by

site_truck_vehicle_transport-1024x683The discovery process of litigation is vital to a well-informed judgment rendered by the court. But discovery can be halted, disrupted, or dismantled by various motions. Finding and gathering all the necessary information in a lawsuit is incredibly important for all sides. Still, it requires showing a need for that information and the presence of facts in dispute. Identifying and presenting disputed facts of a case is necessary to help protect your case from a summary judgment dismissal. 

Heniff Transportation, LLC (“Heniff”) was a licensed professional truck driver transporting dangerous chemicals. One of the plaintiffs, Carl Davis, was a self-employed independent contractor working for Heniff. During this work, Carl attempted delivery of a tank of hydrochloric acid to GEO Specialty Chemicals (“GEO”). GEO personnel found defects in the tank, which Heniff owned. To address the defect, Heniff directed Carl to have Bastrop Tank Wash (“Bastrop”) repair the tank. Bastrop allegedly repaired the tank, but when Carl and GEO later began transferring the hydrochloric acid from the tank, the allegedly repaired hose ruptured, hydrochloric acid escaped from the fittings, and Carl’s required protective gear was knocked off his body. As a result, Carl suffered injuries to his eyes, face, and body. 

Carl and his wife, April, sued Heniff, Bastrop, GEO, Sparta Insurance (later replaced by Arch Insurance), ABC Insurance, and DEF Insurance, for damages and loss of consortium. In response, Bastrop filed for summary judgment, arguing that the part of the exploded hose was not a part that Bastrop repaired.

Continue reading

by

the_samuel_young_house-1024x683Owning property is not easy, especially when you have to share ownership with multiple individuals. Co-ownership can present challenging issues, especially when one owner wants to make renovations or sell the property. This case examines a dispute among family members involving property in the Parish of St. Bernard in Louisiana. 

The plaintiffs, including Charles Gettys, Jr., and defendants, including William Gettys, each had a one-fifth interest in the at-issue property. The plaintiffs sued to have the property sold and the proceeds divided among the five co-owners. William responded, claiming after Hurricane Katrina, the defendants said they no longer wanted to have an interest in the property and did not want to spend any more money on the property or repairs.  William claimed he completed a property renovation and moved into the house following Hurricane Katrina. William claimed before Hurricane Katrina that he had agreed with Charles that they would renovate the property together and then sell it. Then, they would split the money they made from the sale. The renovations purportedly cost $46,000. William claimed Charles had agreed to split the renovation costs with him.  

However, Charles had not paid for his share of the renovations. William argued Charles owed him his share of the total cost of the repairs and renovations. After trial, the court ordered the parties to sell the property via auction, at a $50,000 minimum bid, or through a private sale, with the first $48,476 of the proceeds to go to William to reimburse him for the renovations he carried out in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Continue reading

by

medical_appointment_doctor_563427-1024x683In the face of the profound loss that accompanies the passing of a family member, the impact can be particularly agonizing when that loss follows the anticipation of medical intervention, such as a transplant. The immediate inclination might be to explore legal avenues through a medical malpractice claim, yet the determination of whether negligence played a role can be an intricate matter for the average individual. This Louisiana case shows how important it can be to obtain expert testimony to help show malpractice occurred. 

The medical malpractice case brought by Jarrard Green and his sister Bernadine Green arose from complications after a donated kidney failed post-transplant. Jarrard donated his kidney to Bernadine, who suffered from end-stage renal disease. The transplant was performed by one of the defendants, Joseph Buell. Several days after the transplant, the kidney failed and needed removal. Jarrard initiated a Medical Review Panel process which rendered an opinion in favor of the defendants stating there was no breach in the standard of care. 

A medical malpractice and lack of informed consent lawsuit followed. Defendants Dr. Joseph Buell, Dr. Douglas Slakey, and Tulane University Hospital filed a motion for summary judgment stating the Greens lacked the necessary expert testimony to support the allegations. The motion was granted by the trial court dismissing the claims. The Greens appealed. 

Continue reading

by

pregnancy_belly_9_months-1024x685Imagine waking up one day and finding yourself out of a job simply because you are pregnant. This was the reality for Eryon Luke, as she claimed that her former employer, CPlace Forest Park SNF, LLC, fired her due to her pregnancy. This case, which attracted significant attention in legal circles, presents a deep dive into pregnancy discrimination lawsuits, exploring the application of state and federal laws and their impact on the employer-employee relationship.

