gets.primecure.net

Category: Negligence Claims

  • Legislation vs. Custom: Unpacking the Foundations of Louisiana Law

    Golden scales of justice balanced over a Louisiana state outline with law books and the State Capitol in the background, symbolizing the relationship between legislation and custom in Louisiana’s Civil Law systemThe Building Blocks of Justice: How Louisiana Laws Are Made

    Louisiana’s legal system is unique, drawing heavily from its Civil Code tradition. Unlike many other states that primarily rely on ‘common law’ (judge-made law), our system is rooted in comprehensive written statutes. But where do these rules come from, and how do we interpret them? Understanding the foundational principles of Louisiana law, as laid out in the Louisiana Civil Code, is key to knowing your rights and obligations.

    Legislation: The Primary Source of Our Laws (Louisiana Civil Code Article 2)

    When we talk about laws in Louisiana, we primarily refer to legislation. Civil Code Article 2 clearly defines legislation as “a solemn expression of legislative will.” In simple terms, this means the laws formally passed by our elected representatives in the Louisiana Legislature and signed by the Governor. These are the statutes, codes, and acts that govern everything from contracts and property to family matters and personal injury. They are written, publicly available, and intended to provide clear guidance for citizens and courts alike.

    The Role of Custom: An Important, But Secondary, Source (Louisiana Civil Code Article 1)

    While legislation is paramount, Civil Code Article 1 acknowledges another source of law: custom. But what exactly is a legal custom? It’s not just “how things have always been done.” Legally, a custom refers to practices that have been long-established, consistently observed, and widely accepted by the community as having the force of law. For a custom to be legally recognized, it usually needs to be reasonable, known, and consistent. Think of certain business practices or local traditions that, over time, become an unwritten rule that people generally follow and expect others to follow.

    When Legislation and Custom Meet: Legislation Always Prevails (Louisiana Civil Code Article 3)

    This brings us to a crucial point, brilliantly clarified by Louisiana Civil Code Article 3: “Customs may not abrogate legislation.” This short, powerful statement is incredibly important. It means that while customs can be a source of law, they can never override, repeal, or nullify a written law passed by the legislature. If there’s a specific statute on the books, no matter how widespread a custom might be, the legislation always takes precedence.

    For example, imagine a neighborhood where everyone has, for years, informally agreed to park their cars on the sidewalk on weekends. If a new city ordinance is passed explicitly prohibiting sidewalk parking, the long-standing custom of parking there would immediately be overridden by the new legislation. The custom, no matter how ingrained, cannot abrogate (cancel out) the written law.

    Why This Matters to You

    Understanding the hierarchy of legal sources in Louisiana is vital. It means that when you have a legal question or dispute, the first place to look is always to the written law – the legislation. Customs can offer context or fill in gaps where legislation is silent, but they can never contradict it. This principle ensures consistency, predictability, and fairness in our legal system, preventing uncertainty that could arise if unwritten traditions could simply undo formal laws.

    Need Legal Guidance? Contact Us Today.

    Navigating the intricacies of Louisiana law can be complex, even for seemingly straightforward situations. Whether you’re dealing with a contract dispute, property issue, or any other legal challenge, understanding how legislation and custom apply to your specific case is critical. Don’t rely on assumptions or “how things have always been done.” Our experienced legal team is here to provide clarity and protect your interests. Contact us today for a consultation to discuss your legal needs.

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Articles on the Louisiana Civil Code: The Two Pillars of Louisiana Law: Legislation & Custom Explained (CC Arts. 1-3)

    and The Foundations of Louisiana Law: Where Our Rules Come From

  • Berniard Law Firm Takes Legal Action for Families Displaced by the Smitty’s Supply Fire

    Thick smoke and flames rising from the Smitty’s Supply lubricant plant in Roseland, Tangipahoa Parish, after the August 22, 2025 explosion and fire.When the Smitty’s Supply facility erupted in flames on August 22, 2025, residents within a one-mile radius were ordered to evacuate. Families were forced from their homes, many for several days, unsure of when it would be safe to return. In the aftermath, thick soot, oily residue, and chemical contamination settled on homes, vehicles, and property—leaving long-term damage and raising serious questions about insurance coverage.

    The Berniard Law Firm has filed a class action lawsuit against Smitty’s Supply, Inc. seeking justice for affected residents. The petition alleges negligence, gross negligence, nuisance, trespass, and strict liability, arguing that Smitty’s failure to properly store and manage dangerous chemicals directly caused the disaster.

