gets.primecure.net

Category: Negligence Claims

  • Louisiana Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Case, Highlighting Importance of Fact-Finding in Proving Negligence

    In a significant development for medical malpractice litigation in Louisiana, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal recently reversed a summary judgment, underscoring the importance of thorough fact-finding and the potential need for expert testimony in such cases. The case, Diana Deruise-Pierce v. University Healthcare System, L.C., et al., underscores the necessity of thorough fact-finding and the potential need for expert testimony in medical malpractice cases, even when negligence appears evident.

    Case Overview:

    The lawsuit stemmed from the treatment rendered to Mr. Pierce at University Medical Center in New Orleans. Mr. Pierce was admitted for a medical procedure, but his condition deteriorated overnight. Despite this, the medical team proceeded with the planned procedure.

    Tragically, Mr. Pierce went into cardiac arrest during the procedure and passed away. His widow, Diana Deruise-Pierce, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit alleging that the healthcare providers breached the standard of care by transporting and leaving Mr. Pierce unattended in the hallway outside the radiology suite while he was in a severely deteriorated state.

    Trial Court’s Ruling:

    The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, relying on the medical review panel’s opinion that no breach of the standard of care occurred. The court also emphasized the absence of independent medical expert testimony to support the plaintiff’s negligence claim.

    Court of Appeal’s Decision:

    The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment, highlighting the presence of genuine issues of material fact that precluded summary judgment. The court emphasized the ambiguity surrounding whether Mr. Pierce was left unattended and for how long.

    Crucially, the court recognized that even without expert testimony, a breach of the standard of care could be established if the alleged negligence was so obvious that a layperson could infer it. The court also pointed to the deposition testimony of a fellow physician, Dr. Cooper, which suggested potential deviations from the standard of care.

    While acknowledging the challenges in proving causation without expert testimony, the court stressed the need for further fact-finding to determine the circumstances surrounding Mr. Pierce’s death and whether the alleged negligence contributed to it.

    This case underscores the critical importance of thorough investigation and fact-finding in medical malpractice cases. It highlights that even when negligence seems apparent, a detailed examination of the circumstances is necessary to establish a breach of the standard of care and its causal link to the patient’s injuries.

    The decision also emphasizes the potential role of expert testimony in proving medical malpractice. Still, it acknowledges that negligence may be so evident that expert opinion is not required in some instances.

    This case serves as a reminder that medical malpractice cases are complex and require careful consideration of all relevant facts and evidence. If you or a loved one has suffered harm due to potential medical negligence, it is crucial to consult with an experienced attorney to understand your legal rights and pursue appropriate action.

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Blog Articles on Fact-Finding and Expert Witnesses: When Do I Need Expert Testimony for a Medical Malpractice Lawsuit? and Appeal Necessary in Car Accident Case Where District Court’s Finding of Fact Strays

  • Louisiana Court Raises the Bar on General Damages in Unprovoked Attack Case

    In a recent decision, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, affirmed and amended a default judgment in favor of Matthew Hillman, who was injured in an unprovoked attack by Corey Seneca. The court upheld the special damages award but found the general damages award to be abusively low, increasing it from $2,500 to $10,000.

    Matthew Hillman filed a lawsuit against Corey Seneca after being attacked without provocation. Mr. Seneca failed to respond to the lawsuit, leading to a default judgment in favor of Mr. Hillman. During the confirmation hearing for the default judgment, Mr. Hillman provided evidence of his injuries, which included a lacerated lip requiring fifteen stitches, fractured teeth, and the inability to eat solid food for two months. He also testified about his pain and suffering and loss of income due to the attack.

    The trial court awarded Mr. Hillman special damages of $2,894.19 for lost wages, past medical expenses, and future dental treatment. However, it granted only $2,500 in general damages for pain and suffering. Mr. Hillman appealed the judgment, arguing that the general damages award was insufficient.

    The Court of Appeal reviewed the evidence presented at the confirmation hearing and found that the trial court had abused its discretion in awarding only $2,500 in general damages. The court emphasized the violent nature of the attack, the severity of Mr. Hillman’s injuries, and the ongoing pain and suffering he endured.

