Litigation

Demonstrating Injuries to Children in Auto Accidents: Understanding the Requirements and Legal Proceedings

Published on: July 13, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

children_s_children_asian-scaled When accidents involve children, gathering factual information regarding their physical health becomes even more crucial for building a solid case. This is particularly evident in a vehicle collision that took place in Lafayette, Louisiana. The case highlights the specific requirements for demonstrating injuries to children in an auto accident and what is and isn’t required to prove injuries to a child.

On January 19, 2015, Bradley Quoyer was backing out of a driveway onto a street in Lafayette, Louisiana, when his vehicle collided with the rear passenger side of Neosha Robertson’s vehicle. At the time of the collision, Ms. Robertson’s two minor children were in the back seat. She filed a lawsuit against the driver, Clement Bradley Quoyeser, and his insurance company on behalf of herself and her children, claiming that they both suffered injuries.

Quoyer filed a motion asking that the children be dismissed from the lawsuit, and the trial Court granted this motion. Robertson disagreed with the ruling and therefore appealed.

Can An Independent Medical Examiner Determine Maximum Medical Improvement in a Worker’s Compensation Case?

Published on: July 12, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

manzanar_relocation_center_manzanar_445-scaled Being injured at work is never what you want to deal with. What’s worse is dealing with multiple independent medical examiners making opinions on your medical state. In the following case, the Louisiana Court of Appeal First Circuit addresses whether a medical examiner’s determination of maximum medical improvement is closely related to the worker’s condition and ability to work.

Ella Hamilton injured her neck and shoulders while moving trash bags into a dumpster while working as a custodian for GCA Services. Hamilton filed a workers’ compensation claim, and GCA Services paid indemnity and medical benefits to and on behalf of Hamilton in connection with her workers’ compensation claim. A dispute arose between the doctors that reviewed Hamilton’s alleged injuries and whether or not he could return to work.

Dr. Charles Bowie, a neurosurgeon, diagnosed Hamilton with a cervical disc disorder and opined that she required cervical fusion surgery. He believed her injuries prevented her from working. On the other hand, Dr. David Ferachi, an orthopedic surgeon representing GCA Services, agreed with Dr. Bowie but stated that Hamilton could return to work as a custodian with certain limitations.

Navigating the Waters of Maritime Contracts: An Indemnity Puzzle

Published on: July 11, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

vessel_boat_mar_1201342-scaled In contractual agreements, the validity of indemnity provisions can become a subject of contention between parties. But what happens when determining a contract’s maritime nature becomes pivotal in a case involving specialty services for drilling or production in navigable waters? As discussed below, this issue was scrutinized in a maritime appeal action filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Apache Corporation (“Apache”) had a blanket master services contract (“MSC”) with Specialty Rental Tools & Supply, L.L.P. (“STS”). This MSC Had an indemnity provision that ran in favor of Apache and its contractors. The work order didn’t require a vessel, nor was it anticipated that it would be needed to perform the job. Apache contracted with Larry Doiron, Inc.

(“LDI”), to provide a crane barge that was needed for the operation. Unfortunately, a member of the STS crew was injured by LDI operators during crane usage, prompting LDI to file a limitation of liability proceeding as the crane’s owner and a complaint against STS to seek indemnity as per the MSC.

The Importance of Changing a Life Insurance Beneficiary After Divorce

Published on: July 10, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

car_divorce_netherlands_joke-scaled Divorce can be tumultuous, marked by significant stress and numerous life changes. Amidst the emotional and practical adjustments, it is crucial not to overlook a critical task: updating the beneficiary of your life insurance policy. In Claiborne Parish, a compelling case serves as a cautionary tale, underscoring the paramount importance of understanding and verifying your designated beneficiary on all insurance plans. The story unravels the unsettling reality that the proceeds from your life insurance policy may not end up in the hands of the intended recipient.

In this case, Hillie Patrick Cox took out a whole-life insurance policy with Southern Farm Bureau, where he listed his mother, Ruby G. Cox, as a beneficiary. Later, he amended the beneficiary to list his wife, Connie Gonzales Cox. Seven years later, however, Hillie and Connie obtained a divorce judgment. Hillie then died approximately 14 years later without executing another change of beneficiary form.

