by

nyc_taxi_taxi_berlin-1024x768Often people are injured by a person who appears to be an employee of a company. However, just because someone seems to be working for a business doesn’t necessarily mean they are an employee. If you’re hurt by an employee of a company and want to seek damages, whether the person is an employee or an independent contractor could make a big difference in your case. The following case explains the difference between an employee and an independent contract for determining who will be liable for the injured party’s claims. 

In January 2013, a cab driver was involved in a crash in Shreveport, Louisiana, where the cab passenger, Ms. Franklin, was injured. The cab driver, Mr. Gary Dick, leased the taxicab from Crawford and Yellow Checker Cab Company each day for $85. However, Mr. Dick kept all proceeds from his driving, and the cab companies received the same $85 a day regardless of how much Mr. Dick made. As a result, Ms. Franklin filed a lawsuit against Dick, Crawford, and the Yellow Checker Cab. Filing a lawsuit against all the possible defendants who may be liable is customary after an auto accident, as before litigation Ms. Franklin would have no way of knowing whether or not Dick was an employee or an independent contractor.

The cab companies filed a partial summary judgment motion arguing that there was no employee/employer relationship between themselves and Mr. Dick. Therefore, if successful, the cab companies would not be liable to Franklin for any of her injuries caused by the car accident, only Dick would. The trial court granted the motion in favor of the cab companies, and Franklin appealed the ruling.

Continue reading

by

hand_writing_pen_people-1024x683Removal of estate executors can be difficult and require many hours of work. Not only does a petition need to be filed with the court, but the executor being removed must be notified, which often results in a legal battle. Things can become even more complicated when long-lost relatives appear. The following case discusses how the heirs of an estate may seek to remove the executor.

George Fisher died in a car accident. He was not married and had no surviving parents at the time of his death. However, there was a man by the name of Shawn Poullard (Poullard) who claimed to be Mr. Fisher’s son. This posed an issue for Harry Fisher, Mr. Fisher’s uncle and the executor of his estate. 

In 2015, Poullard, and a few other relatives, reached an agreement that gave Pollard ownership of some property within Mr. Fisher’s estate and ordered Harry Fisher, as executor, to pay Poullard from a lawsuit from Mr. Fisher’s car accident. The judgment also dismissed any claims the parties had amongst themselves with prejudice. 

Continue reading

by

walmart_carrefour_langelier_entrance-1-1024x723If you slip and fall at a store, you might think the store will be liable for your injuries. However, to succeed in a slip-and-fall claim in Louisiana, there are various elements you must show before you can recover. You might not recover for your injuries if you do not provide evidence to support your claims. 

Joycelyn Griffin claimed that she slipped and fell at a Walmart store in Houma, Louisiana, because Wal-Mart’s employees were negligent in causing or failing to remove a foreign substance on the floor. She fell as she headed toward the register to check out. Griffin testified that around the time of the accident, she observed a store employee operating a waxing machine. Wal-Mart testified that this machine was not dispensing any type of liquid. Notably, Griffin testified that she did not recall if the floor was slippery, did not look to see if anything caused her to fall, and did not recall what caused her to fall. Under Louisiana law, in a lawsuit involving slip and fall incidents on a merchant’s premises due to a condition in or on the premises, the plaintiff (here, Griffin) is required to show that: (1) the condition presented an unreasonable risk of harm to the claimant and that risk of harm was reasonably foreseeable;  (2)  the merchant either created or had actual or constructive notice of the condition which caused the damage, before the occurrence; and (3) the merchant failed to exercise reasonable care. See La. R.S. 9:2800.6(A).

Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment. Under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court should grant summary judgment when there is no genuine dispute of any material fact. Wal-Mart argued that Griffin had not made a positive showing of the condition’s existence before her fall. The district court granted summary judgment in Wal-Mart’s favor because Griffin failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the elements of her claim, as she could not recall what caused her to fall or provide other evidence supporting her claim. Griffin appealed.  

Continue reading

by

gefahrguttransport-1024x768When a chemical leaks from a local business and spreads to a residential area, it is easy to assume that the company has exposed itself to liability for every person exposed to the leak. But what does someone have to prove to be compensated for their exposure? A case out of Avondale explores this question after twenty people were claimed to have been exposed to hydrochloric acid (HCl).