    The court also referenced previous cases involving similar injuries where higher general damage awards were granted. Based on this analysis, the court determined that the lowest reasonable amount within the trial court’s discretion was $10,000.

    The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment except for the general damages award, which was increased to $10,000. All costs of the appeal were assessed against the defendant, Corey Seneca.

    This case demonstrates the importance of seeking appropriate compensation for injuries, including general damages for pain and suffering. It also highlights the appellate court’s role in reviewing trial court decisions and ensuring that damage awards are reasonable and just.

    While default judgments may seem straightforward, it is crucial to present sufficient evidence to support the damages claimed. In this case, the court relied on Mr. Hillman’s testimony and a statement from his dentist to assess the extent of his injuries and the appropriate compensation.

    If you have been injured due to someone else’s negligence, it’s essential to consult with an attorney to understand your legal rights and pursue the compensation you deserve.

    Additional Sources: MATTHEW A. HILLMAN VERSUS COREY SENECA ET AL.

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Default Judgments: Why It’s Important to Dot your I’s and Cross Your T’s When Filing a Default Judgment and What are the Standards for Default Judgments in Louisiana?

  • Louisiana Court Adjusts Damages in Car Accident Case, Emphasizes Need for General Damages

    A recent ruling by the Louisiana Court of Appeal has highlighted the importance of awarding general damages in personal injury cases, even when the primary focus is on medical expenses. The case involved a car accident where the jury awarded the plaintiff past medical expenses but failed to award any general damages for pain and suffering.

    In 2013, Steven McDowell was involved in a car accident with Russell Diggs. McDowell sued Diggs and his insurer, seeking damages for physical and mental pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and medical expenses.

    The jury found both drivers equally at fault (50% each) and awarded McDowell $8,000 for past medical expenses. However, they did not award any general damages. McDowell appealed, arguing that it was legal error to award special damages without also awarding general damages.

    The Court of Appeal agreed with McDowell, finding that the jury’s decision to award medical expenses but no general damages was an abuse of discretion. The court conducted a de novo review of the evidence and awarded McDowell an additional $25,000 in general damages.

    Understanding the Types of Damages

    • Special Damages: These are quantifiable economic losses, such as medical expenses, lost wages, and property damage.
    • General Damages: These are non-economic losses that are more difficult to quantify, such as pain and suffering, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life.

    Why General Damages Matter:

    General damages compensate for the intangible harms caused by an accident. They acknowledge the physical and emotional toll an injury can take on a person’s life. Even if medical expenses are covered, the pain, suffering, and reduced quality of life deserve compensation.

    Key Takeaways from the Case:

    • Legal Error: The court emphasized that it’s a legal error for a jury to award special damages without also awarding general damages when the injuries are proven.
    • De Novo Review: When such an error occurs, the appellate court can conduct a de novo review, meaning they will independently assess the evidence and determine an appropriate award for general damages.
    • Importance of General Damages: The case highlights that general damages are an essential component of fair compensation in personal injury cases.
    • Seek Legal Counsel: If you’ve been injured in an accident, it’s crucial to consult with an attorney who can help you understand your rights and ensure you receive full and fair compensation for all your losses, including general damages.

    This case serves as a reminder that even in cases where medical expenses are the primary focus, general damages for pain and suffering should not be overlooked. The court’s decision emphasizes the importance of ensuring that injured individuals receive just compensation for the full spectrum of harm they’ve suffered.

    Additional Sources: STEVEN MCDOWELL VERSUS RUSSELL DIGGS, UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law firm articles on General Damages: Louisiana Court Affirms General Damages Awarded to Ascension Parish Woman Injured In Auto Accident and Falling Tree Victim Entitled to Increase of General Damages

  • Louisiana Court Upholds Prescription in Wrongful Death Suit, Highlights Joint Tortfeasor Rule

    A recent ruling by the Louisiana Court of Appeal has shed light on the complexities of prescription (the state’s equivalent of a statute of limitations) and the concept of joint tortfeasors in wrongful death cases. The case, Crocker v. Baton Rouge General Medical Center, involved a tragic incident where a mentally impaired man, Jerry Sheppard, died after an altercation following his discharge from the hospital.

