vessels_beach_brazil_pier-1024x768Suffering an on-the-job injury is a challenging experience that involves physical recovery and navigating the complexities of the worker’s compensation system. Determining when and how to return to work can be daunting in such situations. The questions surrounding medical examinations and the responsibility of companies to provide additional medical advice or inspections when an employee is injured are examined in the following case.

A longshore foreman, Alexander Scott, injured his hip and lower back when he was hit from behind by a forklift at work. His employer, Port America, set him up with Dr. Steiner, a Physician, to review his injuries. Dr. Steiner told Scott that he reached maximum medical improvement, did not need additional treatment, and was physically fine to continue working. However, Scott was uncomfortable returning to work because he insisted he was still in pain. 

Opting not to return to work, Scott sought another doctor’s opinion, Dr. Bostick, who advised him against resuming his employment duties due to his condition. Scott revisited Dr. Steiner, but no additional treatment was provided as his complaints were deemed subjective. Dr. Bostick reiterated his recommendation that Scott abstain from work due to an altered gait, suggesting further physical therapy.

washington_dc_fire_ems-1024x683In the face of a potentially unlawful termination from your job, navigating the legal landscape can be daunting. If you suspect that you have been fired unjustly, it is essential to understand the critical elements required to bring a lawsuit against your employer for wrongful or retaliatory discharge. A recent Lafayette Parish case highlights the essential evidence to support a retaliatory discharge claim. It highlights the importance of seeking legal guidance when faced with such a situation. By delving into the details of this case, we can uncover the necessary proof required to establish a compelling retaliatory discharge case and empower individuals to protect their rights in the workplace.

Pashine Broussard suffered a workplace accident while employed at Our Lady of Lourdes Regional Medical Center (“Lourdes”). Since the accident in 2006, Lourdes paid Broussard’s medical bills and accommodated her various restrictions, including allowing other employees to perform the tasks she could no longer accomplish until 2010. At that time, Broussard’s surgeon took her off work completely. 

Broussard then met with Lourdes to discuss workers’ compensation indemnity benefits. Lourdes, however, informed Broussard that her time to seek these benefits had expired, as her injury occurred over four years ago; however, Broussard was approved to take a leave of absence, expiring in January of 2011. Broussard signed the acknowledgment of the leave time and then subsequently filed a workers’ compensation claim, the latter of which was ultimately denied. 

mardi_gras_parade_new_1-1024x683New Orleans is well-known for extravagant and entertaining Mardi Gras parades. What happens when an unknown tortfeasor injures someone during a parade? As the following case demonstrates, the claimant only has a certain amount of time to bring a lawsuit against the wrongful party, or they risk dismissal of the claim.  

Lillie Love claimed she was injured during a parade of the Gentilly Carnival Club, Inc., d/b/a Krewe of Endymion (“Endymion”), when a float driver hit a metal barricade in front of her. Love then filed a lawsuit against Endymion, its insurer, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (“Underwriters”), and the unknown driver of the float. Later, Love amended her claim to include Barry Daigle, the driver, and Daigle’s employer, Blaine Kern Artists, Inc. (“BKA”). 

Endymion then filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that Love could not meet her burden of proof under La. R.S.9:2796(A), which requires, in part, for the claimant to prove a deliberate and wanton act or gross negligence on the part of the parade krewe or organization. The Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans granted Endymion’s motion and dismissed Love’s claims against it. 

examining_patients_dvids112692-1024x680Medical malpractice claims typically involve allegations of negligence during a medical procedure. However, the following case presents a unique scenario where the alleged injury occurred after the procedure was completed. It examines the legal considerations and challenges in such situations, emphasizing the importance of evidence and expert testimony in establishing a breach of the applicable standard of care.

