computed_tomography_human_brain-1024x730You might be eligible for workers’ compensation if you are injured on the job. However, you must be honest in your communications with your employer and medical providers because, under Louisiana law, you forfeit your rights to any such benefits if you make misrepresentations or false statements concerning your workers’ compensation scheme. What happens if these misrepresentations appear to result from memory impairments related to your on-the-job injury? The following lawsuit helps answer this question.

While working as a security guard at the Golden Nugget Casino, Katina Hodges fainted and fell to the floor. Her legs and knee hit the floor. She hit her head on the floor and appeared to have seizures. At Christus St. Patrick Hospital in Lake Charles, Louisiana, a CT scan showed she suffered a hemorrhage in her brain. Hodges subsequently received treatment for her injuries, which included aggravations of preexisting conditions. 

Golden Nugget filed a Notice of Controversion, claiming it did not owe Hodges anything because ha fainting spell caused her injuries. Hodges claimed she had passed out, fell, and was injured while working. In response, Golden Nugget claimed Hodges had forfeited any benefits under La. R.S. 23:1208 because she had made misrepresentations associated with her claim. The matter went to trial before the Workers’ Compensation Judge, who ruled that Hodges’ fall was an accident and she had suffered injuries caused by the accident. Golden Nugget was ordered to pay temporary disability benefits, supplemental earnings benefits, medical benefits, a penalty of $2,000 for failing to pay Hodges’ indemnity benefits, a penalty of $2,000 for failing to pay Hodges’ medical expenses and $25,000 in attorney fees. Golden Nugget appealed. 

court_entry_stairs_entrance-1024x765What happens if you decide to switch attorneys partway through a lawsuit? If you are involved in a lawsuit involving multiple attorneys, you must understand all applicable contracts. Otherwise, you might be involved in a lawsuit with your attorneys, just like Deborah and Mark Kruse found themselves here.

This case involves a lawsuit the Law Office of John D. Sileo (“Sileo”) filed against the Kruses, its former clients, to obtain attorney fees and expenses they claimed they were owed under a contingency fee contract. Sileo also brought a conversion claim against The Law Offices of Allan Berger & Associates (“Berger”), claiming they had misappropriated the applicable attorney fees and expenses.

Before the at-issue lawsuit, Sileo filed a lawsuit for the Kruses related to damage from Deborah’s use of transvaginal mesh. Their lawsuit became part of a related multi-district litigation. Three months after filing the complaint, Sileo and the Kruses signed a contingency fee contract where Sileo would receive 40% of the total amount of any settlement of 50% of whatever was obtained in an appeal. The contract said that while the Kruses could discharge Sileo, Sileo would still be entitled to its fees. 

plumbing_plumber_old_faucet-1024x732Picture this: you’ve just bought a new condo, envisioning a future filled with joyful moments shared with loved ones. But what happens when those dreams are shattered because the condo management company neglects essential repairs for years on end? Robert Jordan, a condo owner, experienced this very nightmare when he encountered a persistent water leak issue in his recently purchased unit. As the battle for justice unfolded, Jordan fought for his rights and the compensation he deserved.

Jordan was the member and manager of FIE and Iberia Tigers, through which he acquired commercial investment properties. He purchased a condo unit at a building managed by New Jax. Soon after he purchased the condo, Jordan saw water leaking below the roof of the building. He reported it to Earl Weber, the president of New Jax’s board, and requested repairs. When New Jax did not repair it, Jordan started withholding the monthly fees he owed New Jax. 

Thereafter, New Jax attempted to fix the issue by cutting through the condo’s ceiling and walls. It placed tarps and plastic sheets around the condo. Jordan claimed the condo was uninhabitable and could not be used for its intended purchase. Jordan communicated with New Jax for years about the ongoing issues and damage and requested updates on the status of repairs. Repairs were not completed until 75 months after Jordan had first reported his condo was unusable. 

poker_cards_card_game-1024x768Imagine you’re in a nail-biting poker game, where every decision could tip the balance between winning and losing. Suddenly, one player reveals a Royal Flush—an unbeatable combination. This tension-filled scene mirrors the legal drama between Greenfield Advisors LLC, a consulting firm from Seattle, and Salas & Co., LC, over a significant unpaid debt. In the legal world, invoking the Full Faith and Credit Clause was Greenfield’s equivalent of a Royal Flush, a powerful play with wide-ranging implications. This legal gambit’s riveting repercussions underline the robust judicial principle of full faith and credit. In the case, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the State District Court’s decision that the judgments against the Appellants were entitled to full faith and credit.