    Jerry Sheppard was taken to the emergency room at Baton Rouge General Medical Center (BRGMC) due to hallucinations. Despite his mental impairment, he was discharged without notifying his family. Hours later, he was found wandering the streets and was fatally injured in an altercation with a homeowner, Mr. Zeno.

    Jerry’s mother, Ridder Crocker, filed a lawsuit against both BRGMC and Mr. Zeno, alleging their negligence led to Jerry’s death. Mr. Zeno raised a prescription exception, arguing the lawsuit against him was filed beyond the one-year deadline. Ms. Crocker countered, claiming the timely filing of her medical malpractice claim against BRGMC suspended prescription for Mr. Zeno as a joint tortfeasor.

    The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision, dismissing Ms. Crocker’s claims against Mr. Zeno due to prescription. The court determined that BRGMC and Mr. Zeno were not joint tortfeasors, as their alleged negligent acts did not occur contemporaneously and they owed different duties to Jerry.

    Understanding Joint Tortfeasors and Prescription:

    • Joint Tortfeasors: In Louisiana, joint tortfeasors are individuals whose combined actions cause harm to another. When one joint tortfeasor is sued within the prescriptive period, it can interrupt prescription for all joint tortfeasors.
    • Prescription: In personal injury and wrongful death cases, Louisiana has a one-year prescription period. If a lawsuit is not filed within this timeframe, the claim is generally barred.
    • Medical Malpractice and the LMMA: The Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (LMMA) governs claims against healthcare providers. It requires a medical review panel’s evaluation before a lawsuit can be filed, which can suspend prescription against healthcare providers but not necessarily against other parties.

    Case Implications

    This case illustrates that even when multiple parties contribute to an injury, they might not be considered joint tortfeasors for prescription purposes. The court’s emphasis on the timing and nature of the alleged negligent acts underscores the importance of carefully analyzing each party’s role in the incident.

    Key Takeaways

    • Timely Filing is Crucial: Strict adherence to prescription deadlines is vital in Louisiana. Failing to file a lawsuit within the one-year period can permanently bar your claim.
    • Joint Tortfeasor Rule: The joint tortfeasor rule can interrupt prescription for all parties involved, but only if their actions are sufficiently connected in time and causation.
    • Seek Legal Advice: Navigating the complexities of prescription and the LMMA can be challenging. If you believe you have a claim, it’s crucial to consult with an experienced attorney as soon as possible.

    Additional Sources:RIDDER WILLIAMS CROCKER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF HER DECEASED SON, JERRY LEE SHEPARD VERSUS BATON ROUGE GENERAL MEDICAL CENTER — MID CITY AND ITS STAFF, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO oa THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH UNIT, WILLIAM T. ELLIOT, MD, AND JOSEPH THOMAS, JR, MD

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Prescription Issues: Prescription Important in Lawsuit Tied to Truck Fire and The Clock is Ticking: Understanding Prescription in Louisiana Personal Injury Cases

  • Work-Related Knee Injury Leads to Multiple Compensable Injuries: Louisiana Court’s Ruling

    A recent ruling by the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal in Rodney Loar v. LUBA Worker’s Comp Terminix Service Company, Inc. highlights the complex nature of workers’ compensation claims and the challenges in determining which subsequent injuries are compensable.

    Rodney Loar, a technician for Terminix, injured his right knee and head in a work-related accident in 2011. He underwent multiple surgeries, including a total knee replacement. Subsequently, he experienced instability in his right knee, leading to falls and injuries to his left knee, left shoulder, right hip, and lower back.

    Critical Issues in the Case:

    • Compensability of Subsequent Injuries: The primary issue was whether Loar’s subsequent injuries directly resulted from his initial work-related knee injury.
    • Medical Expenses and Penalties: The court also examined the denial of medical treatment for Loar’s subsequent injuries and the imposition of penalties and attorney’s fees on Terminix.

    The Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s (WCJ) ruling. It upheld the WCJ’s findings that Loar’s injuries to his left knee, right hip, and lower back were compensable as they were a foreseeable consequence of the instability in his right knee caused by the initial work accident.