Kay Hanagriff received two punch biopsies at Dr. Shondra Smith’s dermatology office. While receiving the biopsies, Hanagriff told Smith she felt queasy. Smith told the nurse to put an ice pack on Hanagriff’s neck. After the nurse placed the ice pack on her neck, Hanagriff said she was feeling better. After the procedure, Smith told Hanagriff to lie flat on the exam table and had her staff monitor Hanagriff. Hanagriff ignored the staff’s instructions not to try to get off the exam table without assistance and claimed she fell and hurt her neck. 

Hanagriff filed a complaint with the Louisiana Patient’s Compensation Fund. The medical review panel found neither Smith nor her staff breached the appropriate standard of care in their treatment of Hanagriff. Hanagriff then filed a lawsuit against Smith and her professional liability insurance carrier. At trial, the jury found against Hanagriff. Hanagriff appealed. She claimed the jury erred in finding Smith and her staff did not violate the applicable standard of care, and the evidence did not support the jury’s findings. 

man_person_street_sidewalk-1024x683Parents can imagine all sorts of dangerous situations their children could find themselves in walking to school – kidnappings, getting hit by a car, bullying. But what happens if the cause of the injury was a defective sidewalk the city was supposed to maintain? Can the city be held liable? The following case examines the liability of a city when a teenager is injured due to a defective sidewalk in front of her high school.

While fifteen-year-old Cora Minix was walking to her high school in Rayne, Louisiana, she fell on a sidewalk in front of the school and was injured. Her parents filed a lawsuit against the City of Rayne, claiming the sidewalk’s concrete was cracked and shifted as Minix walked on it, causing her to fall. 

The city claimed the sidewalk’s condition was open and obvious and not unreasonably dangerous. At a trial, the court ruled in favor of the City of Rayne, finding the sidewalk’s defect was open and obvious and did not present an unreasonable risk of harm. Further, the city did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the sidewalk’s defect. The Minixes appealed. 

storm_damage_hurricane_wind-1024x768Borrowing a car from family or friends is a common occurrence. While you might think your car insurance protects you in the unfortunate event you are involved in a car accident while driving the borrowed car, it is essential to be aware of exclusions that might apply to your insurance coverage. This case involves a policy exclusion that applied to property damage caused to the borrowed car. 

Asha Sade Johnson had a car insurance policy from Geico. Johnson was involved in a car accident while driving a Jeep owned by her mother, Ruby Lee Lewis. The accident caused significant damage to her mother’s car. Lewis did not have her own collision or comprehensive coverage insurance for her car. Johnson owned a different car insured by Geico. 

Lewis filed a lawsuit against Geico seeking compensation under Johnson’s insurance policy for the damages caused to her vehicle from the accident while Johnson was driving her car. Geico filed a summary judgment motion, arguing Johnson’s policy did not include coverage for damage to property such as Lewis’ car. The trial court denied Geico’s summary judgment motion.

ship_s_doctor_doctor-1024x672If your doctor makes an obvious mistake in a surgery, you might think you can succeed in a medical malpractice lawsuit against the doctor. However, Louisiana law does not require a doctor to act perfectly. Therefore, if you are considering bringing a medical malpractice lawsuit against a medical professional, you must understand the applicable standard of care you are required to prove they did not satisfy. This case illustrates how the standard of care a doctor is required to follow depends on the existing circumstances.

Martin Van Buren suffered from kidney disease and underwent a kidney transplant as a young adult. Approximately 12 years later, he suffered additional health problems. While at a hospital in Monroe, Louisiana, he suffered a large gastrointestinal bleed. 

While Van Buren was in the ICU, Dr. Claude B. Minor, Jr. was asked to do an emergency surgical consult. When Minor entered the hospital room, Van Buren vomited blood and went into cardiac arrest. Minor stabilized Van Buren and took him to surgery to remove the ulcer. Minor told Van Buren’s mother it was unlikely Van Buren would survive the procedure. After Minor removed the part of the stomach with the ulcer, Van Buren started to bleed in his intestines. While dealing with that complication, Minor reconnected the stomach to the incorrect part of the bowel, which made it so Van Buren could not absorb food. This resulted in diarrhea, malnutrition, and excessive weight loss. The error was later identified and corrected by a different doctor. 

coins_currency_investment_insurance_0-1024x683Receiving compensation from the at-fault driver’s insurance policy after a car accident can bring relief. However, it is essential to be aware of the potential complications if the awarded amount exceeds the other driver’s insurance policy limits. This case serves as an example of what can happen in such situations and highlights the importance of understanding the legal implications.