To explain, Greenfield Advisors (“Greenfield”), who were owed a hefty sum of around $700,000 by Salas & Co. (“Salas”), took the dispute to court. Salas, who had hired Greenfield for various legal consulting services, had only paid a fraction of the amount. Greenfield filed a lawsuit, and the legal wrangling kicked off in earnest. The case found itself in the Federal District Court in Washington after Salas requested a transfer. With the dispute in arbitration, Greenfield came out on top, awarded $331,316.48, along with a generous interest rate. The battle, however, was far from over.

In the Louisiana court, Salas argued that the Federal District Court overstepped its jurisdiction, suggesting that the Louisiana court should examine this issue before acknowledging the federal judiciary. The Full Faith and Credit Clause, a crucial element of the U.S. Constitution, became the focal point. Under Louisiana law, any judgment, decree, or order of a court of the United States or any other court is entitled to full faith and credit in this state. LA R.S. 13:4241. A judgment delivered by a court in one state should be respected and enforced by all other states.

pregnancy_belly_expectant_mother-1024x683Pregnancy invariably alters a woman’s life.  The process is physically demanding and disruptive, but do these challenges entitle a female employee to disability status under the law?  According to a recent Slidell, Louisiana lawsuit, pregnancy is not considered a disability under Louisiana employment discrimination law.  

Shameka Brown worked as a mobile blood center supervisor.  Brown was seven months into a difficult pregnancy when she vomited and urinated on herself at work.  Embarrassed, Brown left for home during the middle of her shift to change clothing without notifying her supervisor.   Two hours later, Brown telephoned her supervisor and then returned to work. Brown did not provide details of her pregnancy-related illness during the call.  While Brown was away, a manager discovered her absence amidst a busy center.  Brown was soon after terminated for abandoning her assigned duty without appropriately notifying her supervisor.  

Brown filed a lawsuit in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish which dismissed the case.  Brown appealed to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal.  Brown sought damages for both employment discrimination and pregnancy discrimination. To successfully prevail under employment discrimination, Brown had to prove three things: 1) disability; 2) qualified for the job, and 3) termination made solely because of the disability.  See Thomas v. Louisiana Casino Cruises, Inc., 886 So. 2d 468 (La. Ct. App. 2004).  A disabled person has a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits major life activities such as caring for oneself, walking, seeing, hearing, breathing, learning, working, etc.  See La. R.S. 23:322.  

medical_inject_blood_patch-1024x642In a medical malpractice lawsuit, there are numerous procedural and evidential requirements with which a plaintiff must comply to support their claim. This case illustrates what can happen if a plaintiff does not comply with these requirements, specifically providing expert testimony supporting the malpractice claim.

Tanya Madere filed a lawsuit against Dr. Louise Gautreaux Collins. Madere claimed she suffered complications from a gynecological surgery due to Collins’ negligence, including kidney complications and the need for additional surgeries and treatment. A medical review panel was found in favor of Collins. Madere then filed a lawsuit against Collins. 

Collins filed a summary judgment motion, arguing Madere’s claims should be dismissed because she had not provided expert testimony to support her claim that Collins had not followed the applicable standard of care or to support that the breach had resulted in Madere’s injuries, as required under Louisiana law. See Samaha v. Rau. Madere opposed Collins’ summary judgment motion, arguing she had retained Dr. Lawrence Kim as an expert and needed time to complete discovery. The court continued the hearing related to Collins’ summary judgment motion for a few months. 

car_burning_wreck_fire-1024x683Assigning fault in a vehicle accident can be challenging, especially when witnesses present conflicting accounts of what transpired. The struggle to ascertain the truth becomes even more pronounced when there are discrepancies in testimony regarding the events leading up to the accident. But what happens when conflicting narratives emerge in court? The following lawsuit out of New Orleans helps answer that question.