In 2001, a storage tank belonging to McGowan Working Partners, Inc., an oil and gas company, began to leak, causing a vapor solution of HCI and water to blow from the defendant’s property in Avondale to the northwest into the intersection of Jamie Blvd. and Highway 90. Before the leak, a McGowan employee replaced a clear plastic hose on the storage tank and used a nylon fitting to connect the hose to the tank’s valve. Unfortunately, the employee was unaware that HCI causes nylon to deteriorate. Several days later, 600 gallons of an HCl solution were unloaded into the storage tank, and about 470 gallons escaped onto the ground of the McGowan property. The HCI vapor began to spread off the property at 3:10 am, and the valve from the storage tank was shut off at 4:35 am. People exposed to HCI can experience eye and nose irritation which could develop into throat irritation and breathing difficulty. The HCI emissions were shown to stop affecting people at 5:30 am.

Twenty people who lived and worked in the surrounding area sued McGowan in a mass tort suit for exposure to the HCI vapor. A mass tort is when multiple people come together to file a lawsuit against a person or entity responsible for causing all their injuries. The trial court ultimately sided in favor of all twenty plaintiffs and awarded them damages ranging from $1,000 to $8,000. 

Continue reading

by

When one enters the hospital in times of a medical emergency, they hope that they will receive the highest standard of care possible. Often there can be uncertainty, however, as to what the threshold is for the highest acceptable standard of care. In an emergency, it can also become unclear what treatment was received exactly.

 What does “not charted, not done” mean, and how does it apply to medical negligence cases in Louisiana? This very issue arose recently at the Louisiana Court of Appeals recently when the testimony of a doctor at Lakeland medical center conflicted with his documented treatment of a patient who subsequently died. 

Wonica Royal died on April 1, 2003, after she had been discharged from Lakeland hospital. When Ms. Royal presented to the emergency room there had been no nurse at the triage desk. Dr. Juan Blanch, an emergency room physician, was at the desk, however, and he performed the assessment of Ms. Royal. Ms. Royal was administered breathing treatment and antibiotics and discharged on the same day in “good condition.” The next day she died of a pulmonary embolism. 

Continue reading

by

wreck_shattered_broken_accident-768x1024Injury and negligence alone cannot support a personal injury claim. There must be causation or a link connecting a negligent act and the related injury to succeed at trial. A consistent medical history and a plaintiff’s credibility can enormously impact whether a jury decides that a negligent act caused an alleged injury. This principle was affirmed by the Calcasieu District Court when plaintiff Treima Williams was unsuccessful in her claim for damages arising from a road traffic accident. The case below shows how contradictory medical history can affect the outcome of your injury lawsuit.

A truck driven by Marvin Gainous rear-ended Williams’ vehicle. Gainous had been stopped behind Williams. However, his truck moved forward and struck her vehicle when his foot slipped off the break. Williams claimed that her head, neck, and left shoulder started hurting immediately after the incident. Following the accident, she called an ambulance, which arrived shortly afterward. Williams complained of pain in her left shoulder and back at the hospital, and she was prescribed pain medication. X-rays of her back were interpreted as normal. 

Williams had prior back injuries from a motor vehicle incident in 2006, another motor vehicle injury in 2011, and an injury she sustained at work in 2011. Williams had also complained of back pain during her pregnancy in 2012. Williams received treatment for neck and back strain from 2013 to 2015. In 2016, an independent medical exam was conducted by an orthopedic surgeon who testified that while he believed Williams suffered neck and back strain based on a subjective assessment, there was no objective evidence. He deduced that the MRI could be that of a completely asymptomatic patient. 

Continue reading

by

ticket_cinema_admission_theater-1024x1024
What do the movie, “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” and final judgments have in common?  Both require a “golden ticket” to succeed in the next phase.  In Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, each contestant must have a golden ticket to gain access to Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory.  In trial-level court cases, judgments must include clear, specific language that makes them valid and disputable.  Although the chances of Charlie discovering one of the five golden tickets were rare, the chances of an appeal being heard are less likely without a valid, disputable judgment.  

What language is required to make a judgment valid and disputable?  How does a court correct a judgment that does not include clear and specific language?  A recent case out of Lafayette addressed these questions and offered preventative measures to avoid future occurrences of the same dilemma.   

Curley Mouton lost his life in an automobile accident on April 24, 2014, after a tire on a tractor-trailer failed and burst, causing debris to fly into the roadway.  Mouton’s surviving spouse and oldest son filed lawsuits against the truck driver, Arthur Huguley, Huguley’s employer, AAA Cooper Transportation, Inc. (ACT), and the insurance company, Ace American Insurance Company (ACE).  After a jury trial, a decision favoring Mouton’s spouse and son was made.  The jury found Huguley and ACT responsible for the accident, with 10% of the responsibility allocated to Huguley and the remaining 90% allocated to ACT.  The jury awarded the Mouton family damages for the survival action and wrongful death damages.  