Luke held a position as a Certified Nursing Assistant with Forest Park before her dismissal. Her employment was terminated during her maternity leave, which she contends was an act of discrimination by her employer. She asserted that Nottingham terminated her because she was pregnant, violating federal and Louisiana state laws.

To explain, under Louisiana law concerning unlawful employment practices, an employee with covered limitations, such as in this case, is allowed to take leave under any leave law or policy of the employer if another reasonable accommodation can be provided to the known limitations for medical needs arising from pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. LA Rev Stat § 23:342. Luke also claimed that Nottingham refused her request for a temporary, less strenuous role during her pregnancy, which she argued was another unlawful employment practice.

Continue reading

by

worker_shoes_shoes_work-1024x768Should an employer continue to pay for work-related injuries even after an employee has “fully recovered”? At issue is a decision that terminated an employee’s entitlement to certain benefits. After the employee suffered a work-related injury and received temporary total disability benefits, her former employer, The Walgreen Company, filed a motion to modify the judgment. This led to litigation and a subsequent appeal.

Former Walgreens employee Alyce Mouton, a resident of Metairie, Louisiana, was injured while performing her duties at Walgreen Drug Stores in that city. Initially, the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) of the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal ruled in her favor, awarding her temporary total disability benefits and ordering Walgreens to pay for all reasonable and necessary medical treatment resulting from her workplace injuries. However, Walgreens later filed a motion to modify the judgment, alleging a change in Mouton’s condition and seeking to convert her benefits from temporary total disability to supplemental earnings benefits (SEBs). This dispute eventually led to an appeal when Mouton challenged the decision. See Mouton v. Walgreen Co.

In Louisiana, the workers’ compensation system is governed by specific laws designed to protect the rights of both employees and employers. One such statute is Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1310.8. This statute grants the WCJ continuing power and jurisdiction over each case. It allows for modifying or amendment of prior findings or orders when such changes are warranted in the judge’s opinion. In addition, the statute allows for review of any award upon motion of a party, particularly in cases where there has been a change in circumstances. The WCJ may then enter an award that terminates, reduces, or increases the compensation previously awarded.

Continue reading

by

car_accident_bellingham_fire-1024x683Ordinarily, when one is involved in an automobile accident, the injured party files a claim with the at-fault driver’s insurance company.  When a person is involved in an accident with a co-worker in the course of their employment duties, however, the injured party may collect workers’ compensation instead. Can the injured employee “double-dip” and also collect under a Uninsured/underinsured motorist policy?  This was the issue in a recent case out of Delcambre, Louisiana.   

Annique Johnson, Wanda Theriot, and Emily Laester were employees of Le Bon Manger, Inc. While acting within the course and scope of their employment; the employees were in a car accident while Laester was driving.  Laester was at fault, and the employees sustained injuries.  Johnson and Theriot filed claims for workers’ compensation benefits and settled those claims.  Later, Johnson and Theriot (Plaintiffs) filed a civil lawsuit against their employer, Laester, and State Farm under separate policies for each party.  State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the case because the Plaintiffs already collected under workers’ compensation law.  The plaintiffs appealed to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal.       

Under Louisiana law, fellow employees have statutory immunity from lawsuits brought by co-employees for which workers’ compensation laws provide the sole remedy.  See La. R.S. 23:1032.  This lack of standing to bring a lawsuit automatically means there can be no lawsuit against the co-employee car insurance company.  See Hebert v. Clarendon Am. Ins. Co.  Essentially, the availability of workers’ compensation erases the existence of an uninsured/underinsured motorist and erases the availability of that coverage.  

Continue reading

by

casino_note_roadway_mark-1024x683When you enter a store or place of public accommodation as a customer, there is a certain expectation of safety. Many customers expect stores to provide clean bathrooms and a slip-free environment. This, however, was not the case for Valencia Lewis when she was walking through a New Orleans casino. 