    However, the court overturned the WCJ’s finding that Loar’s left shoulder injury was compensable. The evidence did not sufficiently support the claim that the shoulder injury was directly related to the work-related knee injury.

    Furthermore, the court reversed the WCJ’s award of penalties and attorney’s fees to Loar. It found that Terminix had reasonably controverted the claims, as the causal connection between the initial injury and subsequent injuries was not always clear.

    Things to Know:

    • Causation is Key: Proving a causal link between the initial work-related injury and subsequent injuries is critical for obtaining compensation in workers’ compensation cases.
    • Medical Evidence Matters: Thorough medical documentation and expert opinions are essential in establishing the connection between injuries and the initial accident.
    • Reasonable Controversy: Employers and insurers have the right to reasonably controvert claims when there is a legitimate dispute about the compensability of injuries.
    • Appellate Review: The Court of Appeal reviews workers’ compensation cases under a manifest error or clearly wrong standard, giving deference to the WCJ’s factual findings unless they are unsupported by the evidence.

    This case demonstrates the complexities involved in workers’ compensation claims, especially when subsequent injuries arise. It emphasizes the importance of clear medical evidence and the need for employers and insurers to thoroughly investigate before denying benefits.

    Additional Sources: Rodney Loar v. LUBA Worker’s Comp Terminix Service Company, Inc.

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Worker’s Compensation Issues: Work Injury and Mental Health: When Does Workers’ Comp Cover Psychological Impacts? and Louisiana Court Reverses Dismissal of Workers’ Compensation Claim: Understanding the Importance of Continuing Jurisdiction

  • Procedural Hurdle Stalls Hotel Guest Lawsuit Appeal in Louisiana

    In a recent case, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, dismissed an appeal involving a lawsuit against the Bourbon Orleans Hotel. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case but on a procedural technicality: the lack of a final appealable judgment.

    In 2014, a group of hotel guests filed a lawsuit against the Bourbon Orleans Hotel, alleging they were victims of a robbery and assault in their room. They claimed the hotel failed to provide adequate security. The hotel sought summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs lacked evidence to support their claims. The district court granted the hotel’s motion.

    The plaintiffs appealed the district court’s ruling. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal without prejudice, focusing on the wording of the district court’s judgment. The judgment lacked specific “decretal language,” clearly stating the parties involved, the ruling, and the relief granted or denied.

    The Importance of Decretal Language:

    A judgment must be clear and self-contained, allowing anyone to understand its implications without referencing external documents. Decretal language, starting with the phrase “It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that…,” is crucial in achieving this clarity.

    The dismissal without prejudice means the plaintiffs can refile their appeal once the district court issues a proper final judgment with the necessary decretal language. This procedural setback delays the case’s resolution but doesn’t prevent the plaintiffs from pursuing their claims.

    Takeaways:

    • Procedural Precision Matters: Even in complex legal battles, adherence to procedural rules is paramount. Seemingly minor errors in judgment wording can have significant consequences.
    • Finality of Judgments: Appellate courts must have a final appealable judgment to exercise their jurisdiction. Without it, appeals can be dismissed, leading to delays and additional legal costs.
    • Attention to Detail: This case highlights the importance of meticulous attention to detail in legal drafting. The absence of specific decretal language in the district court’s judgment prevented the Court of Appeal from addressing the case’s merits.

    While the legal dispute between the hotel guests and the Bourbon Orleans Hotel remains unresolved, this case is a stark reminder of the importance of procedural accuracy in the legal system.

    Additional Sources: NORRIS “MICKEY” DEARMON, SHAWN RIVERS, JOHN ROPER, II, SHAWN WHITE AND DAVID BEXLAY VERSUS ST. ANN LODGING, L.L.C., D/B/A BOURBON ORLEANS HOTEL AND QBE NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE GROUP

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Decretal Language in Judgments: What is Decretal Language, and Why is it Important? and Judgment In Lawsuit From Garage Sale Injury Lacked Necessary Decretal Language

  • Work Injury and Mental Health: When Does Workers’ Comp Cover Psychological Impacts?