Continue reading

by

skeleton_bone_medical_doctor-1024x768Injuries sustained on the job present challenges for the employee and employer, especially when multiple sites of injury are involved. In addition, injuries all over the body can require different medical treatments for each affected area. Specialized treatments such as a spinal cord stimulator can be recommended to alleviate pain to an injured worker. However, a workers compensation insurance company may not be amenable to pay for such treatment. The following case addresses the question, can a workers compensation claimant receive spinal cord stimulator treatment in Louisiana?

Byron Gulley sustained injuries to his head, shoulder, wrist, back, knee, hip, foot and ankle as a result of a golf cart accident while working for the Hope Youth Ranch in June 2009. The claimant was seeing a pain management specialist, Dr. Chad Domangue, who recommended a spinal cord stimulator trial because other medications and treatments failed to address Gulley’s significant low back adequately, left hip, and leg pain. As such, Dr. Domangue filed the proper form requesting this treatment pursuant to the Medical Treatment Guidelines. This request was ultimately denied by the employer’s insurance carrier. Gulley brought the denial to the Medical Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation, which also rejected the request and the Workers’ Compensation District two affirmed the denial. 

Thereafter, Dr. Domangue continued to see and treat Gulley. Even though the spinal cord stimulator could not address all areas of Gulley’s pain, he believed it was the best option to treat his most significant pain areas. As such, he filed a second request, which was also denied by the employer’s insurance carrier. Gulley then sought approval for the procedure from the Medical Director, who again denied approval because the topography of the claimant’s pain was not amenable to stimulation coverage. 

Continue reading

by

slip_heads_up_warning-1024x728Slip and fall claims are among the most common types of personal injury lawsuits. But how do you ensure that your claim makes it through the legal process? A dismissed case against a Metairie restaurant can show you what mistakes to avoid in setting up your slip-and-fall claim for success. 

Plaintiff Richard J. Boutall lost his footing and fell to the floor while exiting Minerva Cafe in 2013. As a result of his fall, Boutall broke his femur, was hospitalized for three weeks, and incurred over $30,000 in medical bills. In addition, during this three-week stay, Boutall endured multiple surgeries, including a hip replacement and an insertion of a surgical rod in his leg.

In a lawsuit against the cafe owner, he alleged that a small concrete ramp caused his fall at the door’s threshold. To support his claim, the plaintiff presented the expert report of a professional engineer who studied photographs of the cafe’s entryway. However, the trial court dismissed this case on summary judgment, meaning that it found that the claim did not state facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief if they were proven true. Mr. Boutall appealed the dismissal. 

Continue reading

by

maritime_history_metal_historical-1024x680Medical conditions can be a sensitive topic for both employers and employees. While employers are extremely cautious in not asking discriminatory questions, the employees may still be reluctant and afraid to lay all cards on the table. Understandably, workers who suffer from pre-existing medical conditions feel that they don’t need to inform their employers as long as the illnesses are not getting in the way of work. But should they? A recent case from Lousiana Fourth Circuit illuminates the legal consequences where the employee lied on the medical forms and later requested worker’s compensation.

Seaman Rousse injured his back while performing his duties as a deckhand on a United Tugs vessel in 2014. His injuries caused him to have two lumbar spine surgeries. United Tugs paid his maintenance and cure, covering his medical expenses. However, three years later, in 2017, United was alerted that Rousse had significant back injuries before he started working on the vessel. He failed to disclose his prior medical treatments during the hiring process. As a result, United sought restitution of the paid compensation. The district court ruled in favor of United, holding that Rousse had forfeited his entitlement to receive maintenance and cure because he concealed that he had suffered back injuries before employment. Rousse appealed.

A duty for maintenance and cure means that the vessel owner must “provide food, lodging, and medical services to a seaman injured while serving the ship.” Lewis & Clark Marine Inc., 531 U.S. 438, 441 (2001). However, this duty is not absolute. When a seaman intentionally conceals or fails to disclose past illness when required by an employer, the employer’s obligation to pay maintenance and cure is eliminated. McCorpen v. Cent. Gulf S.S. Corp., 396 F.2d (5th Cir. 1968). This exception rule is called the McCorpen defense. The U.S. Supreme Court has neither adopted nor rejected the McCorpen defense, resulting in a split among the federal circuit regarding what non-disclosures could bar the employee from receiving benefits. The Louisiana Fourth Circuit found McCorpen persuasive and decided to follow McCorpen in this maritime lawsuit.

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