    Residents have reported:

    • Difficulty cleaning soot and ash from their homes and vehicles.

    • Property losses and decreased home values.

    • Health effects such as headaches, stomach aches, respiratory irritation, and anxiety.

    • Out-of-pocket expenses for relocation, cleanup, and repairs.

    While many homeowners will turn to insurance for relief, coverage disputes are likely. Insurers may attempt to minimize payouts or deny claims by pointing to exclusions for chemical damage, pollution, or industrial accidents. The lawsuit filed by the Berniard Law Firm seeks to ensure that residents are not left carrying the financial burden of Smitty’s negligence.

    Our legal team is actively investigating claims and working to protect the rights of those affected. If you or someone you know was displaced or suffered losses from the Smitty’s fire, you should understand both your legal and insurance rights.

    For a free consultation, contact the Berniard Law Firm today at (504) 521-6000 or online at GetJeff.com

  • Stairway to Dismissal: Missed Deadline Leads to Summary Judgment in Injury Case

    This case focuses on the procedural aspects of a personal injury lawsuit, highlighting the importance of deadlines and the consequences of missing them.

    Case Background

    Charles and Jeri Kouba sued the City of Natchitoches after Mr. Kouba fell on a staircase owned by the city. They alleged a defect in the staircase caused his injuries. The City filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Koubas opposed. However, they missed the deadline to file their opposition and requested a continuance (postponement) of the hearing. The trial court denied their request and granted summary judgment in favor of the City.

    Motion to Continue

    The Koubas argued that they needed more time to gather evidence and expert opinions to oppose the summary judgment motion. However, the appeals court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of their continuance request. Here’s why:

    • Missed Deadline: The Koubas missed the statutory deadline to file their opposition to the summary judgment motion.
    • Purpose of Continuance: The court explained that the purpose of allowing continuances in summary judgment proceedings is to give parties time to comply with deadlines, not to excuse missed deadlines.
    • Lack of Good Cause: The Koubas’ reason for missing the deadline was their attorney’s calendaring error, which the court did not consider a sufficient “good cause” for a continuance.

    Summary Judgment

    The court then reviewed the summary judgment ruling itself, applying the same standards as the trial court:

    • Burden of Proof: The City, as the moving party, had the burden to show that there was no genuine issue of material fact.
    • Premises Liability: In Louisiana, to hold a public entity liable for an injury on its property, a plaintiff must prove several elements, including that the property was defective, the defect posed an unreasonable risk of harm, and the entity had notice of the defect.
    • Lack of Evidence: The court found that the Koubas failed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the City’s knowledge of any defect in the staircase.

    Exclusion of Evidence

    The Koubas also argued that the trial court erred in excluding photographs they attempted to introduce. However, the court found no error because the Koubas had missed the deadline to file these photographs with their opposition to the summary judgment.

    Key Takeaways

    • Deadlines Matter: Meeting procedural deadlines is crucial in legal proceedings. Failure to do so can have serious consequences.
    • Summary Judgment Standards: Summary judgment can be a powerful tool to resolve cases efficiently when there are no genuine factual disputes.
    • Premises Liability: Proving a premises liability claim against a public entity requires evidence of a defect, an unreasonable risk of harm, and the entity’s knowledge of the defect.

    Outcome

    The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s decision, upholding the denial of the continuance and the grant of summary judgment in favor of the City. This case underscores the importance of diligence in meeting procedural deadlines and the necessity of presenting sufficient evidence to survive a summary judgment motion.

  • Medical Malpractice Claim Fails: No Expert Testimony to Support Allegations

    The following case highlights the critical role of expert testimony in medical malpractice lawsuits and the difficulty of succeeding on such claims without it.

    Case Background

    Claire James sued Dr. Shahed Jameel, alleging that his negligent care caused the death of her mother, Laura James. However, a Medical Review Panel had previously reviewed the case and found no breach of the standard of care by Dr. Jameel. Despite this, Claire proceeded with her lawsuit. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Jameel, and Claire appealed.

    Medical Malpractice in Louisiana

    To succeed in a medical malpractice claim in Louisiana, a plaintiff must prove:

    1. Standard of Care: The degree of care and skill expected of a healthcare provider in the same or similar circumstances.
    2. Breach of Duty: The healthcare provider’s actions fell below the accepted standard of care.
    3. Injury: The patient suffered an injury.
    4. Causation: The healthcare provider’s breach of duty directly caused the patient’s injury.

