by

general-business-1241245-1024x582When someone with a family and a business suddenly dies, sensitive estate issues arise and can often become complicated, especially if the decedent was in the midst of strained business negotiations or when the death was the result of a suicide. In these situations, it’s essential for surviving family members to hire a good attorney in order to keep a stressful situation from deteriorating further. The following case illustrates such a situation.

Chi Pham, a physician, became ill in 2012 and was unable to continue her Lafayette, Louisiana medical practice. Dr. Pham ran the practice through Chipham, a corporation she had formed, which owned the physical aspects of the business. On August 6, 2012, Chi Pham negotiated a non-binding Memorandum of Understanding with Southwest Medical Center Multi-Specialty Group (SWMG) that outlined a proposal for SWMG to purchase certain assets of Dr. Pham’s medical practice. The Memorandum also laid out the terms and conditions for the lease of her office building and the possibility of Dr. Pham resuming the practice as an employee of SWMG when she was sufficiently recovered. In conjunction with this Memorandum, Dr. Pham signed the First Medical Records Transfer Agreement, which transferred responsibility for Dr. Pham’s patient medical records to SWMG. Ultimately, negotiations between Dr. Pham and SWMG failed and the parties rescinded the First Medical Records Transfer Agreement. Approximately two months later, the parties signed the Second Medical Records Transfer Agreement.

Meanwhile, negotiations continued on the points outlined in the non-binding Memorandum of Understanding. These negotiations culminated in an offer that was sent to Dr. Pham, acting on behalf of Chipham. Dr. Pham committed suicide without accepting the offer. Following his wife’s death, Bau Pham tried to finalize the negotiations but was unable to come to an agreement with SWMG. SWMG formally discontinued the negotiations on April 29, 2013, and on May 2, 2013, Bau Pham dissolved Chipham.

Continue reading

by

sidewalk-cross-1177206-1024x681Each year, thousands of people suffer from slip and fall accidents. From a legal perspective, it can be difficult to determine who, if anyone, is at fault. For example, in some slip and fall cases, a property owner can be held liable for the other party’s injuries. Property owners owe a duty of care to persons who use their premises. Owners are expected to keep the grounds in a reasonably safe condition.

The following case provides a good illustration of some of the issues that can arise when litigating a slip and fall accident. Reba Campbell suffered injuries after she slipped and fell on a mildewed area of sidewalk adjacent to the Evangeline Parish Medicaid Office. Mrs. Campbell and her husband (Plaintiffs) filed suit against the Evangeline Parish Police Jury, as owners of the Medicaid Office building, and the State of Louisiana, Department of Health and Hospitals, as lessee of the building. The State interjected a cross-claim against the Police Jury that called into question their liability as leaseholders. The State believed that the Police Jury should be held liable because it owned the property on which the hospital was located. The Police Jury countered that the State had the responsibility for maintaining the sidewalks in front of the building.

Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment from the Trial Court and the Trial Court held that the State was liable because it failed to put the Police Jury on notice of the problems with the sidewalk. The Trial Court granted the Police Jury’s oral motion for judgment and dismissed the Police Jury from the lawsuit.

Continue reading

by

out-of-place-1184032-1024x590It is common for Louisiana residents who are injured due to another person’s negligence to seek financial compensation through a personal injury lawsuit. Typically, these types of lawsuits will pursue compensation to cover medical expenses that are incurred by the victim for the treatment of the injury they suffered, among other damages. That is exactly the approach that Destiny Guidry decided to take after she claimed that she was injured in an incident at a grocery store in Lake Charles back in 2011.

According to Ms. Guidry, she was injured on June 14, 2011, when she was struck by a stock cart that was loaded with canned goods. The stock cart was under the control of a store employee, Kenneth Wyant. Mr. Wyant did not deny that there was an incident in which he claimed he had to stop the stock cart suddenly, resulting in some cans potentially hitting Ms. Guidry on the leg. But, he did deny that Ms. Guidry was injured in any significant way.  Ms. Guidry, on the other hand, claimed that she suffered a serious injury to her ankle in this incident, resulting in a trip to the emergency room four days later on June 18, 2011, and again on June 28, 2011. Then, in March of 2013, 21 months after the incident in the grocery store, Ms. Guidry ultimately had surgery on her ankle. Ms. Guidry filed a personal injury lawsuit against the grocery store and the store employee, Mr. Wyant. The case was tried before a jury.

