criminal surety bond. Don contacted Leone and told him he wanted to withdraw as Aaron’s guarantor. Leone went to the mobile home to assist with apprehending Aaron, so he could be turned in to the police. A physical altercation ensued, during which Leone fell out of the back door of the mobile home, injuring his knee. Leone filed a lawsuit against Don, Aaron, and Republic Fire and Casualty Insurance, who insured Don’s mobile home. Republic filed a peremptory exception of no right of action under La. C.C.P. art. 927, claiming the insured’s actions were intentional acts, so the insurance policy did not cover them. The trial court ruled in favor of Republic and granted its peremptory exception. Leone appealed. 

On appeal, Leone argued the trial court erred when it granted Republic’s peremptory exception of no right of action and found the allegations involved an intentional tort, so they were excluded from Republic’s policy. The purpose of an exception of no right of action is to determine whether the plaintiff (here, Leone) is part of the class of people with the right to bring the asserted claim. 

Continue reading

by

oil_well_head_surrounding-686x1024The 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.

AIX Energy Inc. owned and operated an oil well in Claiborne Parish, Louisiana. It performed a frac job and hired Republic Well Testing as a contractor to measure the oil well’s flowback. Republic installed a flowback tank. AIX decided to try to set a “packer” to produce through smaller tubing. AIX hired Jeremy Shepard and Michael Jackson as toolpushers and floor hands. While attempting to set the “packer,” the crew ran into issues. In the course of the work, there was an explosion. Jackson and Shepard were standing near the well. They were knocked over and seriously burned. 

Jackson, Shepard, and their respective wives filed a personal injury lawsuit against AIX, Republic, and others. At trial, the jury found AIX and various other defendants were negligent. The jury allocated AIX 97.5% of the fault. The jury awarded Shepard and Jackson $22.45 million in damages. AIX appealed.

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