Southern Farm Bureau subsequently filed a petition for concursus in the 2nd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Claiborne, claiming that a judgment of possession awarded Ruby usufruct over the entire estate and recognized Debra Cox Diffey, Hillie’s sister as the sole surviving heir. As a result of the judgment, Ruby, Debra, and Connie all presented claims for the insurance proceeds.

Understanding the Impact of Settlement on Workers’ Compensation Benefits in Louisiana

Published on: July 9, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

money_pay_money_making-scaled Suppose you are considering settling a lawsuit related to injuries on the job. In that case, it is essential to understand how a potential settlement of a related claim could affect your workers’ compensation benefits. What happens to your workers’ compensation benefits if you settle a related lawsuit without written approval from your employer and their workers’ compensation insurer? The following case helps answer that question.

While working at Mouton Plumbing, Terrell Talbot was involved in a car accident. Mouton Plumbing and its workers’ compensation insurer accepted Talbot’s claim under La. R.S. 23:1021. He received $69,265.02, consisting of workers’ compensation indemnity benefits of $23,487.86 and medical expenses of $45,777.16. Talbot filed a lawsuit against the other individual involved in the car accident and her insurer. Pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1102(A), Talbot notified Mouton Plumbing and its insurer in writing about the lawsuit. They intervened in Talbot’s case. Talbot settled the lawsuit for $107,389,73 but did not obtain written approval from Mouton Plumbing or its insurer. As a result, the insurer ended Talbot’s workers’ compensation benefits.

Under La. R.S. 23:1102(B), a worker is not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits if he does not obtain the employee or insurer’s approval to settle a related lawsuit. However, an employee can reclaim his workers’ compensation benefits through a “buy-back provision.” When Talbot’s benefits were terminated, a lien from Mouton Plumbing’s insurer was not satisfied. As a result, the $28,730.84 due to Talbot from the settlement, after deducing attorney’s fees and costs, was paid directly to the insurer to satisfy the lien.

Time Limitations for Lawsuits: Paternity Claims in Succession Cases

Published on: July 8, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

time_clock_movement_motion-scaled Although there is a common saying, “good things come to those who wait,” that is not true in the context of filing lawsuits, especially if they involve establishing paternity after your purported father passed away. Louisiana law has strict requirements that establish the time by which you must file a lawsuit. Your lawsuit will be dismissed if you do not comply with these requirements. What happens if the law governing how long you have to bring your lawsuit changes?

William Dalton Pelt died without a will at his Vernon Parish, Louisiana home. His brothers and sisters filed a petition to have Barbara Lee Pelt Cooley appointed as administratrix of his succession. In the petition, they claimed Pelt had never been married and had no children. The trial court signed an order appointing Cooley as administratrix of his succession. Later, Kristina Wright petitioned to intervene in Pelt’s succession, claiming he was her father. Wright claimed her mother had had an affair with Pelt, and she was conceived during their relationship. She wanted recognition for her rights to Pelt’s estate and to have Cooley removed as the administratrix.

Pelt’s brothers and sisters filed an exception of prescription. At a hearing, the trial court agreed with Pelt’s brothers and sisters and dismissed Wright’s petition. Wright appealed, claiming the trial court erred in not correctly applying La. C.C. art. 197 to establish paternity.

Police Officer’s Due Process Not Violated In Termination Due To Multiple Infractions

Published on: July 7, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

bellingham_police-scaled Being a classified civil servant provides certain protections, including the right to due process before termination. The following case revolves around a police officer who claimed his due process rights were violated when he was terminated following multiple infractions. It highlights the importance of adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard in cases involving the termination of classified civil servants.

Uletom Hewitt had been working for the Lafayette Police Department for approximately four years when he saw what he thought was evidence of a bomb at the mall food court where he was working as off-duty security. He then proceeded to evacuate the people visiting the mall. Hewitt was disciplined by the police department for his “over-exuberant” handling of the event and for disobeying an order from a superior not to evacuate the mall. He was suspended for five days without pay after a pre-determination hearing.

