Louisiana

Louisiana Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Case: The Importance of Expert Testimony

Published on: September 4, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

pexels-pixabay-356040-1-scaled A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision has underscored the significance of expert testimony in medical malpractice cases. The case, Mariakis v. North Oaks Health System, involved a wrongful death lawsuit alleging that the hospital failed to provide adequate care, leading to the patient’s death. The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the hospital, but the Court of Appeal reversed this decision, highlighting the necessity of expert evidence to resolve complex medical malpractice claims.

Lori Mariakis presented to the emergency department at North Oaks Hospital with severe abdominal and vaginal pain. She was diagnosed with a colitis flare-up and discharged. Five days later, she returned with worsening symptoms and was diagnosed with constipation. However, her condition deteriorated, and she was admitted to another hospital, where she tragically passed away.

Her sons sued North Oaks Health System, alleging that the hospital’s negligence in diagnosing and treating their mother led to her death. The medical review panel initially found no evidence of malpractice. However, the plaintiffs presented an expert witness, Dr. Robert V. West, who opined that the care provided by North Oaks fell below the applicable medical standard of care and caused Ms. Mariakis’s death.

Worker’s Comp in Louisiana: Navigating the Medical Treatment Guidelines

Published on: September 3, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

pexels-yury-kim-181374-585419-scaled In the realm of workers’ compensation, ensuring injured employees receive necessary medical treatment can sometimes be a battle. A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision, Deubler v. Bogalusa City Schools, highlights the complexities surrounding the Louisiana Medical Treatment Guidelines and the process of obtaining authorization for treatment. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to these guidelines while also recognizing the need for flexibility when circumstances warrant it.

Irvin Deubler, an employee of Bogalusa City Schools (BCS), suffered a lower back injury at work. He was receiving workers’ compensation benefits and sought treatment from Dr. Flagg for his chronic pain. Dr. Flagg recommended an MRI and a psychological evaluation to determine if Deubler was a candidate for a spinal cord stimulator (SCS) trial, a potential treatment option for his pain.

BCS’s insurer, LUBA Casualty Insurance Company, denied these requests, prompting Dr. Flagg to appeal to the Office of Workers’ Compensation (OWC). The OWC’s associate medical director approved the requests, but LUBA and BCS further appealed to the OWC judge.

Louisiana Court Upholds Modest Damages in Minor Car Accident Case: Highlighting the Importance of Proving Causation and the Impact of Pre-Existing Conditions

Published on: September 2, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

pexels-aleksandr-neplokhov-486399-1230677-scaled A recent ruling from the Louisiana Court of Appeal underscores the challenges of securing substantial damages in personal injury cases, especially when pre-existing conditions and the severity of the accident are at play. The case, Pourciau v. Melville and State Farm, involved a minor rear-end collision. While the defendant admitted fault, the court ultimately upheld a modest damage award, emphasizing the plaintiff’s burden to prove a direct causal link between the accident and the claimed injuries.

Douglas Pourciau was rear-ended by Dennis Melville at an intersection in Baton Rouge. While the accident was minor, Pourciau claimed it aggravated his pre-existing back and neck pain. He sued Melville and his insurer, State Farm, for damages.

The trial court found Melville partially at fault but awarded Pourciau only a modest amount in general damages, citing the lack of evidence linking his ongoing pain to the accident. Pourciau appealed, seeking a higher award and additional damages for future medical expenses and loss of use of his vehicle.

Hotel Not Liable for Pool Injury: Understanding Premises Liability and the “Res Ipsa Loquitur” Doctrine in Louisiana

Published on: August 31, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

pexels-markusspiske-97047-scaled A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal ruling underscores the complexities of premises liability cases and the challenges plaintiffs face in proving negligence when accidents occur on someone else’s property. The case, Krueger v. La Quinta Inn & Suites, involved a guest who suffered a foot injury due to broken glass in the hotel pool. While the injury was unfortunate, the court ultimately sided with the hotel, highlighting the necessity of establishing the property owner’s knowledge of the hazard.

Casey Krueger and his family were staying at a La Quinta Inn & Suites in Baton Rouge when he cut his foot on broken glass in the pool. Although the jury acknowledged there was a defect on the premises, they found the hotel not liable because they didn’t have actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard.

Krueger appealed, arguing that the hotel should have known about the broken glass and that the doctrine of “res ipsa loquitur” should apply, allowing negligence to be inferred from the circumstances of the injury.

When Does an Insurance Contract End? Louisiana Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Dispute Over Coverage Extension

Published on: August 30, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

pexels-albinberlin-906982-scaled In the complex world of insurance coverage disputes, a recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision underscores the importance of thoroughly examining factual issues before granting summary judgment. The case involved a personal injury lawsuit and a subsequent dispute over insurance coverage. The appellate court’s ruling is a stark reminder that seemingly straightforward cases can hinge on nuanced contractual interpretations and disputed facts.

