by

chalmette1972stbernardhwy-1024x664Car accidents are common and complicated. Wrecks can involve company cars, ride shares, and large commercial vehicles, all with different types of insurance. Impacts can occur while driving on a work errand. All these different types of accidents invoke numerous insurance questions. Questions such as; If you are out driving on a work errand, will your business’s uninsured motorist insurance provide coverage? The Louisiana Court of Appeals grappled with these issues in a recent appeal. 

Dr. Kenneth Allan, a Chalmette based veterinarian, is the sole member of Chalmette Pet Wellness Clinic and Hospital. Dr. Allan was transporting a dog to his clinic when he was rear-ended. Dr. Allan was driving a vehicle in his wife’s name and sustained injuries from the car accident. Dr. Allan sued his uninsured motorist insurance carrier, Bankers, which provided coverage for his work vehicle to recover compensation for his injuries. 

Bankers balked at paying his claim. Bankers and Dr. Allan asked the court to settle the coverage issue by filing summary judgment motions. They asked the court to determine if the Bankers policy provided uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance coverage for vehicles not owned by the pet clinic. The trial court ruled in favor of Dr. Allan, stating that Bankers should cover his claim. An appeal of the decision followed.

Continue reading

by

workers_construction_worker_work-1024x576It can be a long road to recovery from a work-related injury. If you or a loved one suffered an injury on the job, it is crucial to understand the workers’ compensation system to comply with all the requirements to receive any compensation to which you are entitled. 

Carl Gabriel worked as a “Ready Reserve” employee at Delta. Less than two months after he started working, he was injured when a tow bar fell onto his foot. After a dispute with his employer over indemnity payments, Gabriel filed a Disputed Claim for Compensation, Form 1008, with the Office of Workers’ Compensation (“OWC”). He asserted that Delta failed to pay indemnity benefits and timely pay and authorize medical benefits. There was a trial where Gabriel won, with the court finding that Gabriel was entitled to benefits from Delta. 

Gabriel then filed a second Disputed Claim for Compensation, alleging that Delta had failed to pay the amounts owed to him under the prior judgment. He also sought penalties under La. R.S. 23:1201(F) and (G) for Delta’s failure to pay correctly. He also alleged that he was temporarily totally disabled again because of a worsening of his medical condition. Gabriel went to two physicians in Atlanta, Georgia, to deal with his worsening condition. Delta argued that neither Gabriel nor his physicians ever properly requested approval for the recommended treatment through Form 1010, submitted to Gabriel’s adjuster. Instead, Gabriel sought approval informally via fax. 

Continue reading

by

court_civil_ceremony_legal-1024x683Default judgments usually occur when one side fails to Answer a lawsuit after being served. You must collect and produce sufficient evidence to establish your claims to succeed with a default judgment. This is the same as if you were going to trial. Evidence is the key to all lawsuits; lawsuits live and die by what can and cannot be proven in court. Therefore, the party pursuing a default judgment must present competent evidence proving their claims following the standards for default judgment in Louisiana, as demonstrated by the case below.

Willie Evans was injured in a trip and fall accident while working for ADM Grain Elevator (“ADM”). As a result of the injury, ADM sent Evans to Dr. Jolly for treatment and pain management. Dr. Jolly alleged that Evans failed a drug test and tested positive for cocaine in his urine. Evans claimed that for the first drug test, there was no paperwork evidence of ordering a drug test that Evans had signed. For the second drug test, Evans alleged that Dr. Jolly sent falsified results of the test showing cocaine to ADM. This resulted in Evans being terminated from ADM.   

Evans sued Dr. Jolly for defamation, alleging that Dr. Jolly was liable to Evans for slander and defamation of his character for damaging his reputation and character and causing him to lose his job. When Dr. Jolly failed to file an answer to the lawsuit after he was served in the time required by law, Evans filed a motion for preliminary default. The trial court granted the motion for preliminary default. At the default confirmation hearing, the trial court ruled in favor of Evans for his defamation claims and against Dr. Jolly for mental anguish, pain, and suffering in the amount of $20,000, along with court costs and legal interests. 

Continue reading

by

sparks_working_industry_metal-1024x711What happens if you are hurt on the job? Not only do you have to deal with the physical effects of your injury, but you also have to navigate when it is safe to return to work. The workers’ compensation system is designed to aid injured workers. It can provide compensation for lost wages and medical treatment. However, it can often be complex to navigate. 