Brenda Gaines and Laura Wilson were involved in a car accident on the ramp onto the Chef Menteur Highway in New Orleans, Louisiana. Gaines filed a lawsuit against Wilson and her insurers, claiming she had been injured and her rental car had been damaged. Both Gaines and Wilson testified at trial. 

Gaines claimed Wilson made a U-turn without warning and crossed into the far-right lane, where she collided with Gaines. Wilson did not deny making a U-turn but testified she had never changed lanes during the relevant period preceding the accident. Gaines claimed she had fully cleared the exit ramp when the accident occurred. She did not recall whether there had been a yield sign. She believed she did not have a duty to yield to traffic in the right eastbound lane but testified she had looked and did not see any traffic before proceeding. 

pelicans_australian_pelican_pelican-1024x1024Unfortunately, heart attacks are one of the most common causes of death. If a loved one suffers a heart attack while on the job and you file a workers’ compensation claim, you must provide evidence to support your claim. But what happens if the employer files a motion for summary judgment before you can complete discovery? 

Michael Mack Sr. worked as a prep cook at the restaurant Blind Pelican. While working a shift, he went into the restaurant’s bathroom, where he tragically suffered a heart attack. He was transported to Touro Hospital via ambulance and died later that night. 

After Mack’s death, his wife, Denisa Allen, filed Form 1008, a disputed claim for compensation under La. R.S. 23:1231, on behalf of her minor child. She described the accident as a heart attack while he was on the job and provided medical data from the New Orleans coroner. 

hammer_court_dollar_dollar-1024x768Every day, individuals rely on the court system to resolve disputes, to ensure due process, and to serve justice. Individuals who are victims of an accident and suffered injury often need the courts to be restored to their previous condition. However, when a court issues an unclear final judgment, you need an excellent attorney to assist in sorting through the confusion and helping you find relief.

Luis Espinoza-Peraza was involved in a car accident and sustained injuries after being rear-ended by a car owned and operated by Martha Alexander and Willard Belton. He brought this lawsuit in November 2012, seeking damages from Belton, Alexander, and their insurer, Allstate. Allstate immediately sought a peremptory exception raising res judicata, meaning there had already been a final judgment on the matter, and could not be re-litigated. According to Allstate, it had previously issued a check to Espinoza-Peraza in relation to the accident, and he cashed the check with full knowledge of it being a final settlement.

Even though the trial court maintained the peremptory exception at a June 2014 hearing, the trial court did not sign the written judgment until January 2016. In the meantime, Espinoza-Peraza had moved for a new trial, but that motion was denied in September 2014. Then, in March 2015, the trial court finally signed a written judgment denying Espinoza-Peraza’s motion for a new trial and dismissed Belton, Alexander, and Allstate from the suit. Espinoza-Peraza then filed an appeal for the permitted peremptory exception and the denial of his motion for a new trial.

hurricane_katrina_as_seen_0-1024x640Dealing with the elements is an inherent part of construction work. Yet, sometimes the elements get unexpectedly unruly. This is where insurance is supposed to step in and compensate for delays or damage. In the following case, however, overlapping insurance policies made determining who should step up difficult. 

Gibbs Construction, L.L.C was the general contractor for appellant National Rice Mill, L.L.C. Rice Mill hired Gibbs to renovate their new luxury apartment complex, Rice Mill Lofts. Gibbs hired Rush Masonry, Inc. as a subcontractor tasked with restoring the masonry related to the renovations. Before the renovation, Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company issued Rush Masonry a commercial general liability policy. This policy covered the restoration from February 2011 to February 2013. On top of the CGL coverage, the Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company also issued an excess liability policy to Rush Masonry during the same time period. A Zurich American Insurance Company CGL policy issued to Gibbs, the general contractor, also covered the restoration. The Zurich policy was in effect from January 2011 to January 2013. 

During the restoration, the construction site experienced three instances of water intrusion. The first occurred during a thunderstorm in July 2011, and the second happened during Tropical Storms Lee and Isaac. General contractor Gibbs filed a lawsuit against Rice Mill for failure to make payments under the general contract. Rice Mill counter-claimed against Gibbs, Rush, Zurich, and other parties. 

Contact Information