by

roof_tile_roofs_house-1024x768If you are injured by someone in their course of employment, you can contact their employer for your compensation. But unfortunately, employers hire independent contractors to skirt around liability when their workers mess up. Below is a cautionary tale about how cascading levels of independent contractors left an injured plaintiff with limited sources for his injuries. 

Jarrett Lemmon was in an accident involving Jonathan De La Mora that resulted in damage and injury. Lemmon sued Jonathan for causing the accident. Later, Lemmon amended his suit to add Jonathan’s employer, Rosendo De La Mora, and RoofCorp USA, LLC, as responsible for the accident, claiming that Jonathan was working within the scope of his employment when he struck Lemmon. RoofCorp USA, LLC was the parent company that hired Rosendo De La Mora to install roofs as an independent contractor. Rosendo De La Mora then hired his son Jonathan to help install the roofs, separate from RoofCorp’s payroll. RoofCorp filed a motion for summary judgment at the district court level, claiming they could not be held responsible; it was granted.  Unhappy with the ruling, Lemmon appealed.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals was then tasked with deciding if the trial court properly awarded RoofCorp summary judgment. To do so, the appeals court must determine if Jonathan was an employee of Roofcorp at the time of the accident, and the court must decide if Jonathan was in the scope of his employment when the accident occurred. Lemmon claims that Jonathan was an employee of RoofCorp in the court of his employment when he hit Lemmon. 

Continue reading

by

hospital_corridor_operating_room-1-1024x681Some mistakes can cost you your job. Rules and regulations are drafted and enacted in the medical field to ensure a safe work environment. Before breaking a rule to get your job done, consider the danger in which you could place yourself or your interests. The following lawsuit from Slidell shows how unemployment benefits can be taken away due to employee misconduct. 

Rita Jimenez was a supervisor of phlebotomy for the Slidell Memorial Hospital. Her boss tasked Jimenez to handle scheduling for her area. Jimenez created a schedule that included several employees that lacked the required CPR certification; their certifications had expired, or they needed more training. Jimenez was caught and warned about this scheduling. The problem is that Jimenez could not short-staff her area, but there needed to be more certified employees. She scheduled more uncertified workers; she was fired after her third scheduling error. 

Jimenez sought a judgment certifying her right to unemployment benefits. Her workplace administrative review board (Board of Review) found that she was rightly denied unemployment because she was fired for misconduct. Jimenez appealed that ruling to the district court, which affirmed the Board’s decision. Jimenez then appealed that district court decision to Louisiana’s First Circuit Court of Appeals. In the appeal, Jimenez argued even though she was responsible for scheduling employees, her boss was ultimately responsible for terminating employees who lacked the requisite certifications. Therefore Jimenez argued there was no misconduct in her actions.

Continue reading

by

cellphone_camera_phone_mobile-1024x683Courts often hear contradicting testimony and must decide who to believe or who is more credible. For example, the following Calcasieu Parish case involves two individuals who were married at the time of the altercation but have since divorced and the importance of providing the most credible testimony.   

Although Mr. and Ms. Cooper agreed there was an altercation in their home, they disagreed with the subsequent facts of this case. Mr. Cooper alleged Ms. Cooper handed him her phone to show him a picture. He then alleged that Ms. Cooper angrily began demanding the return of her phone, and when Mr. Cooper refused, she battered his testicles. Mr. Cooper claimed he sustained permanent damage due to Ms. Cooper’s actions and subsequently filed a lawsuit seeking damages. 

Ms. Cooper, on the other hand, alleged that Mr. Cooper took her phone out of her hands with substantial force. She then alleged she pleaded for the return of her phone, but Mr. Cooper refused, and he then put her phone in his pocket. Ms. Cooper claimed she attempted to remove the phone from his pocket and may have unintentionally come into contact with his testicles and penis. However, she alleged she never intentionally grabbed or battered him. At trial, Ms. Cooper moved for an involuntary dismissal of Mr. Cooper’s claim. The 14th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Calcasieu granted Ms. Cooper’s motion and dismissed Mr. Cooper’s claim. This appeal to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal follows. 