    The Importance of Expert Testimony

    Expert testimony is crucial in medical malpractice cases because it helps the court understand complex medical issues and determine whether the standard of care was breached. Without expert testimony, it’s often impossible for a layperson (judge or jury) to make that determination.

    The Court’s Analysis

    The appeals court reviewed the case and focused on the lack of expert testimony to support Claire’s claims. Here’s what they considered:

    • Medical Review Panel: The panel, consisting of medical experts, unanimously found no breach of the standard of care by Dr. Jameel.
    • Plaintiff’s Evidence: Claire failed to present any expert testimony to contradict the panel’s findings or support her allegations of negligence.
    • Tangential Evidence: The only expert opinion Claire offered was from a panel member who criticized a different doctor’s actions, not Dr. Jameel’s.

    The court emphasized that without expert testimony to establish a breach of the standard of care, Claire could not meet her burden of proof in a medical malpractice case.

    Key Takeaways

    • Medical Review Panel: The opinion of a Medical Review Panel carries significant weight in Louisiana malpractice cases.
    • Expert Testimony is Essential: Without expert testimony, it’s very difficult to win a medical malpractice lawsuit, especially when the medical issues are complex.
    • Summary Judgment: If a plaintiff fails to produce expert evidence to support their claims, the defendant is likely to succeed on a motion for summary judgment.

    Outcome

    The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s decision, granting summary judgment in favor of Dr. Jameel. This case illustrates the high bar plaintiffs face in medical malpractice cases and the necessity of expert testimony to establish a breach of the standard of care.

  • Power Lines and Damaged Crops: Who Pays When Farming Meets Infrastructure?

    The following case revolves around the intersection of farming and infrastructure development, and the legal implications when construction activities impact agricultural land.

    Case Background

    Lanie Farms, a sugarcane and soybean farming operation, sued CLECO Power and its contractor, Highlines, for damages caused during the construction of new power lines across the farmland. Lanie Farms claimed that the construction activities damaged their crops and required costly remediation efforts. The trial court ruled in favor of Lanie Farms, awarding them $38,000 in damages. However, Lanie Farms appealed, arguing the award was insufficient. CLECO and Highlines also appealed, claiming the court should have dismissed the case.

    Legal Issues

    The case raised several key legal issues:

    • Measure of Damages: How should the damages to the crops be calculated – based on the gross value of the lost crops or the net value after deducting expenses?
    • Involuntary Dismissal: Did Lanie Farms present sufficient evidence to support their claims and avoid dismissal of their case?
    • Contractual Obligations: Did the servitude agreement between CLECO and the landowners create an obligation for CLECO to pay for damages to Lanie Farms’ crops?

    The Court’s Analysis

    The appeals court reviewed the evidence and addressed each of these issues:

    • Damages: The court acknowledged that while gross value is often used in pre-construction negotiations, this case was different. The court found that the net value, which accounts for expenses, was a more accurate reflection of the actual losses suffered by Lanie Farms.
    • Involuntary Dismissal: Although Lanie Farms primarily argued negligence, they also presented evidence of a contractual obligation by CLECO to pay for damages. The court found this sufficient to deny the motion for involuntary dismissal.
    • Contractual Obligations: The court confirmed that the servitude agreement created a “stipulation pour autrui” – a benefit for a third party (Lanie Farms). This meant CLECO was contractually obligated to compensate Lanie Farms for crop damage caused by their construction activities.

    Key Takeaways

    • Servitude Agreements: When granting servitudes for infrastructure development, landowners and lessees should carefully consider provisions for potential crop damage and ensure clear language regarding liability and compensation.
    • Expert Testimony: Expert witnesses play a crucial role in determining damages, especially in complex cases involving crop valuation and remediation costs.
    • Contractual vs. Negligence Claims: Even when negligence is alleged, the existence of a contractual obligation can significantly impact the outcome of a case.

    Outcome

    The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s decision, upholding the $38,000 damage award. This case demonstrates the importance of contractual agreements in determining liability for crop damage caused by infrastructure development. It also highlights the court’s discretion in assessing damages and the weight given to expert testimony.

  • Who’s Responsible When a Step Collapses?

    The following case deals with a common scenario: a guest gets injured at a business and sues, alleging negligence. But the legal outcome hinges on a crucial factor – whether the business owner knew or should have known about the dangerous condition that caused the injury.

