gets.primecure.net

Blog

  • Tutrix Was Proper Party To Bring Legal Malpractice Claim On Behalf of Minor

    A minor is generally unable to bring a lawsuit on their behalf. As seen in the following case, this can lead to disputes about who the proper party is to bring a lawsuit for the minor. 

    Shannon Jones and Jennifer Brunelle filed a lawsuit against healthcare providers, the manufacturers of a device used in surgery, and loss of consortium claims for their daughter, Haley Jones. They retained an attorney, Gary Roth, to represent them. They settled the medical malpractice claim against one of the defendants. Brunelle received letters appointing her as natural tutrix for their minor daughter, Haley Jones. They then filed a petition in the medical malpractice lawsuit to approve the settlement, which the court granted. 

    Brunelle then discharged Roth as her attorney and retained attorneys at the Gainsburgh firm. With the new representation, they settled with the medical device manufacturer. The settlement was not finalized until months later. Brunelle claimed her attorneys had committed legal malpractice while negotiating the settlement agreement and caused delays in finalizing it. After extensive disputes related to the underlying facts in the case, the trial court eventually granted the Roth defendants summary judgment motion. It dismissed Brunelle’s legal malpractice claims against the Roth attorneys. Brunelle appealed, claiming the trial court erred in dismissing her claims. 

    On appeal, the trial court considered whether there was an attorney-client relationship between the Roth defendants and Haley Jones. Brunelle argued the fact Haley lacked capacity was irrelevant to determining whether Haley and the Roth defendants had an attorney-client relationship. She claimed Haley’s father entered a contract with the Roth defendants for himself and on Haley’s behalf. Therefore, Brunelle argued the Roth defendants owed an independent duty to Haley. The Roth defendants countered any breach of their duty to Haley depended on their attorney-client relationship with her father. 

    To succeed in a legal malpractice claim, the plaintiff must establish that an attorney-client relationship was in effect when the alleged malpractice occurred. See Vagelos v. Abramson. There must be a clear and express agreement between an attorney and the client for an attorney-client relationship to exist. See Weinstein v. Weinstein. 

    Haley’s father had to enter an agreement with the Roth attorneys because Haley was a minor. There was no dispute Haley’s father had entered this agreement. However, Brunelle discharged the Roth attorneys two years before the alleged malpractice occurred and hired different attorneys. Nonetheless, because the contract was intended to benefit Haley’s interests, the Roth attorneys had a duty not only to Haley’s father but also to Haley herself. Therefore, Haley could bring a legal malpractice claim against the Roth attorneys. 

    While the Roth attorneys argued only her father was entitled to bring a legal malpractice claim against them on Haley’s behalf, the appellate court disagreed. The court explained this could make it so a minor who subsequently becomes an adult could not bring a legal malpractice claim if his or her parents refused. Under La. C.C.P. art. 683(C), Brunelle was the proper party to bring the legal malpractice lawsuit on Haley’s behalf because she was Haley’s co-tutrix. Next, the court had to consider whether the legal malpractice claim had merit. 

    Brunelle alleged the Roth defendants were negligent in failing to obtain informed consent from Haley to enter the $8.25 million settlement, failing to disclose before settlement how the settlement funds would be allocated, and failing to take action to enforce the settlement. 

    The appellate court explained because Haley was a minor at the time of the settlement, she lacked the capacity to consent to the settlement. See La. C.C. art. 1918. Therefore, the Roth attorneys did not have a duty to communicate with Haley directly. Instead, it was sufficient to only communicate with her parents. 

    Haley’s father provided an affidavit that stated at the time of the settlement, the Roth attorneys informed him about the potential settlement and how funds would be litigated. Brunelle did not provide any evidence that contradicted Haley’s father’s affidavit. The appellate court also explained the attorneys did not have a duty to inform their clients on the specifics of how the settlement funds would be allocated. 

    Concerning Brunelle’s claim that the Roth attorneys failed to enforce the settlement, which resulted in interest being lost on the settlement funds, the court focused on who caused the delay in finalizing the settlement. Written letters indicated Brunelle had rejected the settlement. Further, Haley’s father had to file a motion to enforce the settlement, requesting the court order Brunelle to sign the documentation required to finalize the settlement. Brunelle did not present any evidence that there were other reasons why it took so long to finalize the settlement besides her delay in refusing to sign the required documentation. 

