Random Miscellaneous

When Coworkers Attack: Negligence Claims for Intentional Workplace Injuries

Published on: May 18, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

farm_mountain_farm_meadow-scaled An employee injured at work while performing the functions of her job is generally entitled to worker’s compensation. But what about a worker injured on the job by the intentional act of a fellow employee? An action for recovery due to employer negligence could be a better option.

Louisiana worker’s compensation law does not provide coverage for employees injured during an incident unrelated to their workplace activities, for example, an altercation between co-workers arising out of personal issues. R.S. 23:1031E.

Instead, an employer may be liable for negligence if it had reason to believe its employee(s) could be attacked at work but failed to intervene. Posecai v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. Courts will consider whether the employer had information suggesting an incident might occur and, if so, when it was received and what level of detail was available to help determine the appropriate response. See Carr.

Is It Constitutional To Suspend Someone’s License For Repeat Arrests for DWI?

Published on: May 16, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

driving_car_automobile_driver-scaled Everyone knows it is a bad idea to drive under the influence of alcohol. However, even if you are in the unfortunate situation of being arrested for drinking and driving, you still have constitutional rights. Nonetheless, it is important to be aware of the possible penalties you could face, including having your driver’s license suspended. These consequences can become even more severe if you are a repeat offender.

David Carver was arrested multiple times for driving while intoxicated (“DWI”) under La. R.S. 14:98. The first time, he did not receive a conviction as he participated in a diversion program. He pled guilty to the DWI the second time and was placed on probation. Because Carver refused to take the test for intoxication, his driver’s license was suspended. Although Carver attempted to have his license reinstated, the State denied the restatement because he had refused to submit to the chemical test. La. R.S. 32:667 prohibits reinstating someone’s license who refuses to take the chemical test for a second or subsequent arrest, which occurred here.

The State later reinstated his license on the condition that he install an ignition interlock device. Carver filed a motion arguing that certain sections of La. R.S. 32:667 were unconstitutional. The district court held that sections (H)(3) and (I)(1)(a) of La. R.S. 32:667 were unconstitutional because they violated the Due Process Clauses found in the Constitutions of Louisiana and the United States. Specifically, these provisions provided punishments based upon a prior arrest, not on prior illegal conduct that had been proven. The State appealed.

Can An Undocumented Worker Receive Workers’ Compensation Benefits?

Published on: May 15, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

document_paper_former_war-scaled Navigating receiving workers’ compensation benefits following an on-the-job injury can be difficult. It is even more difficult when you are an undocumented worker. Unfortunately, that is the situation Candido Perdomo, an undocumented worker, found himself in after he was injured when he was pinned underneath a garbage truck when a road collapsed.

Perdomo filed a claim against RKC and its insurer after they reduced his workers’ compensation benefits following his injury. RKC agreed that Perdomo was injured in the scope of his employment. Although they agreed that his average wage was $630 per week at the time of the accident and his compensation was $420 per week, they claimed that he had a weekly earning capacity of $145 per week after the accident, with a compensation rate of $323.33. Therefore, they claimed they had the right to reduce Perdomo’s benefits under La. R.S. 23:1206.

This claim went to trial at the Office of Workers’ Compensation (“OWC”), who agreed with the Defendants that the reduction in Perdomo’s benefits to $323.33 was appropriate. The OWC noted that it was the Defendants’ burden to establish that Perdomo could physically perform a given job and that Perdomo had not met his burden of proof in showing that his injury caused his inability to work. The OWC also said that Perdomo could not rely on the fact he was undocumented as a reason he had not found work. Perdomo appealed.

Sincerely or Not: Could You Be Liable for Bringing a Frivolous Appeal?

Published on: May 14, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

outback_australia_bush_road-scaled The legal system has neither time nor resources to waste, so courts refrain from entertaining frivolous lawsuits that lack serious or sincere claims. Moreover, in such cases where a court determines that a lawsuit is frivolous, the court will render a judgment against the party who brought the lawsuit and can also order that party to pay damages, including the other party’s attorney fees. For these reasons, it is critical to consult with an excellent attorney before such cases are brought before a court.