The case originated from a 1998 accident where Bobbie Sanders, an employee of Mark A. Robicheaux, Inc., was injured while working on a vessel constructed by Swiftships, Inc. Sanders sued Swiftships, which, in turn, filed a third-party demand against its insurer, United Fire & Casualty Company, claiming coverage under a policy issued to Robicheaux.

The crux of the dispute was whether Swiftships qualified as an additional insured under Robicheaux’s policy, even though the initial contract between the two companies had expired. Swiftships argued that the business relationship continued under the original contract’s terms, while United Fire contended there was no agreement to extend the contract.

Federal Court Upholds Dismissal of VA Doctor’s Discrimination and Retaliation Claims

Published on: August 29, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

pexels-pixabay-263402-1-scaled A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit highlights the complexities and high standards involved in proving employment discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case, Stroy v. Gibson, involved a Black physician employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) who alleged racial discrimination and retaliation following a peer review of his patient care.

Dr. John Stroy, an African-American physician at the VA’s Lafayette Community-Based Outpatient Clinic, faced a peer review after a patient he treated was hospitalized with acute renal failure. The review initially found that “most experienced competent practitioners would have managed the case differently.” Dr. Stroy, believing this review was racially motivated, filed an EEO complaint alleging discrimination.

Later, Dr. Stroy was accused of leaving a patient unattended. Following an investigation, he received a memorandum outlining expectations for his future behavior. He then attempted to amend his existing EEO complaint to include a retaliation claim, which was denied. He subsequently filed a separate retaliation complaint.

No Pain, No Gain? Understanding the Importance of Proving Injury in Louisiana Car Accident Cases

Published on: August 28, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

pexels-christian-wasserfallen-14125573-14766052-scaled A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision, Cruz v. Creecy, underscores the critical importance of proving injuries in personal injury cases arising from car accidents. The case reminds us that even when fault is established, a plaintiff must still provide credible evidence of their injuries to secure damages.

The case started when Rosa Cruz was involved in a car accident with Martha Creecy. A lawsuit was filed, and the trial court found Ms. Creecy to be at fault for the accident. However, the court declined to award damages to Ms. Cruz, concluding she failed to prove she sustained any injuries directly caused by the accident.

Ms. Cruz appealed this decision, arguing that her testimony and medical records were sufficient to prove both injury and causation.

Can You Sue Your Ex-Spouse for Abuse After Divorce in Louisiana?

Published on: August 27, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

pexels-cottonbro-4098224-scaled In a recent Louisiana lawsuit, a woman’s attempt to sue her ex-husband for damages related to alleged domestic abuse during their marriage was initially blocked by the doctrine of res judicata. However, the Court of Appeal reversed that decision, shedding light on the limits of res judicata in cases involving spousal abuse.

In Hoddinott v. Hoddinott, the plaintiff (wife) filed a tort lawsuit against her ex-husband seeking damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress stemming from alleged domestic abuse during their marriage. The defendant (husband) argued that the wife’s claims were barred by res judicata, as they should have been raised during the divorce proceedings. The trial court initially agreed and dismissed the wife’s lawsuit. However, the Court of Appeal reversed this decision.

The Court of Appeal focused on two key points:

Can a Public Employee be Fired for Off-Duty Gambling?

Published on: August 26, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

pexels-pixabay-269630-scaled The Louisiana Court of Appeal recently reversed a decision of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) that upheld the termination of a public employee for gambling while off-duty. The case involving Carnell Collier, a Quality Assurance and Safety Inspector for the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans (S&WB), highlights the complexities of disciplinary actions for off-duty conduct, particularly when the conduct occurs on company property.

Mr. Collier was fired after being caught gambling at a retirement party held on S&WB property. While the CSC initially upheld his termination, the Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that the punishment was too severe for the offense.

Key Points of the Ruling:

Employee Termination Upheld for Unauthorized Vehicle Use and Dishonesty

Published on: August 25, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

pexels-divinetechygirl-1181304-scaled Leotis Johnson, an employee of the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans (S&WB), was assigned a company vehicle equipped with a GPS. S&WB policy prohibited personal use of company vehicles without supervisor authorization. Johnson was accused of using the vehicle for personal errands during work hours and lying about his whereabouts when questioned.

The Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans dismissed Johnson due to unauthorized use of a company vehicle and non-compliance with established policies and procedures. Johnson challenged this decision and the Civil Service Commission’s supporting findings.

The Court of Appeal Fourth Circuit upheld Johnson’s termination, stating that his actions constituted “cause” for termination as they were detrimental to the efficient operation of the S&WB. The court found that Johnson’s unauthorized use of the company vehicle for personal purposes during work hours was a clear violation of company policy. Additionally, his dishonesty in initially denying the allegations and providing false explanations further supported the termination.