    Therefore, because of the lack of evidence the attorneys had breached a duty to Haley or caused a delay in executing the settlement, the appellate court agreed with the trial court’s dismissal of Brunelle’s legal malpractice claims. Therefore, even though Brunelle was the proper party to bring Haley’s legal malpractice claim, she could still not prevail because the claim lacked merits.

    This case highlights the complexities that arise when a minor is involved in a lawsuit. Due to Haley’s minority, she could not bring the legal malpractice claim on her own, leading to disputes about who the proper party should be. The appellate court clarified that Brunelle, as co-tutrix for Haley, had the authority to pursue the claim on her behalf. However, despite the proper representation, the court ultimately dismissed Brunelle’s legal malpractice claims against the Roth attorneys, finding a lack of evidence to support the alleged breaches of duty or delays in the settlement process. This case underscores the importance of establishing an attorney-client relationship and presenting substantial evidence when pursuing legal malpractice claims, especially when minors are involved.

    Additional Sources: Shannon Jones and Jennifer Jones, Individually and on Behalf of their Daughter, Haley Jones v. ABC Ins. Co. and Cobe Cardiovascular, Inc., et al

    Article Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Lawsuits Involving Minors: Parents File Suit When Minor Child Suffers as a Result of Physician’s Failure to Test Brother

  • Louisiana Court Holds Mortgage Without Legal Description Of Property Invalid

    The world of mortgages can be daunting, especially when it involves your most significant asset – your home. This is especially true when there are multiple property owners, or there have been multiple transactions and conveyances of this property. Ensuring the validity of a mortgage is paramount, and as the following case demonstrates, strict requirements must be met to safeguard property owners’ rights. It also helps answer the question; What happens if a mortgage is recorded without a legal description of the property?

    Marjorie Porter received full ownership of a property as part of her divorce settlement with her ex-husband. Decades later, Porter allegedly made an act of donation of half of the property to her daughter, Sandie Parkman. Porter allegedly executed a mortgage on the jointly owned property. A few days after the mortgage was signed, Parkman attempted to donate her interest to her mother. However, her mother never accepted the donation and subsequently died. 

    Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC then filed a lawsuit to recognize the validity of the mortgage Porter had executed. Ocwen named Parkman as a defendant as well as Porter’s succession. Parkman argued Ocwen did not have a cause of action because there was no valid mortgage. She claimed the mortgage was partly invalid because it did not include a legal description of the at-issue property in the document recording the mortgage. The trial court denied Parkman’s motion. Parkman appealed. 

    On appeal, Parkman argued the trial court erred in denying her motion because Ocwen did not provide sufficient evidence to sustain that the mortgage was valid. The appellate court reviewed the copy of the mortgage attached to the petition. It agreed with Parkman’s argument that the mortgage did not include a legal property description. Instead, the mortgage document only included the property’s municipal address. 

    Under La. C.C. art. 3288, a mortgage contract must precisely state the nature and situation of the applicable property. Ocwen argued the municipal address was sufficient to have a valid mortgage. The appellate court found Ocwen’s failure to include the property’s legal description in the mortgage prevented it from being able to pursue a judgment that the mortgage was valid. Although Ocwen attempted to fix the defect years later by filing an Act of Deposit, its action was untimely and insufficient, and the court could not consider it under La. C.C.P. art. 931 in determining whether there was a valid cause of action. 

    The appellate court found Ocwen had not stated a cause of action because, without a legal description of the property, the mortgage was invalid on its face. Therefore, it held the trial court had erred in denying Parkman’s motion. However, the appellate court held that Ocwen should be allowed to amend its petition to set forth a cause of action. 

    This case serves as a reminder of the complexities surrounding mortgage validity, especially when essential elements like a legal property description are at stake. As demonstrated, even small omissions can have significant consequences, potentially rendering a mortgage invalid and leading to legal disputes. When dealing with mortgage-related concerns or transactions, it is essential to consult with a qualified attorney who can meticulously review the documentation to ensure compliance with all legal requirements. An attorney’s guidance can provide valuable insights and protection for property owners, ensuring their rights are upheld and their interests safeguarded in the complex world of mortgages.