As for Marsha Willis (“Willis”), an unauthorized driver of her mother’s rental car, a Louisiana judge for the First Circuit Court of Appeals determined that although she had absolutely no evidence to support her legal claims, she sincerely believed in the positions she argued and therefore her appeal was not frivolous.

Willis’ mother entered into a rental agreement for a Toyota Corolla with the car rental agency, Enterprise. Shortly after, Willis was driving her mother’s rental car when she crashed into another driver. The other driver sued Willis for damages related to the accident. Then, a claim specialist for Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company (“Empire”), the insurer for Enterprise, notified Willis that they denied her request for coverage in the accident and litigation with the other driver because she was not listed as an authorized driver on her mother’s rental agreement.

New Orleans Police Officer Appeals Civil Service Commission Dismissal

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

police_5-scaled Police 0fficers are public servants responsible to the taxpayers and their profession. When an officer violates the rules of the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD), they are disciplined through penalties. Both state laws and the department policy bind the officer. Officers are given hearings and allowed to plead their case in line with due process considerations. The following civil service case illustrates how appeals work under the Civil Service Commission scheme.

A New Orleans police officer was caught driving a marked squad vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. As a result, he was required to enter the St. Tammany Parish District Attorney’s Pre-Trial Diversion Program. As a result of entering the program, he was deemed to have admitted responsibility for his violations of state law: driving while intoxicated (La. R.S. 14:98) and careless operation of a motor vehicle (La. R.S. 32:58).

Following his entry into diversion, the NOPD started an investigation of the Officer’s actions and violations of NOPD regulations. As a result, the Department Superintendent recommended various sanctions, including a suspension and letters of reprimand. The Officer appealed the decision, which was countered by a motion for summary judgment by the NOPD. The Officer had admitted guilt by entering the diversion program, giving the NOPD a strong claim for summary judgment. The Commission held a hearing for the appeal, which the Officer failed to appear at. The Commission, therefore, dismissed the appeal in favor of the NOPD. The Officer filed for a rehearing which was denied. He then appealed the denial for a rehearing.

Louisiana First Circuit Says Settlement Not Enforceable Based on Email Communications

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

email_letter_postal_codes-scaled Parties in conflict often prefer out-of-court dispute resolution. Although these agreements made outside the courtroom are appealing, they come with their slew of issues and may require a courtroom to enforce an out-of-court solution. When a deal outside the courtroom requires a court to intervene, how does that court decide whether to enforce the settlement agreement? And in the era of virtual communication and remote dispute resolution, how can a court decide when virtually made agreements are enforceable and binding on the parties?

The present case emerged out of a lumber dispute. In short, the defendants wrongfully cut down trees on the plaintiffs’ land. The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the numerous defendants for this wrongful timber cutting and the resulting property damage, penalties, interest, costs, and attorney fees. Some defendants also brought crossclaims against each other following the plaintiffs’ complaints.

The trial court conducted a conference where the parties discussed a potential settlement. Ultimately, the parties drafted an agreement in which one defendant, J.R. Logging, would pay the plaintiffs $20,000. In turn, the plaintiff’s claims against J.R. Logging and the other defendant, Fair Hills Farms, would be dismissed along with the crossclaims between defendants.

Mistake, Medical Malpractice, or Misunderstanding Risk?

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

medicine_pacemaker_surgery_hospital-scaled While much maligned in the popular consciousness, medical malpractice lawsuits serve a vital function in protecting patients’ rights when accessing healthcare. In Louisiana, a successful medical malpractice lawsuit must show the physician being sued had a standard of care for their patient, the physician violated this standard of care, and there was a connection between this violation and the injury suffered by the patient. See La. R.S. 9:2794(A). Though there are several reasons why a medical procedure may go wrong, proving it was the result of a violation of a standard of care can be difficult at best.

In March 2007, Alsie Thomas underwent surgery to install a pacemaker in his heart. Dr. Sergio Barrios conducted the surgery. While usually, the pacemaker is installed with three leads placed in the right atrium, right ventricle, and coronary sinus behind the heart. Dr. Barrios instead inserted the first lead in the opposite direction into the left ventricle and the second lead into the aorta instead of the right atrium, with the third lead being installed correctly. After the leads were installed, Dr. Barrios conducted several tests and determined that while there were some abnormal readings, the procedure appeared successful. Subsequent evaluations at the hospital also indicated the pacemaker had been positioned correctly.

