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

Situs and Status Tests for Rail Yard Workers: Claimant worked for Employer for twenty years when he became aware that his exposure to workplace noise had caused hearing loss. He brought a claim under the Longshore Act. He argued that although he worked as a trackman operating switching engines, he sometimes worked on a track near a shipping channel and was a member of the longshoreman’s union, thus, he was a longshoreman under the Act. Employer controverted the claim on the grounds that Claimant never worked on, over, or adjacent to navigable waters. Employer further argued that switching cars was

“Vessel” is not Limited to Vessels Engaged in Commerce: Plaintiff was injured while aboard Defendant’s pleasure yacht in 2011.  In 2015, Plaintiff filed a negligence based lawsuit in federal court.  Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the statute of limitations for a maritime tort barred the claim.  Plaintiff argued that the maritime statute of limitation did not apply because his case was not maritime in nature since he was aboard a pleasure yacht rather than a seagoing vessel. The court found that Defendant satisfied both the locality and nexus tests, and because admiralty jurisdiction was established the three-year

Design-Build Contracts Authorized for Tunnel Replacements: Louisiana state law prohibits design-build contracts unless an exception is made by the legislature.  The ban against design-build contracts stems from the thought that it gives too much power and money to a single firm, rather than having two or more firms design and build infrastructure projects separately.  However, proponents point out that such contracts often save time and money.  The Louisiana Senate and Governor Jindal agreed with the latter, leading the governor to sign into law Senate Bill 159. The obvious impact for New Orleans will be two new ferries replacing the aging

Air Conditioning is not a Constitutional Right for Death Row Inmates: Three death row inmates at Angola filed suit against the Louisiana Department of Corrections and various officials alleging that the lack of air conditioning on death row amounted to a violation of the Eighth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act.  The inmates argued that their health conditions were made worse by high temperatures, and that their being kept in hot cells amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. The trial court ruled in favor of the Eighth Amendment claim but rejected the disability claims. The trial