    Case Summary

    Melanie Mark was injured when a wooden step on a cabin staircase collapsed at a KOA campground in Lafayette, Louisiana. She sued KOA, claiming they were negligent in maintaining the property. However, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of KOA, finding that Ms. Mark failed to prove KOA had any knowledge of the defect in the stairs. Ms. Mark appealed this decision.

    Legal Principles

    The court’s decision revolved around Louisiana Civil Code Article 2317.1, which deals with premises liability. Here’s the key takeaway:

    Knowledge is Key: Property owners are only liable for injuries caused by defects if they knew, or should have known, about the defect and failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the damage.
    The court also considered the duty of care owed by innkeepers to their guests:

    Innkeeper’s Duty: Innkeepers have a heightened duty to ensure their premises are safe and to warn guests of any hidden dangers. This includes conducting reasonable inspections.
    The Court’s Analysis

    The appeals court reviewed the evidence and found no indication that KOA knew or should have known about the rotten step. Here’s why:

    No Prior Complaints: KOA had no record of any prior complaints or issues with the stairs.
    Regular Maintenance and Inspections: KOA conducted regular maintenance and yearly inspections, and no defects were found.
    Hidden Defect: The rot was hidden on the underside of the step, making it difficult to detect even with a reasonable inspection.
    Plaintiff’s Own Testimony: Ms. Mark herself testified that the stairs appeared fine and safe when she used them before the accident.
    Based on this, the court concluded that KOA did not breach its duty of care and was not liable for Ms. Mark’s injuries.

    Important Considerations

    This case highlights some important aspects of premises liability law:

    Burden of Proof: The injured party bears the burden of proving the property owner’s knowledge of the defect.
    Constructive Knowledge: Even if the owner didn’t have actual knowledge, they can still be liable if they should have known about the defect through reasonable care.
    Hidden Defects: Liability is less likely when the defect is hidden and not readily discoverable.
    Outcome

    The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s decision, granting summary judgment in favor of KOA. This means Ms. Mark’s case was dismissed, and she was responsible for the costs of the appeal.

    This case serves as a reminder that proving negligence in premises liability cases requires demonstrating the property owner’s knowledge of the dangerous condition. When a defect is hidden and there’s no evidence the owner knew or should have known about it, it’s difficult to establish liability.

  • When Accidents Happen: The Limits of a Homeowner’s Liability for a Child’s Injury

    A tragic accident involving a young boy with autism has raised questions about the legal responsibility of homeowners when someone is injured on their property. The case of Justin Stollenwerck v. Robert Schweggman, Jr., et al. explores the boundaries of a homeowner’s duty of care, especially when the injured party is the guest of a tenant. This blog post examines the case details and the court’s ruling, shedding light on the complexities of premises liability law.

    The Accident:

    Ryse Stollenwerck, a five-year-old boy with autism, was severely injured while playing at his mother’s boyfriend’s house. The boyfriend, Robert Schweggman Jr., was spinning another child around when they accidentally struck Ryse, causing serious injuries that left him wheelchair-bound and unable to speak.

    Ryse’s father sued Schweggman and the homeowner, John Ehret, claiming negligence. They argued that Ehret, who lived in Texas and rarely visited the Louisiana property, was negligent in allowing Schweggman and his son to play unsupervised, leading to Ryse’s injuries. They also suggested that Ehret, knowing Schweggman’s employment history, should have been aware that he was not equipped to care for a young autistic child.

    Ehret moved for summary judgment, arguing that he owed no duty to Ryse and had no obligation to supervise Schweggman or the children.

    The trial court granted Ehret’s motion for summary judgment, and the Court of Appeal upheld the ruling. The court emphasized that homeowners generally have no duty to protect others from the actions of third parties unless a “special relationship” exists, such as parent-child or employer-employee. In this case, no such relationship existed between Ehret and Schweggman. The court also noted that Ehret was unaware that Ryse and his mother were living in the house and had no knowledge of Schweggman’s activities with the children.

    Key Takeaways:

    This case highlights several important legal principles:

    • Limited Duty of Care for Homeowners: Homeowners are not automatically responsible for injuries that occur on their property, especially when caused by the actions of third parties.
    • Special Relationships and Duty to Protect: A duty to protect others from harm arises only in specific relationships, such as parent-child or employer-employee.
    • Foreseeability and Negligence: A homeowner can be held liable for negligence if the injury was foreseeable and they failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it. However, in this case, the court found that Ehret had no reason to foresee the accident.