    Additional Sources: Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. The Unopened Succession of Marjorie Porter and Sandie Parkman

    Article Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Mortgages: Appeal Denied in Suit Involving Mortgage Superior to Homeowners’ Association Dues

  • Louisiana Appellate Court Cannot Review Merits Of Case Without Final Valid Judgment

    Mistakes are inevitable in human experiences, but some mistakes can have significant legal consequences. Just like regular folks, courts are infallible and make mistakes as well. What happens when a court fails to include all required information in a judgment? Such a failure creates confusion and can impede the appeals process and delay justice for the parties involved, as seen in the following case.

    Unfortunately, a house fire occurred at the home where Thomas Bayer and Laura Kelley resided. The fire resulted from a gas explosion that occurred while employees of Cimarron Underground were working on a gas meter on the property. They cut a gas line, resulting in a fire. As a result of the fire, Bayer and Kelly had to vacate their property for several weeks while the house underwent repairs. 

    Bayer and Kelly filed a lawsuit against Cimarron Underground, their insurance company Starr Indemnity & Liability, and others, claiming the defendant’s negligence caused the fire and resulting injuries and inconvenience. Cimarron Underground filed a summary judgment motion. The trial court held a hearing, where it orally granted Cimarron Underground’s summary judgment motion. 

    However, the trial court’s written judgment stated that it was denying Bayer’s summary judgment motion. The trial court subsequently signed an order setting aside its written motion, noting it mistakenly said plaintiffs instead of defendants and indicated a judgment opposite of its oral ruling. The trial court also issued an amended judgment to correct the errors in its original judgment. Bayer then filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied. Bayer then appealed. 

    On appeal, the court first had to consider whether there was a valid final judgment such that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. To be valid, a judgment must be precise, definite, and certain and must explicitly indicate the outcome. See Urquhart v. Spencer. Specifically, the final judgment must: (1) name the party in whose favor the court ruled; (2) name the party against whom the court ruled; and (3) specifically state the relief granted or denied. See Freeman v. Phillips 66 Co.

    The trial court’s judgment did not specifically identify the defendants in whom favor it was granting summary judgment. The judgment also did not state the specific relief it was granting. For example, the judgment did not specifically state which claims or issues were being disposed of. Therefore, there was no valid final judgment, so the appellate court did not have jurisdiction to review the case on its merits. 

    The appellate court noted in some situations where the judgment on appeal is not final and appealable, it has converted the appeal to an application for supervisory writs. However, the appellate court declined to do so here. Therefore, the appellate court dismissed the appeal and sent it back to the trial court until there was a final appealable judgment. 

    This case highlights the vital importance of precision and completeness in court judgments. A failure to include all required information creates confusion and can impede the appeals process and delay justice for the parties involved. When engaged in a lawsuit, seeking the guidance of a skilled attorney becomes crucial to ensure that any proposed final judgment meets the requirements to be considered valid and appealable. Legal professionals can play a pivotal role in safeguarding your rights and interests, navigating the complexities of the legal system, and striving for a just and conclusive resolution.

    Additional Sources: Thomas D. Bayer and Laura D. Kelley v. Starr International Co., et al.

    Article Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Final Judgments: Trial Courts Must Use Clear, Definite Language For a Final Judgment to be Valid and Appealable

  • Workers’ Compensation Settlements: Protecting Your Social Security Benefits and Rights

    Settling a lawsuit can have many far-reaching effects. Not only will it result in the dismissal of your lawsuit, but it could also affect things such as your social security benefits. Therefore, it is important that you consult with an attorney and carefully consider if a settlement is in your best interest. Additionally, as seen in this case, if you accept a settlement offer, you must ensure the related court order includes all required aspects so you do not have to deal with unintended consequences. 

