by

pexels-phenyo-deluxe-427483-1486188-1024x683In the realm of personal injury law, a recent Louisiana Court of Appeal case has highlighted the potential pitfalls of multiple lawsuits arising from the same accident. The case, Wicker v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, et al., involved a car accident where the plaintiff, Joy Wicker, initially filed a suit through her insurer, State Farm, followed by a separate personal injury lawsuit. The defendants tried to dismiss the second suit based on the doctrine of res judicata, but the Court of Appeal overturned the trial court’s decision, emphasizing the distinct nature of the two claims.

In 2015, Joy Wicker was involved in a car accident with Cathy Craddock. State Farm, Wicker’s insurer, filed a lawsuit in City Court against Craddock and her insurer, Louisiana Farm Bureau, seeking reimbursement for property damage, rental car payments, and medical payments made to Wicker.

Subsequently, Wicker filed a separate lawsuit in the 19th Judicial District Court, seeking damages for her personal injuries from the same accident.

Continue reading

by

pexels-sora-shimazaki-5669602-703x1024In the realm of legal malpractice, the timing of filing a lawsuit is critical. A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision, Wells v. Henry T. Dart, Attorneys at Law, APC, underscored this point, highlighting the one-year peremptive period for bringing such claims in the state. Let’s dissect this case and understand the implications for those considering legal action against their attorneys.

Glenda Wells hired Henry T. Dart, Attorneys at Law, APC, to represent her in a personal injury and property contamination lawsuit against several oil companies. Over time, Ms. Wells became dissatisfied with their representation and lodged a complaint with the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board in October 2013, stating she believed the firm’s actions constituted “major negligence.”

Despite this, Ms. Wells continued her relationship with the firm until they withdrew from her case in 2015. Subsequently, her case was dismissed, and she filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against the firm in March 2017. The firm argued her claim was barred by the one-year peremptive period outlined in Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:5605.

Continue reading

by

pexels-pixabay-163016-1024x645A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal case sheds light on the complexities of personal injury claims following car accidents, particularly when pre-existing conditions are involved. In the case of Lewis v. Fowler, the plaintiffs were involved in a minor accident and subsequently claimed significant damages for aggravated chronic pain. However, the court ultimately ruled that their pre-existing conditions were not substantially worsened by the accident and that they had been adequately compensated by the initial settlement from the at-fault driver’s insurance. This decision highlights the importance of establishing a clear causal link between the accident and any claimed aggravation of pre-existing conditions and the challenges plaintiffs face in proving damages when their medical history is complex.

Walter and Beverly Lewis were rear-ended at a stoplight. While the accident was minor, with no damage to the other vehicle and only slight damage to their own, the Lewises claimed the accident aggravated their pre-existing back and neck pain. They initially settled with the at-fault driver’s insurance company but then filed a claim against their uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) carrier, State Farm, alleging their damages exceeded the initial settlement.

The trial court ruled in favor of State Farm, finding that the Lewises failed to prove their chronic pain was aggravated by the accident beyond a brief period. It determined that the initial settlement adequately compensated for any injuries or aggravations caused by the accident.

Continue reading

by

pexels-amina-filkins-5560552-683x1024A recent decision from the Louisiana Court of Appeal has shed light on the nuanced boundary between whistleblowing and misconduct in the workplace. The case, Melancon v. Town of Amite City, involved a police officer terminated for running unauthorized criminal background checks and lying about it. While the officer claimed he was acting as a whistleblower, the court ultimately upheld his termination, raising important questions about the limits of whistleblower protection and the importance of adhering to internal policies and procedures.

Gerald Melancon, a police officer in Amite City, Louisiana, was fired after it was discovered he had used police databases to run unauthorized background checks on various individuals, including city council members, fellow officers, and even his own wife. Melancon claimed he was investigating potential corruption within the department and that he had reported his concerns to his superiors and the FBI. He argued his termination was retaliation for his whistleblowing activities.

However, the evidence showed that Melancon had repeatedly lied about conducting background checks during the department’s internal investigation. The police chief testified that Melancon was fired primarily for his dishonesty and unauthorized use of the databases, not for any alleged whistleblowing.

Continue reading

by

pexels-pixabay-532001-1024x683In a recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision, a case involving a police shooting during an arrest attempt highlighted the complexities of qualified immunity for law enforcement officers. The case, Marshall v. Sandifer, centered around Ervin Marshall, who was shot by a state trooper while attempting to evade arrest. The court ultimately upheld the trooper’s immunity, but the decision provides important insights into the limits and application of this legal protection.

In 2010, Louisiana State Trooper Jared Sandifer and other officers were attempting to arrest Ervin Marshall on an outstanding warrant. They located him at his girlfriend’s apartment, and after obtaining permission to enter, they conducted a search. Trooper Sandifer found Marshall hiding in a closet. When Marshall made a sudden movement, Trooper Sandifer, fearing for his safety, shot him in the abdomen.