Hewitt appealed this decision to the Lafayette Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board (the “Board”). The Board upheld the decision and the corresponding punishment given to Hewitt. Subsequently, Hewitt was involved in various other acts of misconduct, which resulted in him being placed on administrative leave. These infractions included failing to use his in-dash camera system properly; failing to complete an off-duty request form, working as an off-duty security detail while on administrative leave; failing to provide an updated address to the police department; failing to return calls from internal affairs investigators. Hewitt never returned to duty and was informed he would be terminated. The reasons for his termination included misconduct while he was out on administrative leave.

Understanding Open and Obvious Defects: Implications for Personal Injury Claims

Published on: July 5, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

sidewalk_texture_background_1089989-scaled When it comes to personal injury claims resulting from slips, trips, or falls, the concept of open and obvious defects plays a significant role. Failing to act reasonably or being harmed by an apparent defect may hinder your ability to recover compensation for your injuries. This case exemplifies the importance of these factors in determining liability.

Ray Eskine was a permanently disabled individual who used a walker to move around. When trying to see how long the grass was on his lot across the street, he walked across an elevated walkway in front of his house. One of the wheels on his walker slipped, causing him to fall into a ditch and get injured.

Eskine and his wife filed a lawsuit against the City of Gretna and its insurer, claiming the walkway was defective and presented an unreasonably dangerous condition. They claimed the City of Gretna was responsible for the care of the walkway and had knowledge of the defective condition that resulted in his injury.

Supermarket Not Liable For Slip-and-Fall Because Of Lack Of Constructive Notice

Published on: July 4, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

accident_injury_risk_banana_0-scaled When you make a quick run to the store, the last thing you expect is to be injured while shopping. If you slip and fall at a store, you might expect the store to be responsible for any injuries you might have suffered. However, Louisiana law requires that a store have actual or constructive knowledge of the hazardous condition to be held liable. Therefore, if you are considering filing a lawsuit against a store for a slip-and-fall accident, it is essential to provide evidence of the store’s knowledge so your claim does not get dismissed.

Quentella Batiste was shopping with her granddaughter at Vernon’s Supermarket in Lutcher, Louisiana. Batiste slipped and fell in a puddle of water in the beer and beverage aisle as she was headed to check out at the front of the store. She injured her shoulder, which required surgery. Batiste and her husband filed a lawsuit against Vernon’s Supermarket and its insurer.

Vernon’s Supermarket filed a summary judgment motion, arguing the Batistes could not prove Vernon’s Supermarket created or actual or constructive knowledge of the hazardous condition of the purported water on the floor, as required under the Louisiana Merchant Liability Statute, La. R.S. 9:2800.6. Vernon’s Supermarket provided deposition testimony where Baptiste said she did not know where the substance she slipped on came from, how long it had been there, or whether anyone at the store knew the substance was present before she fell. They also provided surveillance footage and testimony from several employees to support Vernon Supermarket’s claim no one knew about the substance before Batiste’s fall.

Resolving Family Business Disputes: Navigating Complexities and Seeking Resolution

Published on: July 3, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

family_family_posing_psychotherapy-scaled Family businesses can present challenging legal issues. Although you might feel like you can trust your family members to do the right thing, this is not always true, especially when large sums of money are involved. This case illustrates the complexities that resulted from agreements related to ownership of a family business, which was only resolved following multiple appeals.

Sam Broussard Jr. (BR) and his three sisters each owned 25% of Sam Broussard Trucking (“SBT”). After their parents died, BR was the president of SBT. His sisters agreed to make him the majority owner of SBT. Each sister received a Stock Redemption Agreement (“SRA”). Under the SRA, each of the three sisters agreed to transfer 171.5 shares of SRT stock back to SRT for $200,000.

One of his sisters, Guillory, filed a lawsuit against BR, claiming he had not kept his promises related to the SRA. At trial, the jury found BR had not given Guillory sufficient profits, as promised. The jury also found BR had violated the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act, La. R.S. 51:1401. The jury awarded Guillory $69,084 for this violation. The jury also found Guillory’s error concerning the SRA invalidated it.