    In the realm of workers’ compensation, the interplay between physical injuries and mental health can be complex. A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision highlights the challenges faced by workers seeking compensation for mental health conditions arising from workplace injuries. The case involved a police officer who developed psychological issues after a back injury, and the court’s ruling underscores the high standard of proof required for such claims.

    Bea Angelle, a police officer, sustained a back injury while on duty. She received temporary total disability benefits (TTDs) from her employer, the City of Kaplan Police Department. Later, these benefits were converted to supplemental earnings benefits (SEBs), which are paid when an employee can return to work but earns less due to their injury.

    However, the City of Kaplan terminated Angelle’s SEBs based on a vocational rehabilitation consultant’s assessment that she could return to some form of employment. Angelle disputed this decision, arguing her psychological condition, stemming from her physical injury, prevented her from working.

    The trial court denied Angelle’s request for SEBs, and the Court of Appeal affirmed this ruling. The court emphasized the strict requirements for proving a mental injury caused by a physical injury under Louisiana workers’ compensation law. It concluded that Angelle failed to meet the “clear and convincing evidence” standard needed to establish this causal link.

    Key Takeaways:

    • Mental Injury Caused by Physical Injury: In Louisiana, mental injuries resulting from physical work injuries are compensable only if proven by “clear and convincing evidence,” a higher standard than the typical “preponderance of the evidence” in civil cases.
    • Diagnosis and Criteria: The mental injury must be diagnosed by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist, and the diagnosis must meet the criteria in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
    • Challenges in Proving Causation: The court emphasized the difficulty of proving a mental injury is directly caused by a physical injury, given the potential for subjective symptoms and the complexity of mental health conditions.
    • Importance of Documentation and Communication: Angelle’s case was weakened by the fact that she didn’t disclose her ongoing psychological treatment to her employer or the vocational rehabilitation consultant. This lack of communication made it difficult to establish a clear link between her mental health and the work injury.

    Implications for Injured Workers

    This case highlights the challenges faced by workers seeking compensation for mental health conditions stemming from workplace injuries. It underscores the importance of:

    • Seeking Professional Help: If you’re experiencing psychological difficulties after a work injury, seek treatment from a licensed mental health professional.
    • Documenting Your Condition: Keep detailed records of your treatment, including diagnoses and any connection to your physical injury.
    • Communicating with Your Employer and Insurer: Inform them of any mental health treatment you’re receiving related to your work injury.
    • Consulting an Attorney: Navigating the complexities of workers’ compensation law can be overwhelming. An experienced attorney can help you understand your rights, gather evidence, and advocate for your claim.

    Additional Sources: BEA ANGELLE VERSUS CITY OF KAPLAN-KAPLAN POLICE DEPARTMENT 

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Workers Compensation: When Is An Employee Entitled To Select A Physician For A Workers’ Compensation Claim? and Are Mental Injuries Covered By Workers’ Compensation?

  • Slipping in Stores: When Does the Store’s Responsibility Kick In?

    We’ve all heard the phrase “slip and fall,” often in a comedic context. However, slip-and-fall accidents can result in severe injuries and legal battles. The recent Louisiana Court of Appeal case of Barton v. Walmart highlights the complexities of such cases and what it takes to prove a merchant’s liability.

    In 2016, Douglas Barton was shopping at a Walmart store in Alexandria, Louisiana, during a rainy day. As he entered the store, he slipped on a wet spot on the floor, fell, and sustained injuries. He sued Walmart, claiming they were negligent in maintaining a safe environment for their customers.

    Walmart denied liability, arguing that they had no knowledge of the wet spot and that it likely occurred moments before Barton entered the store due to the wind blowing rain inside. They presented evidence of an inspection conducted earlier that morning, which had not noted any hazards.

    Barton countered, arguing that the inspection was inadequate and that the wetness, which he believed to be condensation, had likely been there for a while. He pointed out that he had been in the area for some time and hadn’t seen anyone else slip or create the wet spot. He asserted that Walmart had “constructive notice” of the hazard—meaning they should have known about it.

    The trial court initially ruled in favor of Walmart, granting them summary judgment and dismissing Barton’s case. However, the Court of Appeal reversed that decision.