Claudio Larios was waiting to find a parking spot at her apartment complex in Metairie, Louisiana, with Marlon Funez riding in her passenger seat. Lindsay Vehorn was stopped behind them in her car. A truck came around the corner and tried to get in front of Vehorn and her car, apparently not seeing Larios in her car. The truck hit the back left of Larios’ car. The truck passenger was drunk. Larios could see the driver of the truck before he drove off. Larios and Funez had to receive medical treatment due to the incident. 

The day after the accident, Larios encountered the truck passenger. She gave the passenger her contact information and asked that it be passed along to the driver of the truck. Julio Martinez, whom Larios recognized as the truck driver that had hit her car, subsequently contacted her and provided her with insurance documentation. Because Larios and Funez could not locate and serve Martinez, they voluntarily dismissed the claims against Martinez and brought all claims against Imperial under Louisiana’s Direct Action Statute, La. R.S. 22:1269. At trial, the court found in favor of the plaintiffs. Larios was awarded $21,318 ($6,218 for past medical expenses and $15,100 for past pain and suffering). Funez was awarded $21,267 ($5,267 in past medical expenses in $16,000 for past pain and suffering). The court ordered Imperial to pay the amounts. Imperial appealed. 

office_contract_computer_phone-1024x683Entering into a contract entails an expectation that both parties will fulfill their respective obligations. However, what transpires when one party complies while the other fails to uphold its promises? This case delves into the repercussions of such a scenario, shedding light on the importance of seeking legal remedies to enforce contractual agreements.

Dr. Kenneth Gowland was killed in a car accident in Bernard Parish, Louisiana. His widow, Connie Gowland, retained Wootan & Saunders to handle her husband’s succession and an uninsured motorist claim against his insurer on behalf of her and their children. Wootan & Saunders investigated the accident. It simultaneously performed work for certain Louisiana agencies and departments and received payments from the Office of Risk Management, which is responsible for tort claims brought against Louisiana state agencies under La. R.S. 39:1535. Because of its lack of experience with personal injury lawsuits, Wootan & Saunders selected Glenn Diaz to handle Gowland’s litigation. 

Diaz and Gowland signed a contingent fee contract and a fee-splitting agreement with Wootan & Saunders. Under the fee agreement, Wootan & Saunders would receive a portion of fees based on work it had performed and its continuous contact with the Gowlands. Wootan & Saunders did not inform Diaz it was doing work for Louisiana state agencies.

agree_agreement_asian_black-1024x683If you sign a settlement agreement, you might feel relieved that you no longer have to go to trial. After all, settlements are generally thought to save you the time and expense of going to trial. But what happens if the other side fails to pay you the settlement funds by the terms of the settlement agreement?

Rapheal Guillory was injured while working at R&R Construction. He initially received workers’ compensation benefits, but they were eventually terminated. After his benefits were terminated, he filed a lawsuit against R&R, seeking his benefits, penalties, and attorney fees. Before the case went to trial, the parties settled. Under the settlement agreement, R&R agreed to pay Guillory a lump sum payment for the settlement amount by a set date. The workers’ compensation judge approved the settlement agreement. 

After the agreed-upon date for R&R to pay Guillory, R&R’s attorney delivered to Guillory’s attorney two checks, a release, and dismissal. However, the checks included language that Guillory claimed imposed improper conditions on receiving the settlement funds that were not part of their settlement agreement. Later, R&R paid the required expenses, but the check also included conditional language. 

Contact Information