The first question for the jury was whether the store employee, Mr. Wyant, was at fault for the incident that occurred at the grocery store on June 14, 2011. The jury answered “no” to this question, ending deliberations. Before the case was dismissed with prejudice, i.e., the claim was foreclosed from ever being brought in court again, Ms. Guidry asked the Trial Court for a “judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” This is a legal procedure whereby a party asks the court to enter a judgment that is different from the jury’s conclusion on the basis that the jury made a manifest error in reaching its conclusion. In this case, Ms. Guidry claimed that the manifest error was the jury’s finding that Mr. Wyant was not at fault for the incident on June 14, 2011, especially since Mr. Wyant had not denied that some type of incident had in fact occurred, which was supported by corroborating testimony. The Trial Court denied Ms. Guidry’s motion and she appealed to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal.

Continue reading

by

dumbbell-1306867-1024x683When a products-related injury occurs, multiple parties may be at fault. In litigating personal injury claims, among the most important legal questions, are whom may the plaintiff recover from, if anyone, and under what theory of liability. The following case provides a good discussion of some typical theories of liability involved in products-related injury cases.

In 2013, Russell Maricle was involved in a serious car accident that resulted in him needing to use a wheelchair. Mr. Maricle’s bad fortune continued after the accident one day as he rolled up a wheelchair ramp. The fabric on the back of his wheelchair ripped causing Mr. Maricle to fall out of his chair and re-injure his neck. Mr. Maricle rented his wheelchair from Axis Medical and Fitness Equipment, L.L.C. (Axis) in Alexandria, Louisiana. The wheelchair was manufactured by Dalton Medical Corporation and Dalton Instrument Corporation (Dalton).

Mr. Maricle filed a lawsuit against Dalton and Axis, alleging that the wheelchair produced by Dalton was defective and that Axis was negligent in failing to inspect it before renting it to him. These are two separate legal theories. Mr. Maricle’s claim against Dalton is a products liability claim. The Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) sets out the exclusive products liability theories against manufacturers caused by their products. La. R.S. 9:2800.52. Under the LPLA, a manufacturer of a product is liable for damages foreseeably caused by a defect in the product which renders it unreasonably dangerous. The damage suffered by the claimant must arise from “reasonably anticipated use” of the product by the claimant or someone else. A product can be considered unreasonably dangerous for purposes of liability in four ways: (1) construction or composition; (2) design; (3) inadequate warning; or (4) nonconformity to an express warrantee.

Continue reading

by

bell-county-texas-courthouse-1549054-1024x768Court litigation involves the filing of multiple court submissions, and of course, deadlines. Procedural rules dictate deadlines for when certain motions need to be brought. Effective attorneys stay informed of these deadlines. Untimely filings generally result in a denial of legal relief by a court. Courts must be able to timely dispose of disputes in order to prevent a backlog of cases clogging up the court system. The following decision of the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal demonstrates the importance of deadlines in litigating claims.

In 2012, William Lewis, representing himself and his company, Biosonix, LLC (Plaintiffs), filed a legal malpractice complaint against his attorney. Mr. Lewis alleged that the attorney was negligent in drafting security agreements on behalf of Sports Design & Development, Inc. (SDD) and that his representation of SDD created a conflict of interest. Plaintiffs further alleged that the attorney violated the Louisiana Rules of Professional conduct by representing SDD in litigation that involved issues substantially related to those involved in his prior representation of Mr. Lewis and Biosonix.

Ethical rules prohibit attorneys from representing a particular client when a conflict of interest arises. Rule 1.9 of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits attorneys from representing a client in a “same or substantially related matter” in which the client’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of a former client. Attorneys can be subject to both lawsuits and professional sanctions for violating the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct. However, at issue in this particular decision was not the merits of Plaintiffs’ complaint. The issue was with deadlines.