    The appeals court focused on the issue of “constructive notice,” a legal concept that holds a merchant liable if a hazard existed for a long enough time that they should have reasonably discovered and addressed it. The court found that Barton had presented enough evidence to raise a genuine question about how long the wet spot had been on the floor.

    The specific evidence the court pointed to was:

    • The moisture was present before Barton fell.
    • Barton was in the area for a while and didn’t see anyone else there.
    • The moisture wasn’t near any products that could have recently spilled.

    Because Barton presented this evidence, the appeals court decided a jury should determine whether Walmart had constructive notice of the hazard and was liable for Barton’s injuries.

    Things to Remember: 

    • In slip-and-fall cases, the injured party is required to prove the merchant was negligent. This usually means showing that the merchant created the hazard, knew about it, or should have known about it.
    • Even if a merchant didn’t directly create a hazard or know about it, they can still be liable if it existed for a long enough time that they should have discovered and addressed it.
    • The outcome of these cases often hinges on evidence about how long the hazard existed, any witnesses, and the store’s policies and procedures for inspections and maintenance.

    Slip and fall cases can be complex. If you’ve been injured in a slip and fall accident, it’s essential to consult with an experienced personal injury attorney to understand your rights and options. They can help you gather evidence, build a strong case, and fight for the compensation you deserve.

    Remember, the law is on your side if you can prove the merchant’s negligence. Don’t let a slip-and-fall accident leave you with lasting physical and financial burdens.

    Additional Sources: DOUGLAS W. BARTON VERSUS WAL-MART STORES, INC. 

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Blog Articles on Slip and Fall Lawsuits in Louisiana: When Are Stairs An Unreasonably Unsafe Condition? and When a Slip and Fall Isn’t Just an Accident: Understanding Merchant Liability

  • Louisiana Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Case: The Importance of Expert Testimony

    A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision has underscored the significance of expert testimony in medical malpractice cases. The case, Mariakis v. North Oaks Health System, involved a wrongful death lawsuit alleging that the hospital failed to provide adequate care, leading to the patient’s death. The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the hospital, but the Court of Appeal reversed this decision, highlighting the necessity of expert evidence to resolve complex medical malpractice claims.

    Lori Mariakis presented to the emergency department at North Oaks Hospital with severe abdominal and vaginal pain. She was diagnosed with a colitis flare-up and discharged. Five days later, she returned with worsening symptoms and was diagnosed with constipation. However, her condition deteriorated, and she was admitted to another hospital, where she tragically passed away.

    Her sons sued North Oaks Health System, alleging that the hospital’s negligence in diagnosing and treating their mother led to her death. The medical review panel initially found no evidence of malpractice. However, the plaintiffs presented an expert witness, Dr. Robert V. West, who opined that the care provided by North Oaks fell below the applicable medical standard of care and caused Ms. Mariakis’s death.

    After initially excluding the testimony of the plaintiffs’ first expert witness, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of North Oaks, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked expert evidence to support their claims. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.

    The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, focusing on the importance of expert testimony in medical malpractice cases. It held that the plaintiff’s expert witness affidavit and subsequent report were sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the standard of care and causation, thereby precluding summary judgment.

    Things to Know: 

    • Expert Testimony is Crucial: In medical malpractice cases, expert medical testimony is generally required to establish the standard of care, breach of that standard, and causation.
    • Summary Judgment and Expert Evidence: When a defendant in a medical malpractice case moves for summary judgment based on the plaintiff’s lack of expert testimony, the plaintiff must present competent expert evidence to counter the motion and demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact.
    • Admissibility of Expert Evidence: The court also addressed the admissibility of expert evidence, emphasizing the need for proper authentication and compliance with procedural rules.

    Implications for Patients and Medical Providers

    The Mariakis decision highlights the challenges of navigating medical malpractice litigation in Louisiana. For patients and their families, it underscores the critical importance of securing qualified expert witnesses to support their claims. Expert testimony can be the deciding factor in establishing a healthcare provider’s negligence and its causal link to the patient’s injuries or death.