Lewis was walking through Harrah’s Casino in New Orleans when she slipped and fell on the marble floor. After her fall, Lewis’s husband and son came to help her back to her feet. Lewis, her husband, and her son reported seeing “a little white stuff” on the floor. A Harrah’s employee identified this substance as a “smushed grape.” Ms. Mayshack, Harrah’s on-duty supervisor, noted that a substance “like melted cheese” was on the floor after Lewis’s fall. Another employee, however, reported that he did not see any smashed fruit on the ground after Lewis’s fall. During discovery, a video depicting Lewis’s fall was produced. This video, however, did not show any substance on the ground before Lewis’s fall. 

In her complaint, Lewis alleged that Jazz Casino, owner, and operator of Harrah’s, failed to (1) properly maintain the premises, (2) provide a reasonably safe surface for customers to walk on, (3) provide any warning of the dangerous condition and (4) inspect the area where Lewis was injured. Jazz Casino filed for summary judgment, arguing that there was no factual support for several elements of Lewis’s claim under Lousianna’s Merchant Liability Statute La. R.S. 9:2800.6. For instance, Jazz Casino argued that Lewis could not show whether (1) the food on the floor presented an unreasonable risk of harm that was reasonably foreseeable; (2) Jazz Casino created the risk of harm or had actual or constructive notice of the condition before Ms. Lewis’s fall, and (3) Jazz Casino failed to exercise reasonable care to keep the aisles and walkways free of hazardous conditions.

Continue reading

by

paramedics_doll_hospital_medical-683x1024The prospect of undergoing medical procedures carries inherent risks; sometimes, unfortunate incidents can lead to injuries. In such cases, individuals can pursue medical malpractice claims to seek compensation for damages. A crucial aspect of these claims is presenting the appropriate evidence and adhering to procedural requirements. A telling illustration of the importance of these procedures is found in a lawsuit involving Elliott R. James and Lakeview Medical Center, LLC. This case underscores the significance of following legal protocols and obtaining substantial evidence to bolster a medical malpractice claim.

Elliott R. James entered Lakeview Medical Center, LLC d/b/a Lakeview Regional Medical Center (“Lakeview”) for an exploratory laparotomy. A procedure where an endotracheal tube was inserted into him was completed with no complications. While he recovered for the next few days, James began experiencing nausea and vomiting. James returned to Lakeview, where Nurse Dinah Justilian attempted to place a nasogastric (NG) tube through James’s nose to reach his stomach. James alleges that Nurse Jusitilian did not contact his treating physician Dr. Darren Rowan before attempting to insert the tube. Nurse Justilian had difficulty inserting the tube. The tube encountered some resistance while being slid down Mr. James’ throat but was eventually able to be inserted successfully. Mr. James stated he felt severe pain in his throat during the process. 

A few days later, when the NG tube was removed, James still experienced pain in his throat. On November 4, 2010, Lakeview discharged James despite him still complaining of throat pain. James decided to obtain a second opinion about the pain from a specialist. The specialist found that his right vocal cord appeared damaged and would either heal within a year or was permanently damaged. Since then, James alleges his throat injury never healed. However, on July 16, 2014, a Medical Review Panel (MRP) rendered its findings on the situation. They found that the NG tube was placed correctly despite the discomfort, and there was no evidence that the NG tube was the likely cause of James’s injury. The MRP concluded that the evidence did not support James’s claim that Lakeview failed to meet the applicable standard of care. 

Continue reading

by

larimer_sheriff_2014_chevrolet-1024x683Before accepting a job, it is essential to review all policies provided to you by your potential employer, as these policies may not always be in your best interest. The following East Baton Rouge case demonstrates what may or may not be considered a “wage” payable at the end of employment. 

Ely Boucher was terminated from the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff’s Office and was simultaneously provided with a copy of their Leave Policy. A provision to the Leave Policy stipulated that a certain amount of hours of paid-time-off leave were paid upon termination of employment. Subsequently, Boucher, who had over 914 paid-time-off leave hours, was paid for 300 hours per the policy provisions. Boucher then argued the Leave Policy violated La. R.S.23:631 and made a written demand on the Sheriff, for unpaid wages. When Boucher’s demand went unanswered, he filed a lawsuit against the Sheriff with the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. 

Boucher filed a motion seeking to exclude the testimony of the EBR Sheriff’s Human Resource Director concerning her interpretation of the Leave Policy. He argued the document was the best evidence of its contents. He also argued that the testimony should be excluded based on the contract interpretation laws. 

Continue reading

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
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