This is the situation Eduardo Sanchez, an ironworker at MEMCO Inc., found himself in after he slipped from a metal beam while working. His safety harness caught him. Once safely on the ground, medical personnel at the worksite examined him, and he was sent home to rest. The next day, Sanchez reported to work and complained of a headache and pain in his back, neck, and testicle. He was sent home. Sanchez’s supervisor at MEMCO sent him to see a doctor. The doctor diagnosed Sanchez with a cervical and lumbar strain and released him to return to work “as tolerated.”

Two days later, Sanchez went to the emergency room complaining of chest, testicular, and lumbar pain. The emergency room doctor diagnosed him with lumbosacral strain, chest wall contusion, and a scrotal contusion. Sanchez returned to the doctor who first examined him. He released Sanchez to return to work on restricted duty “as tolerated.” About ten days later, Sanchez returned to the doctor, who discharged him to return to work “full duty.” 

Continue reading

by

police_baltimore_police_officer-1024x648Despite stringent rules and regulations designed to keep unlicensed drivers off the road, minors often find their way behind the wheel. Police in Gonzales, Louisiana, were forced to reckon with the seriousness of such a driver when a high-speed police chase on Interstate 10 turned deadly in May of 2004. The outcome of this chase became the subject of a lawsuit left unsettled until 2017—a case which pondered: to what standard should police be held when engaged in an active car chase?

Just before eight o’clock in the evening, a Gonzales city police officer noticed an Oldsmobile without its headlights activated. The car, failing to stop or slow down, was pursued onto Interstate 10 by Louisiana State Police. The chase continued for nearly twenty minutes despite attempts to stop the vehicle with a spike strip. Then, the Oldsmobile’s fourteen-year-old driver lost control of the car and spun into a vehicle traveling in the opposite direction, driven by the Bristols. The Oldsmobile driver died on impact, while all seven passengers in the other car were severely injured, prompting a lawsuit against the Louisiana State Police. At trial, a jury found no liability for the Bristols’ injuries on the part of the department, and an appeal followed.

The Louisiana Highway Regulatory Act is excepted by La R.S. 32:24—which provides, under certain circumstances, statutory immunity to drivers of emergency vehicles. As such, police officers are allowed to exceed maximum speed limits and disregard other road rules so long as they maintain regard for the safety of others and have their audible or visual signals activated. However, this exception is not absolute: juries are allowed to determine, based on the circumstances and after being instructed on the law, whether a standard of ordinary negligence or a heightened reckless disregard standard should gauge the standard of care for an emergency vehicle driver. Lenard v. Dilley, 784 So.2d 706 (La. Ct. App. 2001).

Continue reading

by

hospital_hospital_corridor_921034-682x1024Personal injuries occur every day in society and should be taken seriously. Yet, courts must judge the importance of each accident. As a result, not all injuries are ruled in favor of the injured individual. A lawyer representing an injured person must investigate the circumstances and facts surrounding the injury with due diligence. The lawyer must show the court that his client’s case should be heard because the evidence says so. However, when video evidence of a slip and fall injury in a hospital is not obtained, should a court allow the lawyer to continue investigating his client’s accident? A case out of Baton Rouge explores this question and reminds lawyers of their responsibility to act diligently in attaining evidence for their clients.

Bobbie Davis Cole was visiting her sister, a Baton Rouge General Medical Center (BGR) patient. When Ms. Cole entered the hospital, she slipped and fell on a slippery substance on the floor and was then helped by the security guard. Ms. Cole filed a lawsuit against BGR, claiming the security guard told her that others had fallen in the same area she had. 

BGR moved for summary judgment. A summary judgment would allow for the dismissal of the case. In filing this motion, BGR argued that Ms. Cole could not prove a foreign substance on the hospital floor injured her. Ms. Cole took the testimony of the security guard, who asserted he looked at the video camera footage and did not see anything on the floor. At the hearing for summary judgment, Ms. Cole filed a motion of continuance, which would allow her to continue the discovery process, contending that she was not ready to go forth with the hearing without having the surveillance video of her fall. The trial court denied her continuance motion and granted the hospital’s summary judgment dismissing Ms. Cole’s case. An appeal of the ruling followed.

Continue reading

by

bandit_playmobil_shield_western-683x1024It’s reasonable to want to feel safe at work, no matter your job. Employers must keep their employees free from unnecessary danger and generally provide a safe working environment. Even given this duty, the law doesn’t always hold them responsible for the actions of criminals. A recent lawsuit out of Lafayette discusses the principles court asses to determine what remedies are available to employees when crime happens.