    For medical providers, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to the standard of care and documenting their actions thoroughly. Even if a medical review panel initially finds no evidence of malpractice, a plaintiff can still prevail in court if they present compelling expert testimony.

    The Mariakis case illustrates the complexities of medical malpractice litigation and the critical role of expert witnesses. Whether you’re a patient seeking justice for medical negligence or a healthcare provider defending your actions, seeking legal counsel from an experienced medical malpractice attorney is crucial. They can help you understand the legal standards, gather and present expert evidence, and navigate the complexities of the litigation process.

    Additional Resources:CHRISTOPHER CHARLES MARIAKIS AND MICHAEL ANDREW MARIAKIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF LORI HALE MARIAKIS VERSUS NORTH OAKS HEALTH SYSTEM

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Expert Testimony: Louisiana Court Reinstates Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Case: The Importance of Timely Expert Evidence and The Role of Expert Witnesses in Accident Claims: Resolving Conflicting Testimony

  • Hotel Not Liable for Pool Injury: Understanding Premises Liability and the “Res Ipsa Loquitur” Doctrine in Louisiana

    A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal ruling underscores the complexities of premises liability cases and the challenges plaintiffs face in proving negligence when accidents occur on someone else’s property. The case, Krueger v. La Quinta Inn & Suites, involved a guest who suffered a foot injury due to broken glass in the hotel pool. While the injury was unfortunate, the court ultimately sided with the hotel, highlighting the necessity of establishing the property owner’s knowledge of the hazard.

    Casey Krueger and his family were staying at a La Quinta Inn & Suites in Baton Rouge when he cut his foot on broken glass in the pool. Although the jury acknowledged there was a defect on the premises, they found the hotel not liable because they didn’t have actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard.

    Krueger appealed, arguing that the hotel should have known about the broken glass and that the doctrine of “res ipsa loquitur” should apply, allowing negligence to be inferred from the circumstances of the injury.

    The Court of Appeal upheld the jury’s verdict, focusing on two key aspects:

    1. Constructive Knowledge: In premises liability cases, property owners are generally only liable for injuries caused by hazards they knew about or should have known about through reasonable care. The court found no evidence that the hotel had actual knowledge of the broken glass. It also determined that the hotel’s regular pool inspections and policies prohibiting glass containers were sufficient to demonstrate reasonable care.

    2. Res Ipsa Loquitur: This Latin phrase, meaning “the thing speaks for itself,” allows negligence to be inferred in certain situations where the injury wouldn’t have occurred without someone’s negligence. However, the court rejected its application in this case, stating that it was equally possible a third party, not the hotel, was responsible for the broken glass in the pool.

    The Krueger case offers several important lessons:

    • Burden of Proof in Premises Liability: It’s not enough to show that an injury occurred on someone’s property. The injured party must prove that the property owner knew or should have known about the hazard and failed to take reasonable steps to address it.
    • Constructive Knowledge: Property owners have a duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining their premises and discovering potential dangers. This includes regular inspections and taking prompt action to address any hazards.
    • Res Ipsa Loquitur is Limited: This doctrine is not a catch-all for proving negligence. It only applies in specific situations where the circumstances clearly point to the defendant’s negligence and other potential causes are unlikely.

    Practical Implications for Hotel Guests and Businesses

    • For Guests: If you’re injured at a hotel, promptly report the incident and seek medical attention. Document the scene, including any hazards that may have contributed to your injury. This evidence can be crucial in establishing the hotel’s liability.
    • For Hotels: Implement and maintain a robust safety and inspection program. Regularly inspect your premises, including pools and other common areas, for potential hazards. Address any issues promptly and thoroughly.

    If you’ve been injured due to a hazard on someone else’s property, consulting with an experienced personal injury attorney is critical. They can help you assess the strength of your case, gather evidence, and navigate the legal complexities of premises liability law.

    Additional Resources: CASEY KRUEGER VERSUS LA QUINTA INN & SUITES, BATON ROUGE, LQ MANAGEMENT, L.L.C. AND RONALD BYLAND

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Res Ipsa Loquitor: Injured Taxi Driver Fails to Recover in Claim Based on Res Ipsa Loquitor and What is Res Ipsa Loquitor?