Continue reading

by

planning-for-construction-1234527-731x1024Have you ever suffered personal injury from an accident while traveling to or from work? Generally, pursuant to the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act employers are not responsible for injuries sustained by employees while traveling to or from work because these injuries are not considered to have occurred within the course of employment. This is known as the “going-and-coming” rule, under which the employment relationship is considered suspended from the time the employee leaves his or her workplace. However, there are certain exceptions to this rule that allow a claimant to recover even though the injury was sustained while traveling to or from work. The following case illustrates one such exception: if the accident occurred on the employer’s premises, the employee may be covered under workers’ compensation laws.

Arline Theriot was employed by Full Service Systems Corporation as a porter at a casino in Lake Charles, Louisiana. On December 25, 2012, Arline was on her way to work. Shortly before her shift was about to begin she was searching for a parking space in one of the casino parking lots when she was struck by a vehicle driven by another casino employee. Arline sustained an injury to her neck as a result of the accident and subsequently filed a Disputed Claim for Compensation with the Office of Workers’ Compensation.

Arline alleged that her employer had not authorized a neck surgery that was recommended by Dr. Gregory Rubino and sought penalties and attorney fees for her employer’s rejection of the neck surgery. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) decided in favor of Arline, finding that her injury occurred in the course of her employment at the time of the accident, that the neck surgery recommended by Dr. Gregory Rubino was reasonable and necessary, and that the need for the neck surgery was causally related to the workplace accident. On appeal, the sole legal issue was whether Arline’s accident arose out of and occurred in the course of her employment. Full Service Systems disputed the WCJ’s findings and argued that her claims were not recoverable because she was on her way to work.

Continue reading

by

puerto-vallarta-mexico-1520777-1024x768When an individual employs tactics to instill humiliation, fear, and emotional distress in another person, they should be held accountable for the damages they cause. Fortunately, Louisiana legislators agree and have provided for exactly that under its civil code. See La. C.C. art. 2315. As an initial matter, these bad acts must be “intentional,” i.e., the actor must consciously desire the physical result of the act or know that the result is substantially likely to follow from his conduct. Let us now take a look at a case that turns on the issue of intent to gain a better understanding.

This case involves an ongoing property dispute between the Plaintiff, Mr. DZ, and the Defendants, Mr. DZ’s ex-wife, AZ, and her brother, RM. The legal causes of action springing from the facts of the case include defamation, extortion, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The initial conflict began when Mr. DZ and his then-wife AZ purchased property in downtown San Miguel, Mexico. The couple placed ownership of the property in their children but reserved the right to enjoy the use of the property for themselves. One month after purchasing the property the couple obtained a divorce issued by a Mexican court. Following the divorce, a custody battle ensued that crossed country borders for several years.

Continue reading

by

electrical-towers-1230495-1024x683When an employee is injured on the job they often have extensive medical bills and less money to pay those bills because they may not be able to work. While workman’s compensation, insurance, and disability benefits are available to cover those costs, there is another form of compensation available to those who are injured as a result of negligence or other bad acts. The injured party can file a lawsuit against those responsible. Of course, there are often questions surrounding who is in fact legally responsible, e.g., for maintenance of a job site, and it takes an experienced lawyer to navigate such complicated legal questions.

Glenn Chesney pursued the latter route by filing a lawsuit after he was injured by coming into contact with an uninsulated, sagging power line at the Magnolia landfill in Ouachita Parish, Louisiana. Glenn was driving his truck through the landfill facility to weigh and unload the removable trash container on his flatbed truck. A power outage created a backlog of trucks waiting for the scale to come back online. Glenn, in the meantime, decided to take the tarp off of his load so that he could unload faster when he got to the front of the line. The truck Glenn was driving had mechanical arms that could raise to a maximum height of approximately 17 feet off the ground. Ordinarily, Glenn used the mechanical arms of the truck to take the tarp off of the trash container so it could be unloaded. However, this time when those arms raised they came into contact with the sagging and uninsulated power line. By this time, the power had been restored to the landfill facility and Glenn was injured as a result. The main issue that Glenn had to deal with on his latest appeal was whether the electrical contractor, Copeland Electric Company, could be held liable for failing to maintain the electrical line.

