Articles Tagged with Louisiana

pexels-sora-shimazaki-5668765-1024x683In a recent decision, the Louisiana Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment granted in favor of attorneys in a legal malpractice lawsuit. The case, highlights the critical distinction between contractual and delictual claims in insurance disputes and the potential impact on the applicable statute of limitations.

Michael Belanger was involved in a car accident and obtained a judgment against the other driver for an amount exceeding her insurance policy limits. He later sued the driver’s insurance company (GEICO) for bad faith failure to settle within policy limits. Belanger was represented by the same attorneys in both cases.

GEICO successfully argued in federal court that Belanger’s bad faith claim had prescribed (or expired due to the statute of limitations) because it was subject to a one-year prescriptive period for delictual (tort) actions. Belanger then sued his attorneys for legal malpractice, claiming they failed to argue that a ten-year prescriptive period for contractual actions applied.

pexels-pixabay-261621-1024x768Navigating the workers’ compensation system can be overwhelming when you’ve been injured on the job. You may be tempted to accept a quick settlement to cover immediate medical bills and lost wages. However, it’s crucial to understand the long-term implications of such a decision. A recent Louisiana case highlights the importance of carefully considering settlement agreements in workers’ compensation claims.

Benny Hernandez was injured at work in 2014. He initially filed a workers’ compensation claim, represented by an attorney, and reached a settlement with his employer and its insurer. The settlement was approved by a workers’ compensation judge, and Hernandez’s claim was dismissed with prejudice.

However, a year later, Hernandez filed another claim related to the same injury. His employer and insurer responded with a peremptory exception of res judicata, arguing that the matter had already been resolved. The court agreed and dismissed Hernandez’s second claim.

pexels-pixabay-263194-1024x683In a recent decision, the Louisiana Court of Appeal reversed a trial court judgment that had held Woman’s Hospital liable for a slip-and-fall accident. The case underscores the importance of understanding the “reasonable care” standard that applies to hospitals in such situations and how it can impact the outcome of personal injury claims.

Courtney Queen slipped and fell on a wet floor near the elevators at Woman’s Hospital. She sued the hospital, alleging negligence. The trial court initially favored Ms. Queen, awarding her damages for her injuries. However, the Court of Appeal overturned this decision.

The Legal Standard:

vidar-nordli-mathisen-ZZvsfoidr5g-unsplash-1024x729In a recent Louisiana Court of Appeal case, Schroeder v. Hanover Insurance Company, et al., the court delved into the complexities of slip-and-fall cases and the crucial role of adequate warnings in determining a business’s liability. This decision highlights the importance of understanding merchant liability laws in Louisiana and how the presence of warning signs can significantly impact a personal injury claim.

Sybil Schroeder slipped and fell in the restroom of a travel plaza, sustaining injuries. She sued the travel plaza and its insurer, claiming they were negligent in maintaining a safe environment. However, she admitted in her deposition that she had noticed two “wet floor” signs before entering the restroom.

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the presence of these signs demonstrated they had exercised reasonable care. The trial court initially denied the motion, but the Court of Appeal reversed this decision.

jon-tyson-FlHdnPO6dlw-unsplash-769x1024In personal injury law, the concept of “prescription” plays a crucial role. It’s essentially a deadline for filing a lawsuit; if you miss it, your claim could be barred forever. A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal case, Jones v. Iberia Parish Government et al., highlights the importance of understanding prescription rules, especially when multiple parties might be involved.

Agnes Jones slipped and fell on an allegedly defective walkway in New Iberia, Louisiana. Within the one-year prescription period, she filed a lawsuit against the property owner and the Iberia Parish Government. However, almost three years after the accident, she amended her lawsuit to include the City of New Iberia as a defendant.

The City of New Iberia filed an exception of prescription, arguing that Jones’ claim against them was filed too late. The trial court agreed and dismissed Jones’ claims against the City. Jones appealed this decision.

pexels-pixabay-163007-1024x591A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit decision underscores the importance of the “continuing jurisdiction” principle in workers’ compensation cases. In this recent opinion, the court overturned a Workers’ Compensation Judge’s (WCJ) decision to dismiss a previously adjudicated claim, highlighting the specific procedures and legal framework that must be followed in such cases.

Mr. Green filed a workers’ compensation claim after suffering a work-related accident in 2008. The case went to trial in 2009, where certain facts were agreed upon, including Mr. Green’s entitlement to benefits and the employer’s liability for a penalty. The court determined Mr. Green’s average weekly wage and awarded him attorney fees and court costs. This ruling was finalized in a judgment on October 14, 2009.

In 2014, both parties agreed to stay the case until further motions were filed. However, no motions were filed, and the case remained stayed for over three years.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Contact Information