Marshall later sued Trooper Sandifer, the Louisiana State Police, and its superintendent, alleging negligence and excessive force. The defendants claimed immunity under Louisiana law, arguing that Trooper Sandifer’s actions were discretionary and within the scope of his lawful duties.

Continue reading

by

pexels-veronika-bykovich-144474426-10400997-683x1024A recent United States Court of Appeals ruling for the Fifth Circuit highlights the complexities of establishing personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state employer in a lawsuit filed in Louisiana. The case, Blakes v. DynCorp, centered around a Louisiana resident who sued his Virginia-based employer for alleged wage and benefit violations under both Afghan and Louisiana law. The court ultimately dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, emphasizing the limited circumstances under which a Louisiana court can exercise authority over a non-resident defendant.

Everett Blakes, a Louisiana resident, was employed by DynCorp International, LLC, a Delaware company headquartered in Virginia, to work in Afghanistan. He signed an employment contract that specified Afghan law would govern any disputes and that any legal action would be resolved in an Afghan forum.

Despite this, Blakes filed a lawsuit in Louisiana alleging DynCorp failed to pay wages and benefits owed under Afghan labor law, the Louisiana Wage Payment Statute, and the terms of his employment contract. DynCorp moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the Louisiana court lacked personal jurisdiction over them.

Continue reading

by

pexels-kartatos-10622718-683x1024In a recent personal injury case, Latulippe v. West Jefferson Medical Center, the Louisiana Court of Appeal tackled the complexities of assessing damages in a car accident case where the plaintiffs had pre-existing medical conditions. The case arose from a rear-end collision on the Crescent City Connection bridge involving an ambulance. While the defendant admitted fault, the extent of the plaintiffs’ injuries and the appropriate compensation became the central point of contention. The appellate court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s decision, highlighting the importance of proving causation and the impact of injuries on the plaintiffs’ lives, even with pre-existing conditions.

Two brothers, Daniel and Casey Latulippe, were rear-ended by a West Jefferson Medical Center (WJMC) ambulance while stopped in traffic. The ambulance driver admitted fault, stating he didn’t brake to avoid the collision out of concern for the patient and EMT in the back.

Both brothers, along with their wives, sued WJMC for damages. The case went to trial, focusing solely on causation and the extent of the brothers’ injuries.

Continue reading

by

pexels-colin-lloyd-2120291-3751006-635x1024A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit decision has underscored a crucial procedural point in the state’s legal system: not all judgments are created equal. In Holmes v. Paul, the court dismissed an appeal because the trial court’s judgment, while seemingly resolving the main dispute, left a lingering reconventional demand unaddressed. This seemingly minor detail had significant consequences, highlighting the importance of understanding what constitutes a “final judgment” in Louisiana.

The case stemmed from a real estate deal gone sour. Ms. Holmes sued the Pauls for breach of contract after they canceled a contract to purchase her property. The Pauls countersued (filed a reconventional demand) seeking the return of their deposit. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Pauls, dismissing Ms. Holmes’ claims. However, the judgment was silent on the Pauls’ reconventional demand.

Ms. Holmes appealed, but the Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal, stating it lacked jurisdiction. The reason? The trial court’s judgment wasn’t considered “final” because it hadn’t addressed all the claims between the parties.

Continue reading

by

pexels-wildlittlethingsphoto-1996338-1024x683A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision has underscored the importance of adhering to legal formalities when gifting significant assets, even within a romantic relationship. The case involved a dispute over the ownership of a thoroughbred racehorse, highlighting the specific requirements for making a valid donation under Louisiana law.

Wesley Hawley, a racehorse trainer, purchased a filly named Clever Sue. He later placed his then-fiancee, Denise Reed’s, name on the horse’s registration papers. When the relationship ended, Hawley transferred the title back to himself. Reed sued, claiming ownership of the horse and the right to its prize money.

The trial court ruled in favor of Hawley, and the Court of Appeal upheld the decision.

Continue reading

by

pexels-shvetsa-3845653-1024x683A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision, Brimmer v. Eagle Family Dental, Inc., has underscored the critical procedural steps involved in bringing dental malpractice claims in the state. The case highlights the necessity of first presenting claims against qualified healthcare providers to a medical review panel before filing a lawsuit. Let’s delve into the specifics of this case and its implications for dental malpractice litigation in Louisiana.

Case Summary

Aurielle Brimmer received dental treatment at Eagle Family Dental, Inc. She subsequently developed complications that sheF attributed to the dental procedure. Believing she had suffered dental malpractice, Ms. Brimmer bypassed the medical review panel process and directly filed a lawsuit against Eagle Family Dental.

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