Continue reading

by

parking_asphalt_parking_lot-1024x768In automobile accident cases, determining the drivers’ liability is often the core issue in determining damages. Unfortunately, who is at fault in a car accident in a parking lot can be tricky. The following lawsuit out of Lake Charles shows how courts weigh the evidence and come to conclusions in parking lot collisions. 

 The case stems from an automobile accident in a business parking lot. Johnnell Duncan alleged that she was traveling through an intersection and stopped at a “stop line” painted on the pavement another vehicle driven by Alexa Miller hit her.  

Duncan filed a lawsuit against Miller and her insurance company State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The two parties offered contrary views of evidence in the trial court. Miller claimed she was not speeding while turning, while Duncan didn’t stop at the stop line. In addition, Duncan alleged that Miller was holding a cell phone at the time of the accident, which Miller denied. The trial court ruled in favor of Duncan. Miller and State Farm appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit.

Continue reading

by

coins_currency_investment_insurance_0-1024x683One’s life is forever altered after an incapacitating injury. While the situation comes with enough issues, problems are enhanced when medical providers merge and change the disability benefits you have relied upon for a year. Unfortunately, this is precisely what happened to Michael Swinea after Humana Inc. bought Kanawha Insurance Company. 

Swinea required a total knee replacement after he was injured in March 2012. After this surgery, Swinea attempted to return to work. After working for about six months, Swinea’s physician instructed him to stop working again. Starting in April 2012, Swinea was given $2,700 per month in disability benefits through Kanawha. In November 2013, however, Humana bought Kanawha, and Swinea’s payments ceased. Humana informed Swinea that he would no longer be covered in a letter mailed to his home address.

After receiving the letter, Swinea contacted the appeals body specified in the letter. The Humana appeals body instructed Swinea to send any pertinent documents that he would like to be considered during the review. After complying, Swinea received a letter from a Humana Grievance and Appeals Specialist notifying him that his request for disability benefits was denied. 

Continue reading

by

safety_medical_ocean_rescue-1024x683When subcontractors get injured at work, it can be confusing to determine who is liable for damages. This case shows a company’s failed attempt at using the “two contract defense” to dismiss claims in a slip and fall case. It also helps answer the question; What is a two-contract defense in Louisiana Lawsuits?

In 2013, Quiana Lorden worked for Southern Care Hospice (“SCH”). At the time of the underlying incident, she was assisting a hospice patient living at Merryville Rehabilitation (“Merryville”), a skilled nursing facility (SNF). While helping the patient out of the shower, she noticed a large amount of water had pooled on the floor and called a housekeeper to clean it. However, the housekeeper spread the water to other areas of the floor while attempting to clean, causing Lorden to slip and injure her knee. 

Lorden filed a lawsuit against Merryville, among other related parties, to recover damages. Merryville filed for summary judgment, arguing that they were exempt from tort claims because they were Lorden’s “statutory employer” under La.R.S. 23:1061. The court granted their motion and dismissed the claim. Lorden appealed, arguing that material issues of fact remained as to whether Merryville was her statutory employer. 

Continue reading

by

car_accident_accident_dig-1024x775Have you ever been involved in a car accident? It’s a scary experience that can have serious consequences. If you’ve been injured in an accident, you may be entitled to compensation for your injuries and damages. But what happens when multiple parties are involved? That’s the question at the heart of a case out of Louisiana, where a car accident resulted in a lawsuit between multiple parties. The case raises important questions about the legal responsibility of parties in a car accident and the process for resolving disputes in court.

Shaw, a construction engineering company, allegedly had a labor agreement with HKA Power. The parties were bound by the Master Supplemental Labor Services Agreement (“Agreement”), which originally existed between HKA Power and Energy Delivery Services but was acquired by Shaw after the agreement was in place. According to Shaw, HKA Power was required to name Shaw/EDS as an additional named insured on their insurance policies once Shaw acquired EDS. The issue arose after a truck accident where Gregory Beasley, an HKA Power employee, was driving a truck owned by Shaw and rear-ended another truck driven by Justin Parker, injuring him and his passenger Gregory Gumpert.

