Insurance Dispute Lawyer Blog

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.

The Role of Expert Witnesses in Accident Claims: Resolving Conflicting Testimony

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

disc_brake_stainless_auto-scaled If you have been involved in a motorcycle or car accident, you might not know how an expert witness could help support your claim in court. What happens if there is conflicting testimony from each party’s expert witness about the cause of the accident?

Robert Murphy was driving his motorcycle along Louisiana Highway 538 in Shreveport, Louisiana, while Shauntal Savannah was driving her car in the opposite direction. When Savannah turned left in front of Murphy, Murphy’s motorcycle hit Savannah’s passenger-side door in the lane Murphy had been in before the collision.

Murphy and his wife, Pamela Murphy, filed a lawsuit against Savannah, her automobile insurer State Farm, and the State of Louisiana through the Department of Transportation and Development (“DOTD”). They claimed DOTD was at fault because it did not warn motorists about the dangerous condition or remedy the intersection’s deadly design. DOTD responded and denied knowing about any unsafe conditions. The Murphys settled with Savannah and State Farm.

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.

No Legal Malpractice Where Underlying Medical Malpractice Claim Was Meritless

Published on: July 2, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

hammer_court_judge_justice_3-scaled When considering a legal malpractice claim, it is crucial to understand that proving your attorneys’ negligence alone is insufficient. To establish the merit of such a claim, you must demonstrate an underlying loss resulting from their negligence. This requires presenting compelling evidence that your original claim would have been successful had your attorneys not been negligent. The case of Shawn Cupit, who pursued a wrongful death lawsuit, highlights the significance of providing admissible evidence and the challenges involved in proving a legal malpractice case.

Shawn Cupit hired Joseph Moffett, a lawyer in Mississippi, to represent him in a wrongful death lawsuit involving the death of his mother. His mother had been a patient at a rehabilitation hospital in Concordia Parish, Louisiana, because of injuries related to a burned foot. One night, she climbed out a window at the rehabilitation hospital and was hit and killed by a drunk driver. They filed a lawsuit against the drunk driver, his insurer, and the rehabilitation hospital. They claimed the rehabilitation hospital had been negligent in observing their patient and did not provide a safe prejudice.

Moffett retained Roger Burgess and Baggett McCall as local counsel in Louisiana. Burgess submitted a request for a Medical Review Panel under La. R.S. 40:1231.8. The Medical Review Panel found the rehabilitation hospital had not failed to comply with the required standard of care. Burgess and McCall also retained expert witnesses, but the expert’s medical opinion letter concluded there was no evidence of the rehabilitation hospital committing medical malpractice.

Summary Judgment for Malicious Prosecution Improper Without Adequate Discovery

Published on: July 1, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

abstract_accountant_architecture_1238932-scaled Sufficient evidence is required to prevail in any lawsuit. Generally, each side obtains additional evidence through the discovery process. However, what happens if a court grants a summary judgment motion for one party before the other party has time to complete adequate discovery? The following case helps answer this question.

Shannon James Suarez supposedly threw a Twinkie box at Jerry W. Peloquin II. Peloquin claimed Suarez had previously been stalking him for months and battered him. Lori Smith also claimed Suarez had stalked her. Suarez was subsequently arrested and charged with stalking under La. R.S. 14:40.2(A).

The investigator, Bill Pousson, went to Suarez’s workplace to talk to him about the charges. Suarez claims Pousson spoke to him, told him he could make his problems disappear, and encouraged him to plead guilty, even though he knew Suarez had an attorney. Suarez then filed a lawsuit against Pousson and John DeRosier, the district attorney (the “Defendants”), claiming malicious prosecution and misconduct related to the District Attorney’s Office’s investigation.

Can A Louisiana Court Disregard A Special Master’s Report?

Published on: June 30, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

restoration_work_parthenon_facade-1-scaled One tool courts can use to manage litigation is a Special Master. A Special Master issues reports that a court can consider when ruling on a case. However, what happens if a court disregards the recommendations in a Special Master’s report? This situation raises intriguing questions about the authority and discretion of the court, leaving us to ponder the implications of such actions, as discussed in the case below.

Two attorneys – Patrick Kehoe, Jr. and Michael Rodriguez – entered into an oral fee-sharing agreement. Under the agreement, Rodriguez would receive half of the fees on personal injury cases from Kehoe that were resolved in trial or settled. Kehoe would finance the cases, and Rodriguez performed the required legal work.

Rodriguez had to go to an inpatient facility because of his alcoholism. When he entered treatment, he had approximately sixteen unresolved cases. Rodriguez never returned to working with Kehoe. Rodriguez sought payment for his work on the sixteen unresolved cases. Kehoe proposed a fee-split agreement where Rodriguez would receive 20% of the collected attorney’s fees. Rodriguez at first rejected the proposal but later agreed to it. However, Rodriguez and Kehoe continued to dispute the fees owed.