Copeland originally installed the electrical line in 1994 and the accident that injured Glenn Chesney occurred 16 years later on August 13th 2010. Because of the length of time between the installation and the incident, the lawyers for Copeland attempted to have the action dismissed under La. R.S. 9:2772. This Louisiana statute provides that deficiencies in immovables from construction, surveying, design, or supervision have a 10-year peremptive period for actions. That means that even if Copeland was negligent in constructing the electrical line, the Glenn had no cause of action because the time period for bringing such action lapsed. See Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 16 So.3d 1065 (La. 2009). These time limits on when you can file a lawsuit are an attempt by the legislators to strike a balance between vindicating victims of past injustices and flooding the courts with untimely lawsuits based on stale evidence, which makes a court’s job of assessing the facts of a case much more difficult.

Continue reading

by

cold-weather-rider-1438885-1024x683People get car insurance to protect themselves in the event of a car accident.  It is thus important that one takes care to research and consider what insurance plan is best for one’s needs.  Liability insurance is designed to protect a person who owns or drives a vehicle from the costs of a lawsuit that might happen if that vehicle is in an accident. Insurance contracts define the scope of what sort of vehicles or potential plaintiffs will be considered covered under the policy.  Generally, courts prefer to preserve the “freedom of contract“, meaning that as long as the contract was not forced upon one party or contains terms that will unfairly restrict the party’s rights, the court will not attempt to break or redraft it.

Whether an insurance contract can restrict certain coverage is in Louisiana, an issue that can be determined in summary judgment.  Summary judgment is a method by which a case that does not raise any major issues of fact for a jury (or judge in a non-jury trial) to determine can be decided without the formality of a trial.  Anyone who wishes to sue under an insurance contract to determine its scope must prove the facts of the incident as well as that the accident is covered by the insurance.  Otherwise, the court will probably decide for the insurance company and not require it to pay out.

The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeals recently reaffirmed the idea that courts will not disturb a contract like insurance between two parties, as long as there is no ambiguity or unfairness.  In August 2012,  Lauren Stafford was riding on a motorcycle driven by Steven Fugler, when the motorcycle ran off the road and into a ditch, and both of them were thrown off as a result of the accident.  Neither of them owned the motorcycle. It was in fact owned by another person uninvolved in the case.  About a year later, Ms. Stafford sued Mr. Fugler and  State Farm as his insurance company for serious injuries she received in the accident. State Farm responded by denying her allegations and also by stating that his policy did not insure a motorcycle owned by another person. The company argued that the policy only covered a non-owned car, defining a car as a motor vehicle with at least four wheels designed for road use.  This, they claimed, excluded a two-wheeled motorcycle like the one that crashed. Because the insurance policy did not cover such a vehicle State Farm filed a summary judgment motion to effectively end the case.  The trial court, agreeing with State Farm, granted this motion and dismissed the claim

Continue reading

by

prison-1311786-1024x672Lawsuits can be quite complicated, even for seasoned attorneys. However, when one is representing himself, the complications can be even more complex. Especially, when the law does not support your claim. The following case demonstrates the need for an experienced attorney when it comes to constitutional rights violation allegations and litigation.

In 2013, the Louisiana state court convicted Harold Joe Black for the distribution of cocaine. Mr. Black was taken into custody. While in custody, Mr. Black appealed his conviction, but it was affirmed. In addition, Mr. Black made numerous unsuccessful applications for state post-conviction relief and federal habeas corpus relief.After Mr. Black was released from custody, he filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, pro se. Pro se, means that Mr. Black represented himself and did not have assistance from an attorney. A 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint is a type of lawsuit that allows an individual to seek a remedy against state actors who violated his or her constitutional rights.

Mr. Black’s complaint alleged that various state and federal officials, and Mr. Black’s appointed counsel, violated his constitutional rights in connection with his arrest, trial, and efforts to obtain appellate and post-conviction relief. Mr. Black’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to federal law. The magistrate recommended that the case be dismissed with prejudice. The magistrate concluded that Mr. Black’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim was barred by the favorable-termination rule set forth in Heck v. Humphrey. The district court agreed with the magistrate’s recommendation, and accordingly dismissed Mr. Black’s 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 – 2025, Berniard Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design