Parker and Gumpert filed a lawsuit against Shaw, Zurich (Shaw’s alleged liability insurer), and Beasley. Zurich and Shaw then filed a third-party claim against HKA Power, alleging Beasley was an HKA Power employee and performed services for Shaw under the Agreement. HKA Enterprises, Inc. was later added as a third-party defendant, with Zurich and Shaw alleging HKA Enterprises was the parent company or successor entity to HKA Power and breached the labor agreement by not naming Shaw/EDS as an additional named insured.

Continue reading

by

traffic_lights_green_light-1024x678Cities need to ensure public utilities are safe and properly installed. Road fixtures, such as traffic lights and speed limit signs, are an essential part of infrastructure. When road fixtures are installed negligently, the public needs to be able to hold the liable parties accountable. 

So who should be responsible if a road sign crashes into your car or a utility pole falls on you? It depends, and proving why an entity is liable requires a skilled lawyer familiar with the use of experts. In the following case, a plaintiff is seeking to hold the City of Baton Rouge responsible for damage to his car caused by a falling traffic signal. The case shows why the proper use of expert testimony is critical to ensuring both sides get their day in court. 

Randolph Barnett was driving in East Baton Rouge Parish when a school zone sign hanging overhead suddenly fell and crashed onto his windshield. Barnett sued the City of Baton Rouge and the Parish of East Baton Rouge via the Department of Public Works. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City, thereby dismissing the case. Barnett appealed this decision for review by the appellate court. 

Continue reading

by

1980s_style_tow_truck-1024x768Personal injury cases can lead to placing the blame on a party so the injured person can receive compensation for her injuries. But what happens after a traffic miscommunication if both sides blame the other for the wreck? Further, what if their insurance companies are unwilling to take all the blame and pay for the accident?  The only way to solve this dilemma is through a trial which can help apportion the fault of each side after weighing the evidence. The following case out of Marksville, Louisiana, shows how fault should be apportioned in a personal injury car accident. 

David Sampson was driving down the highway with a passenger, Mario Jacobs, with a second truck attached by a tow rope. The towed truck was being operated by Sandalon Jacobs. Florence Decuir was traveling toward an intersection with the highway where Sampson was driving. Believing she saw Sampson’s turn signal, Decuir turned onto the highway to make more space for the trucks. Allegedly, Decuir did not stop at the stop sign, so Sampson had to hit his brakes, causing the towed truck to rear-end the truck he was driving. Decuir denied seeing the accident. 

Sandalon and Jacobs filed a lawsuit alleging personal injury due to the accident and named several defendants. However, by the time the bench trial came around, State Farm was the only defendant remaining. The trial court apportioned 95% of the fault to Decuir and only 5% to Sampson. The trial court determined Sandalon and Jacobs suffered from soft tissue injuries. Sandalon was awarded $46,500.00 in general damages and $5,397.81 in past medical expenses. Jacobs was awarded $35,200 in general damages and $7,377.73 in past medical expenses. State Farm appealed the trial court decision.

Continue reading

by

gavel_wood_courtroom_legal-1024x683After a lawsuit, a trial is when each side can articulate their case theories. Usually, the culmination of a trial is a judgment that can be appealed. However, there are other occasions where the court can discuss the judgments besides an appeal. An alternative to an appeal is the petition for nullity, which may further examine the case and the court’s decisions. What is a petition for nullity of judgment, and how can it be used to overturn a jury verdict? The following lawsuit, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, answers this question.

Mr. Ezzell worked as a marine insurance adjuster until 2008 when he was punched in the head by Dr. Lucien Miranne in a bar. At the principal trial, Dr. Miranne was found liable for the injuries Ezzell suffered. Ezzell was awarded damages for past medical expenses, pain, and suffering, past lost wages, and two years of future lost earning capacity. 

The jury’s judgment was primarily based on testimony by Ezzell and his doctors that attested to his injuries and poor cognitive functioning. For example, one witness, Dr. Thomas, said his injuries would “make it difficult for him to return to the level of employment he had before. Dr. Miranne appealed this judgment arguing Ezzell was faking and exaggerating his injuries, the same argument made at trial. Rather than overturn the judgment, the appellate court awarded additional damages for future pain and suffering to Ezzell. 

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