    Conclusion:

    The Stollenwerck case serves as a reminder of the limitations of a homeowner’s liability for injuries occurring on their property. While the outcome is undoubtedly heartbreaking for the Stollenwerck family, it reinforces the legal principle that homeowners are not automatically responsible for the actions of others on their premises.

    Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Homeowner’s Liability: Homeowner Liability Insurance Coverage Upheld for Harmful Accident and What happens if a roofer is injured while putting a new roof on your house?

  • Too Late to Sue: Court Upholds Prescription in Construction Site Injury Case

    In a ruling emphasizing the critical importance of adhering to legal deadlines, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, affirmed the dismissal of a personal injury lawsuit due to prescription, leaving the injured plaintiff without recourse. In the case, the court affirmed a trial court judgment that dismissed Tammy Blanchard’s personal injury claims due to prescription or the expiration of the time limit for filing a lawsuit.

    In 2015, Ms. Blanchard filed a lawsuit alleging she was injured while walking on a grassy pathway to Gerry’s Place, a business in Jefferson Parish. She claimed she tripped over concrete debris left by contractors working on a nearby drainage canal project. The initial lawsuit named several defendants, including Gerry’s Place, Jefferson Parish entities, and an unnamed contractor referred to as “ABC Contractors.”

    Later, Ms. Blanchard amended her petition to add Fleming Construction Company, LLC, and Shavers-Whittle Construction, LLC, as defendants after discovering their involvement in the construction project. However, these amended petitions were filed more than a year after the injury occurred.

    The Issue of Prescription

    Fleming and Shavers-Whittle filed an exception to prescription, arguing that the claims against them were time-barred because the amended petitions were filed beyond the one-year prescriptive period for personal injury cases in Louisiana. Ms. Blanchard countered, invoking the doctrine of contra non valentine, which can suspend the running of prescriptions under certain circumstances.

    Trial Court’s Ruling

    The trial court granted the exception of prescription, dismissing the claims against Fleming and Shavers-Whittle. It reasoned that the amended petitions were filed too late and that Ms. Blanchard failed to demonstrate that she exercised reasonable diligence in identifying and naming the correct defendants within the prescriptive period.

    Court of Appeal’s Affirmation

    The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision. It emphasized that once a petition is prescribed on its face, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove that prescription has been suspended or interrupted. In this case, Ms. Blanchard failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her claim of contra non valentem.  

    The court noted publicly available information about the construction project and the involved contractors. Ms. Blanchard could have exercised reasonable diligence to identify the correct parties within the one-year prescriptive period. Her failure to do so resulted in her claims being time-barred.

    Key Takeaways

    This case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of adhering to legal deadlines. In Louisiana, the prescriptive period for personal injury cases is one year. If you fail to file your lawsuit within this timeframe, you may lose your right to seek compensation for your injuries.

    The doctrine of contra non valentine can potentially suspend prescriptions under certain circumstances, such as when the plaintiff is prevented from filing suit due to factors beyond their control. However, the plaintiff must demonstrate that they exercised reasonable diligence in pursuing their claim.   

    If you have been injured, it is critical to consult with an attorney as soon as possible to ensure that your legal rights are protected and that you file your lawsuit within the applicable prescriptive period. Delaying legal action can have severe consequences, as illustrated in this case.

    Remember: Time is of the essence in personal injury cases. Don’t let the clock run out on your right to seek justice.

    Additional Sources: Tammy Blanchard v. Gerry’s Place, Inc., et al.,

    Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Prescription: Louisiana Court Upholds Prescription in Wrongful Death Suit, Highlights Joint Tortfeasor Rule and The Clock is Ticking: Understanding Prescription in Louisiana Personal Injury Cases

  • Siblings Awarded $200K in Legal Malpractice Case: A Cautionary Tale of Attorney Negligence

    In a poignant reminder of the potential consequences of attorney negligence, the Louisiana Court of Appeal recently upheld a substantial $200,000 legal malpractice award to four siblings who tragically lost their brother due to their former attorneys’ alleged mishandling of a wrongful death lawsuit. This case highlights the importance of competent legal representation and the potential consequences of attorney negligence.

    Case Background

    The plaintiffs, siblings of the deceased Frank Anthony Dawson, hired the defendants, Gray & Gray and James Gray, II, to represent them in a wrongful death and survival action against the Sheriff of St. Tammany Parish. Mr. Dawson tragically died by suicide while under suicide watch in the sheriff’s custody.

    The initial lawsuit was dismissed due to procedural errors. While an appeal led to a partial reversal and remand, the case was ultimately dismissed again due to abandonment, primarily caused by the defendants’ inaction.

    Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a legal malpractice claim against their former attorneys, alleging negligence in handling their original case. The trial court granted partial summary judgment on the liability issue, finding the defendants negligent. After a trial on damages, each of the four plaintiffs was awarded $50,000.

    Key Issues on Appeal

    The defendants appealed the judgment, challenging the grant of summary judgment on liability and the damages awarded. They also argued for a new trial due to the trial court’s failure to provide written reasons for its decision, which was attributed to the trial judge’s illness.

    Court’s Analysis

    The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision on several key points.

    • Liability: The court upheld the summary judgment on liability, finding that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie legal malpractice case. The defendants’ negligence in failing to comply with procedural rules led to the dismissal of the original lawsuit, causing the plaintiffs to lose their opportunity to pursue their claims.

    • Damages: The court found the $50,000 award to each sibling reasonable, considering the evidence presented and prior awards in similar cases. The plaintiffs’ emotional loss and the value of their potential recovery in the underlying wrongful death suit were considered.

    • Written Reasons for Judgment: The court acknowledged the defendants’ request for written reasons but determined that the absence of such reasons did not warrant a new trial. It emphasized that the appellate court reviews judgments, not reasons for judgment and that a complete record and trial transcript were available for review.

    Conclusion

    This case is a stark reminder of the importance of competent legal representation, especially in sensitive matters like wrongful death claims. Attorney negligence can have devastating consequences, depriving clients of their opportunity to seek justice and compensation.

    The court’s decision underscores the need for attorneys to adhere to procedural rules and diligently pursue their clients’ cases. It also highlights the potential for substantial damages in legal malpractice cases when negligence results in the loss of a viable claim.

    If you believe you have been a victim of legal malpractice, seeking advice from another attorney is crucial. They can assess your case, determine if you have a valid claim, and help you pursue the compensation you may be entitled to.

    Additional Sources: Connie Dawson, et al. v. Gray & Gray, A Professional Law Corporation, and James A. Gray, II

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Blog Articles on Legal Malpractice: Understanding Legal Malpractice Claims: Establishing Negligence and Loss and Louisiana Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Legal Malpractice Case, Underscoring Importance of Contractual Claims in Insurance Disputes

  • No Bond, No Appeal: Louisiana Court Dismisses Workers’ Comp Appeal for Procedural Misstep

    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:

    Angela Jackson sustained an ankle injury while working at a Family Dollar Store in New Orleans. She filed a workers’ compensation claim, asserting that she was a direct employee of Becky Tolito and Tolito Services Co., L.L.C., and a statutory employee of Family Dollar, S&S Janitorial Services, and SMS Assist.

    The Worker’s Compensation Judge (WCJ) ruled in favor of Ms. Jackson, finding that she was injured in the course and scope of her employment. The WCJ awarded her medical expenses, temporary disability benefits, and supplemental earnings benefits and assessed penalties and attorney’s fees against the defendants.

    The defendants appealed the WCJ’s decision. However, they failed to post an appeal bond, a mandatory requirement in Louisiana workers’ compensation cases where the claimant has been awarded benefits.

    Court’s Ruling:

    The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as premature due to the lack of an appeal bond. It emphasized that Louisiana law mandates appeal bonds in workers’ compensation cases to guarantee payment of the awarded benefits, interest, and costs. The court noted that while the appellants failed to post the bond, the delay for doing so does not begin until the WCJ sets the bond amount.

    The case was remanded to the WCJ with an order to set the appeal bond amount, allowing the appellants to perfect their appeal by posting the bond within the prescribed time limits.

    Key Takeaways:

    This case serves as a crucial reminder for employers and their insurers to follow procedural requirements diligently when appealing workers’ compensation decisions. Failure to post an appeal bond can result in the dismissal of the appeal, potentially delaying the resolution of the case and incurring additional legal costs.

    In Louisiana, appeal bonds are mandatory in workers’ compensation cases where the claimant has been awarded benefits. The WCJ sets the bond amount, and the appellant has a specific timeframe to post the bond after being notified of the amount.

    It is imperative for parties involved in workers’ compensation litigation to consult with an experienced attorney to ensure compliance with all procedural rules and avoid potential pitfalls that could jeopardize their appeal.

    Additional Sources: Angela Jackson v. Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana Inc., et al

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Workers Compensation Issues: Work-Related Injury and Subsequent Leave: When is Compensation Due? and Understanding the Finality of Workers’ Compensation Settlements