In a decisive move highlighting the importance of procedural adherence in workers’ compensation cases, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, dismissed an appeal because the appellants failed to post a required appeal bond.
This decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in workers’ compensation appeals.
Case Background:
A recent ruling by the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, has shed light on the complex interplay between adoption and the right to file wrongful death and survival actions. The consolidated cases, stemming from a tragic car accident that claimed the lives of Richard Stewart, Jr., and his two minor children, raised questions about whether adopted children and biological half-siblings can pursue such claims.
The accident resulted in the deaths of Richard Stewart, Jr., and his two minor children. Mr. Stewart was survived by his wife, Lisa Stewart, and two adult sons, Daniel Goins and David Watts, who were adopted as minors. Additionally, the deceased minor children had a biological mother, Brandi Hardie, who was not a party to the lawsuits.
Following the accident, multiple survival and wrongful death actions were filed. The central issue was whether Goins and Watts, as adopted children and biological half-siblings, had the right to bring these claims.
In a recent decision, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, affirmed and amended a default judgment in favor of Matthew Hillman, who was injured in an unprovoked attack by Corey Seneca. The court upheld the special damages award but found the general damages award to be abusively low, increasing it from $2,500 to $10,000.
Matthew Hillman filed a lawsuit against Corey Seneca after being attacked without provocation. Mr. Seneca failed to respond to the lawsuit, leading to a default judgment in favor of Mr. Hillman. During the confirmation hearing for the default judgment, Mr. Hillman provided evidence of his injuries, which included a lacerated lip requiring fifteen stitches, fractured teeth, and the inability to eat solid food for two months. He also testified about his pain and suffering and loss of income due to the attack.
The trial court awarded Mr. Hillman special damages of $2,894.19 for lost wages, past medical expenses, and future dental treatment. However, it granted only $2,500 in general damages for pain and suffering. Mr. Hillman appealed the judgment, arguing that the general damages award was insufficient.
A recent ruling by the Louisiana Court of Appeal has highlighted the importance of awarding general damages in personal injury cases, even when the primary focus is on medical expenses. The case involved a car accident where the jury awarded the plaintiff past medical expenses but failed to award any general damages for pain and suffering.
In 2013, Steven McDowell was involved in a car accident with Russell Diggs. McDowell sued Diggs and his insurer, seeking damages for physical and mental pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and medical expenses.
The jury found both drivers equally at fault (50% each) and awarded McDowell $8,000 for past medical expenses. However, they did not award any general damages. McDowell appealed, arguing that it was legal error to award special damages without also awarding general damages.
A recent ruling by the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal in Rodney Loar v. LUBA Worker’s Comp Terminix Service Company, Inc. highlights the complex nature of workers’ compensation claims and the challenges in determining which subsequent injuries are compensable.
Rodney Loar, a technician for Terminix, injured his right knee and head in a work-related accident in 2011. He underwent multiple surgeries, including a total knee replacement. Subsequently, he experienced instability in his right knee, leading to falls and injuries to his left knee, left shoulder, right hip, and lower back.
Critical Issues in the Case:
In a recent case, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, dismissed an appeal involving a lawsuit against the Bourbon Orleans Hotel. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case but on a procedural technicality: the lack of a final appealable judgment.
In 2014, a group of hotel guests filed a lawsuit against the Bourbon Orleans Hotel, alleging they were victims of a robbery and assault in their room. They claimed the hotel failed to provide adequate security. The hotel sought summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs lacked evidence to support their claims. The district court granted the hotel’s motion.
The plaintiffs appealed the district court’s ruling. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal without prejudice, focusing on the wording of the district court’s judgment. The judgment lacked specific “decretal language,” clearly stating the parties involved, the ruling, and the relief granted or denied.
In the realm of workers’ compensation, the interplay between physical injuries and mental health can be complex. A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision highlights the challenges faced by workers seeking compensation for mental health conditions arising from workplace injuries. The case involved a police officer who developed psychological issues after a back injury, and the court’s ruling underscores the high standard of proof required for such claims.
Bea Angelle, a police officer, sustained a back injury while on duty. She received temporary total disability benefits (TTDs) from her employer, the City of Kaplan Police Department. Later, these benefits were converted to supplemental earnings benefits (SEBs), which are paid when an employee can return to work but earns less due to their injury.
However, the City of Kaplan terminated Angelle’s SEBs based on a vocational rehabilitation consultant’s assessment that she could return to some form of employment. Angelle disputed this decision, arguing her psychological condition, stemming from her physical injury, prevented her from working.
We’ve all heard the phrase “slip and fall,” often in a comedic context. However, slip-and-fall accidents can result in severe injuries and legal battles. The recent Louisiana Court of Appeal case of Barton v. Walmart highlights the complexities of such cases and what it takes to prove a merchant’s liability.
In 2016, Douglas Barton was shopping at a Walmart store in Alexandria, Louisiana, during a rainy day. As he entered the store, he slipped on a wet spot on the floor, fell, and sustained injuries. He sued Walmart, claiming they were negligent in maintaining a safe environment for their customers.
Walmart denied liability, arguing that they had no knowledge of the wet spot and that it likely occurred moments before Barton entered the store due to the wind blowing rain inside. They presented evidence of an inspection conducted earlier that morning, which had not noted any hazards.
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.
In a recent case, the Louisiana Court of Appeal emphasized the importance of adhering to the strict formalities required to execute a valid will. The case, In the Matter of the Succession of Sandra Gabor Dale, involved a dispute between siblings over their mother’s estate after a later will was deemed invalid due to improper execution.
Sandra Gabor Dale passed away, leaving behind three children: Felicia, Christopher, and Michael. Felicia, named as the sole heir in a 2014 will, was granted possession of the entire estate. However, Christopher and Michael later contested this, presenting a 2016 will that divided the estate equally among the three siblings.
The dispute centered on the validity of the 2016 will. The trial court found it to be “absolutely null” due to non-compliance with the formalities required for a notarial testament under Louisiana law. The brothers appealed this decision.
Insurance Dispute Lawyer Blog