fbpx

Case Dismissed Because Not Presented to Review Board: Plaintiff filed suit against a hospital when he developed an infection following spine surgery. Defendant filed an exception of prematurity, arguing that it was a qualified healthcare provider under the Medical Malpractice Act (MMA) and that Plaintiff’s claims had not yet been presented to a medical review panel. The district court granted the exception as to all of Plaintiff’s allegations with the exception of the allegation that Defendant failed to properly maintain and service all equipment utilized in the sterilization process. On a supervisory writ, the Louisiana Supreme Court found that Plaintiff’s

How Long to File for Death Benefits in Occupational Disease Cases: Decedent was a retired firefighter with the Jefferson Parish Fire Department.  He passed away on May 5, 2013.  On January 7, 2015, his widow filed a disputed claim for compensation seeking death benefits pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1231.  Plaintiff alleged that her husband filed a workers’ compensation claim in 2004 for which he received benefits until the time of his death.  She further alleged that he suffered a heart attack on the date of his death, and the coroner amended the death certificate in October 2014 to reflect that the

No Whistleblower Protection for Internal Complaint: Plaintiff brought suit against her former employer under Louisiana’s Whistleblower Statute, alleging that she was wrongfully terminated for reporting unsafe work equipment to management and corporate headquarters. Defendant filed an exception of no cause of action, arguing that plaintiff was terminated for failing to follow the proper procedure of reporting the unsafe condition, and that plaintiff did not engage in protected activity under the Whistleblower Statute. Plaintiff argued that her termination was actually in retribution of reporting defendant’s violation of state law, which requires employers to provide reasonably safe employment for all employees. The

Fax Filing Petition Interrupts Prescription: Plaintiff was injured on a city bus on May 1, 2013. He attempted to file suit on the one-year anniversary by facsimile filing on May 1, 2014. Multiple attempts were made, but Plaintiff received an error code each time due to a busy signal. The Clerk of Court received the fax the following morning, and stamp filed the petition on May 2, 2014. Defendants filed an exception of prescription pointing out that the petition was filed more than one year after the alleged injury. Plaintiff opposed the exception, arguing that he first attempted to fax file the

Damages Granted for Willful False Statements: Claimant allegedly injured his lower back while working as a laborer for the company he owned.  Claimant filed a claim with his workers’ compensation carrier, and while some medical benefits were paid, Carrier denied authorization of lumbar epidural injections and paid no wage benefits.  Claimant contacted Carrier to inquire about the denial of these benefits, and the adjuster took a recorded statement from Claimant.  Claimant admitted to having a minor prior back injury and denied ever being involved in any motor vehicle accidents.  Carrier thereafter approved the medical treatment and began paying temporary total

1983 Relief not Allowed Without Specific Intent: Debtor and her husband entered into a promissory note secured by a mortgage in the purchase of their home. In June 2004, they defaulted on the loan. Two months later, Debtor’s husband passed away. In November 2004, Creditor filed an executory proceeding to perfect the seizure and sale of the property. After filing the suit, Creditor’s Counsel received the original promissory note which was marked with an unsigned stamp indicating the note was paid and cancelled. He also received correspondence from Debtor’s counsel stating that the foreclosure was improperly supported, yet Creditor continued

Employer’s Intoxication Defense Defeated:  Plaintiffs’ father was killed in an unwitnessed work accident when he was caught in a pinch point while operating a lift truck. An investigation revealed that the decedent had traces of marijuana in his blood and urine. Plaintiffs filed a disputed worker’s compensation claim for death benefits. Defendant answered the suit and filed a motion for summary judgment raising the intoxication defense provided in La. R.S. 23:1081, which establishes employers’ various defenses to worker’s compensation claims. Defendant argued that the death benefits were forfeited due to the intoxication, which triggered the statutory presumption that the intoxication caused

Indemnity Limited with Continued Work by Claimant: Claimant slipped and fell at work injuring her back and hip on November 26, 2011.  Employer accepted the claim and paid indemnity benefits from May 15, 2013 through October 16, 2013.  Claimant thereafter filed a Disputed Claim for Compensation seeking indemnity benefits, medical treatment, penalties, and attorney fees.  At trial, it was found that Claimant’s initial physician found no basis to restrict her work activity.  Further, Claimant testified that she was able to work for 18 months following the accident by using medication.  It wasn’t until Claimant began seeing another physician that she

What can be Deducted when Calculating SSDI Offset: Claimant was awarded permanent partial disability benefits. Claimant later applied for and was awarded Social Security disability benefits. Employer sought an order to offset the workers’ compensation benefits paid by Employer in the amount of $115.52 per week, pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1225(A). Claimant did not dispute Employer’s entitlement to an offset.  However, she contended that Employer should deduct the court approved attorney fees of $65.81 per week. The workers’ compensation judge agreed with Claimant and ordered an offset of $49.71 per week. Employer appealed. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 424(a), any month an individual,

Is “Cost of Attendance Sufficient? In a civil suit brought by a former UCLA basketball player, it was alleged that the NCAA profited from the use of Plaintiff’s name and likeness in television broadcasts and video games. Plaintiff contended that because the NCAA enjoys contracts worth billions of dollars, athletes are entitled to a portion of the profits. The NCAA countered that college athletes are by definition amateurs, and further argued the commonly held belief that paying college athletes would transform collegiate athletics into something unrecognizable and render the athletes professionals. In 2014, the District Court for the Northern District