Melody Smith (Smith), an employee of Circle K, was robbed at gunpoint by Marcus Sam while making a bank deposit for the store. After the incident, Smith filed a lawsuit and was eligible for workers’ compensation benefits. Workers’ Compensation is an exclusive remedy for accidents in the workplace. R.S. 23:1032(A)(1)(a).

Smith later filed an amended and supplemental lawsuit that claimed Circle K committed intentional torts of assault and battery on her because they created an environment for her to be robbed. Smith argued that because Sam overheard her manager telling her to make a bank deposit the robbery was inevitable. Circle K disputed Smith’s claims and filed a motion for summary judgment. 

Continue reading

by

cable_electricity_cables_electric-575x1024Have you ever noticed that running alongside power lines are other types of cables? They are not easily distinguishable from one another, but communication lines and support lines also run along our electricity source. Looking so similar, it would be hard for an ordinary person to tell to whom each line belonged. One New Orleans man’s inability to determine the owner of such a wire almost prohibited him from filing a lawsuit against a well-known communications company.  

Donald Morgan was at Canal Street and South Jefferson Davis Parkway intersection in New Orleans when he tripped over a guy wire (anchoring wires) and was injured. Mr. Morgan’s attorney personally inspected the utility pole attached to the guy wire before filing a lawsuit. The pole was marked with the name of a company that was no longer in business. Mr. Morgan’s attorney traced the pole to Entergy New Orleans, Inc. (“Entergy”).

After filing a lawsuit naming Entergy as the defendant, Mr. Morgan sent discovery requests to Entergy requesting the name of the guy wire owner.   The requests specifically asked for the names of any person/company with any interest in the guy wire and the names of any person/company responsible for maintaining the wire. In response, Entergy merely attached a joint use agreement for the pole between Entergy and Bellsouth.   

Continue reading

by

doorway_1-686x1024Tripping over a ledge in public can be both embarrassing and painful. Sometimes the fall can result in serious injuries. Who should be at fault for any damages sustained? As with many legal issues, it depends. Unfortunately for one woman in Covington, Louisiana, the apparent nature of the ledge, coupled with her own activities contributing to the fall, led the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal to dismiss her case.  

While soliciting a security systems company, Ms. Dale Cordell fell outside the Tanaka Building in Covington, Louisiana. Rather than attempting to enter through a doorway, Ms. Cordell walked through a patch of grass between the Tanaka Building and neighboring buildings. After looking through the window, Ms. Cordell walked back through the grass towards the street, where she tripped on a short ledge. She fell to her knees, hit her hands, and head on the cobblestone in front of the Tanaka Building. Ms. Cordell filed a lawsuit in the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Tammany against Lorna Madison, the owner of the building, as well as several other parties, alleging severe injuries due to the unreasonably risky ledge at the Tanaka Building.   

Ms. Madison filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the case based upon Ms. Cordell’s inability to prove the existence or knowledge of a defect that could have created an unreasonable risk of harm. The District Court agreed for one reason that a color change between the ledge and the cobblestone existed, putting pedestrians on notice. The District Court further noted that Ms. Cordell was not using the proper entrances or exits leading to and from the building. Ms. Cordell appealed to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal, arguing the District Court did not understand the facts of her case regarding the open and obvious nature of the ledge.  

Continue reading

by

lever_metal_handle_door-1024x685Imagine getting hurt on the job, seeking help from a good attorney, following all the court’s requirements, and still having all your claims denied because your opponent did not appear for a deposition. For Raymond Schultz (“Schultz”), an employee of Blanchard Contractors, this scenario became his reality after the District Court in Orleans Parish dismissed all his claims and denied his motion for a new trial.

Back in 2012, Schultz was injured in a work-related accident after he inadvertently touched an unmarked pressurized lever that spewed rust and slag, striking him in the stomach and knocking him into some nearby water from which he was later rescued. As a result, Schultz filed a negligence lawsuit against Cox Operating, L.L.C. (“Cox”) and Terry Vincent (“Vincent”) (collectively “Defendants”), alleging that each of the Defendants mentioned above fault caused his injuries.

Defendants countered Schultz’s claims using a legal argument. They argued that since Schultz was Cox’s statutory employee, this made him Vincent’s statutory co-employee, and Schultz’s sole remedy falls under the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act. Defendants argued this legal argument would cause his negligence claims to be effectively barred from the lawsuit. After the District Court heard motions on each side of these arguments, it allowed Schultz six months to conduct discovery to build his case for trial.

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 – 2025, Berniard Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design