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

by

storm_drain_drain_snow-1024x577Imagine walking through your neighborhood only to be seriously injured from tripping over a wire frame on a storm drain. The following case considers whether such a condition is open and obvious. This is an important consideration because if a condition is found to be open and obvious, then defendants do not have a duty to protect people from the condition. 

Theresa Granier and Linda Pace were walking on the sidewalk in their subdivision in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. They reached the end of the sidewalk and turned left to cross the street. While walking, they tried to step over a storm drain attached to the curb. They both purportedly stepped onto a wire frame, called an inlet protector, covering the drain’s opening. As a result, they tripped and fell on the street and were seriously injured. 

Granier and Pace then filed a lawsuit against Alvarez Construction Company, the developer of the subdivision as well as its insurer, Navigator Specialty Insurance Company. In the lawsuit, they claimed Alvarez was negligent because the inlet protector was in its control and created an unreasonable risk of injury. 

Continue reading

by

parade_festival_irish_parade-1024x683The vibrant spirit of Mardi Gras parades, with their kaleidoscope of colors and joyous revelry, often paints a picture of unadulterated celebration. Yet, beneath the surface of these festivities, unexpected tragedies can unfold, turning the jubilation into a legal labyrinth. Such was the case in Franklin, Louisiana, where a moment of revelry took a distressing turn as a float participant was tragically injured during a parade. What followed was a legal showdown, entangling federal regulations, contractual intricacies, and the question of liability. Amidst the sparkle and confetti, a courtroom drama unfolded, revealing the complex legal considerations surrounding the incident.

Troylond Wise was driving an 18-wheeler he owned but had leased to ACME Truck Line when he was involved in an accident during a parade. Before the accident occurred, Takisha Welch asked Wise to pull a truck for a Mardi Gras parade in Franklin, Louisiana. Welch paid $100 to Wise to use his tractor-trailer. On the parade day, Bridget Jackson was riding in the floating Wise was pulling. When Wise tried to turn right, Jackson was thrown from the float. Wise then ran over her twice. 

Jackson filed a lawsuit against Wise, ACME, and First Guard Insurance Company, the tractor-trailer’s liability insurer. Franklin subsequently settled with First Guard, so the claims against it were dismissed. Before the accident, Wise had a five-year lease with ACME, whereby Wise leased ACME his tractor-trailer. 

Continue reading

by

statues_amiens_cathedral_pic5-1024x768At the end of a trial, you are focused on whether or not the Judge ruled in your favor. However, it is not enough to only know who won the case, especially if you are considering an appeal. This case indicates the importance of paying attention not only to the outcome but also to the language in the final judgment the trial court issues. Louisiana has strict requirements for language that must be included in a final judgment for it to be valid so that an appellate court can hear the appeal. 

While Christopher Causey Jr. and Priscilla Hopkins were riding on a New Orleans Regional Transit Authority bus, they were allegedly injured following an incident involving hard braking. Their parents filed a lawsuit against the New Orleans Regional Transit Authority. Following a bench trial, the court entered a judgment in favor of the New Orleans Regional Transit Authority. The written judgment stated the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient evidence that the defendant had been negligent and caused the injuries. Notably, the judgment did not name any parties in the lawsuit but used the general terms, plaintiff and defendant. Additionally, the judgment did not explicitly state the relief the trial court granted or denied.

Before an appellate court in Louisiana can hear an appeal, it must first determine if there is a valid final judgment. See Urquhart v. Spencer. For a judgment to be a valid final judgment, it must include decretal language. That means the decision must be clearly and explicitly spelled out in the judgment and be precise and definite. It must also include the name of the party in whose favor the judgment is ordered and any relief granted or denied.  See Bd. of Supervisors of Louisiana State Univ. v. Mid City Holdings, LLC. 

Continue reading

by

law_justice_court_judge-1024x768The legal landscape can be full of unexpected twists and turns, and one such situation arose in this perplexing lawsuit. Erika Mann’s post-Hurricane Katrina home-raising project became a legal battle when she filed a lawsuit against Tim Clark Construction LLC and their insurer, Evanston Insurance Company. As the trial court issued a judgment that seemingly favored both parties, questions arose about the validity and coherence of the ruling. Join us as we delve into the intricacies of this case and explore how an inconsistent judgment navigated its way through the appeals process.

Erika Mann hired Tim Clark Construction LLC to raise her house in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina as part of Louisiana’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. Evanston Insurance Company was Tim Clark’s insurer for the relevant period. Its policy included a commercial general liability form covering bodily injury and property damage. It was an occurrence policy, which required that the injuries and damage occurred during the policy period. Additionally, the insurance policy had a pre-existing endorsement, which excluded any damage or loss that began to occur from an occurrence that began before the policy period. 

The construction took a few months, after which Tim Clark Construction obtained a certification of completion and occupancy. However, elevation studies revealed that the house had not been appropriately elevated. Mann then informed Tim Clark Construction it had not properly completed the project, and the house had failed inspection.

Continue reading

by

prison_fence_razor_ribbon_1-1024x768If you are considering filing a lawsuit, there are numerous procedural requirements with which you must comply. One of these requirements is that you file your lawsuit within the required period of time after the at-issue incident occurred. While the date you file your lawsuit is typically determined by the day the court receives your petition, the following case involves a special exception that applies to prisoners in certain situations. 

On January 5, 2014, Dale Brown was arrested by the police in Gretna, Louisiana, because they believed Brown was driving a vehicle involved in an armed robbery at a convenience store. While attempting to flee while being arrested, he was shot in the leg and bitten by one of the police dogs. Brown was subsequently convicted of armed robbery and aggravated flight from the police. 

While in the Louisiana State Penitentiary, Brown filed a lawsuit accusing the police of assault, battery, and civil rights violations, including use of excessive force. He claimed he filed his lawsuit within the one-year requirement of La. C.C. art. 3492. He claimed he provided his petition to the prison officials to mail on December 30, 2014. However, the Court of Orleans Parish Civil District Court clerk stamped Brown’s petition as having been filed on January 13, 2015. 

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 – 2024, Berniard Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design