However, five days after the surgery, Alsie suffered a stroke, which was diagnosed as a lack of blood flow due to an obstruction of a blood vessel. Throughout the rest of March and through April, Alsie continued to suffer from bouts of heart issues, but subsequent X-rays and scans showed the pacemaker appeared to be placed in the correct location.

A Constitutional Right for Prom? Or the Right to Fair Treatment in Public Schools?

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

salon_prom_interior_luggage-scaled The senior prom usually allows students to dress up and mingle with their classmates and chaperones. Often this is the last chance that some students will get to hang out with classmates before they graduate. Yet some students at L.W. Higgins High School (“Higgins”) in Jefferson Parish alleged they were discriminated against when they were denied entry to their school’s prom.

In 2008, twenty-two students and their parents filed a lawsuit against the Jefferson Parish School Board, Judy Gardner, and Germain Gilson, claiming they were denied entry to their school’s senior prom in violation of their rights. Specifically, they claimed they had a constitutional right to attend their prom and the dress code for which they were barred entry was applied discriminately and arbitrarily.

Ms. Gilson, the principal at Higgins, stated in her defense the school had issued handbooks to all students in Jefferson Parish, which included both a uniform dress code for formal events which in turn dictated the dress code policy for the senior prom at Higgins. Further, Ms. Gilson claimed that at the event itself, alterations and shawls were made available for students whose attire did not fit the proscribed dress code.

Underlying Medical Conditions, Can You Claim Res Ipsa Loquitur in a Lawsuit?

Published on: May 6, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

vcc_broadway_hi_res-scaled You think that when you’re being taken care of by hospital personnel, you are in safe hands and do not have to fear for your safety. However, if you are injured when being moved from a hospital cart to your bed, can you claim negligence based on res ipsa loquitur? The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals addresses this question and the difficulties in recovering damages if you have an underlying preexisting condition.

Joshua Rice was a patient at Cornerstone Hospital for over a year before passing away in May 2012. Joshua’s father, Tommy Rice, brought a negligence suit against Cornerstone, claiming the staff entangled Joshua’s leg and arm when they moved him from a hospital cart to his bed. He suffered a fracture in his hip and shoulder as a result.

Believing they were not liable for Rice’s injuries, Cornerstone filed a motion for summary judgment. Under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court should grant summary judgment when there is no genuine dispute of any material fact. If a plaintiff such as Rice cannot prove his case at trial, then a court will dismiss it.

Leaking Hole in Jail Cell, Can you File a Lawsuit for Cruel and Unusual Punishment?

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

prison_prison_window_window-scaled When prison officials do nothing to fix a large hole that leaks onto the floor in a jail cell, could the inmate have a claim for cruel and unusual punishment? The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals case answers no. Many instances of inmates complaining about mistreatment are not uncommon to hear about, but when do we draw the line from complaints to unusual punishment? The subsequent lawsuit helps us answer this question of Eighth Amendment rights violations.

Ceasar Shannon was a Dixon Correctional Institute prisoner for over three years. The cell he was in had a large hole in the ceiling that would leak water when it rained. Shannon, along with other inmates, had made many complaints to maintenance requesting it to be fixed. Many times the guards just put buckets to catch the water dripping. One of these times, Shannon woke up at night to use the bathroom and slipped and fell on the puddle from the leak. Shannon suffered injuries to his back, shoulder, and hip.

Shannon filed a lawsuit against the Louisiana prison official under 42 U.S.C § 1983 action in federal district court. Under 42 U.S.C § 1983 a person can seek remedies against others who violated their constitutional rights. Shannon claimed the prison guards were aware of the hole in the wall and did nothing to fix the problem, thus showing deliberate indifference to Shannon’s health and safety, violating his Eight Amendment right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. In response, the State filed a motion to dismiss. The State claimed slip-and-fall cases are negligence claims, not actionable under § 1983. The district court held in favor of the State. Unhappy with the district court’s ruling, Shannon appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.