    Kenneth Clark and his employer, Walgreens, reached a settlement related to Clark’s workers’ compensation claim. A workers’ compensation judge approved the settlement and entered a judgment dismissing the claim. Clark then petitioned the workers’ compensation judge to amend the judgment to include language to divide the indemnity part of his settlement across his lifetime. This proposed amendment would not change the total amount of the settlement. Clark wanted this amendment so the Social Security Administration could pro-rate the settlement so it could calculate the required disability offset. Walgreens objected to this amendment. After a hearing, a workers’ compensation judge entered an amended order reflecting Clark’s requested language. Walgreens appealed. 

    On appeal, Walgreen argued the trial court did not have jurisdiction to amend the initial order approving Clark’s settlement with Walgreens. La. R.S. 23:1272 governs the settlement of workers’ compensation claims. This statute has many safeguards for preventing an employee from being pressured to improperly settle his or her claim. Courts are to liberally construe workers’ compensation law in favor of workers to protect them from the burden of workplace injuries. 

    Clark subsequently requested the court amend the initial order of approval because his counsel had not advised him to request language related to the indemnity portion of the settlement, which the Social Security Administration requires. Under La. C.C.P art. 1951, a judgment can be amended to alter the phrasing if it does not alter the judgment’s substance. Here, the purpose of amending the judgment was to include the language the Social Security Administration required. The amendment did not affect Clark’s or Walgreens’ rights or obligations and did not add anything substantive to the order. The added language would assist the Social Security Administration in determining its offset from Clark’s settlement.  Because the amendment just changed the phraseology and not the substance of the order, the appellate court disagreed with Walgreens’ argument the court did not have jurisdiction to amend the initial order.

    As seen here, many unique requirements exist for settling a workers’ compensation claim. If you are involved in a workers’ compensation dispute, it is important to consult with a good attorney who can advise you on possible paths forward. It is especially important to consult with an attorney if you are considering a possible settlement of your workers’ compensation claim. A good attorney can help review the settlement and associated court order to ensure it is in your best interest and contains all required aspects. 

    Additional Sources: Kenneth Clark v. Sedgwick CMS, et al.

    Article Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Amended Judgments: A Louisiana Court Signs Two Final Judgments, What Happens?

  • Can A Sexual Harassment Claim Succeed Where Boss Instructs Employee To Date A Prospective Client?

    When you think about sexual harassment claims, the first thing that likely comes to mind is a superior harassing another employee. However, what happens if the superior instructs another employee to date a prospective client? 

    Tyanne Davenport was hired to be the administrator at an Edward Jones Office. On multiple occasions, the office owner insulted, shouted at, and used profanity to describe Davenport. The owner’s comments eventually became sexual in nature. When the owner learned a wealthy prospective client wanted to date Davenport, the owner told Davenport to date the prospective client to receive a big bonus. Davenport said she already had a boyfriend and was not interested in dating the prospective client. The owner told her this about three additional times within the next month. One of the financial advisors made a comment about Davenport sending the prospective client some nude photos, which embarrassed and offended Davenport. Davenport never dated the prospective client. 

    Davenport reported the incident with the comment about nude photos to the district manager, who forwarded the complaint to an associate relations representative. Davenport filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Although she referenced the incident involving comments about nude photos, she did not reference the manager’s offers to pay her a big bonus if she dated the prospective client. Over the next few months, Davenport met with a therapist who advised the company Davenport should not go back to the same office because of trauma from the incidents. She requested a transfer to another office, which was denied. Davenport eventually resigned. 

    After she resigned, Edward Jones sent her letters about possible employment options, including transferring to a different branch or looking into other positions. Davenport turned down these offers and went to work for another company. The EEOC then gave her a right-to-sue notice. She filed a lawsuit, alleging quid pro quo and hostile work environment sexual harassment claims under Title VII and related state law claims. Edward Jones filed a summary judgment motion, which the trial court granted in full. Davenport appealed the constructive discharge and bonus-based quid pro quo claims. 

    On appeal, Davenport first argued the trial court erred in dismissing her constructive discharge quid pro quo claim because she was constructively discharged after refusing to date the prospective client. Edward Jones argued she had not exhausted her administrative remedies and could not provide evidence to establish a reasonable person would have felt the need to resign because of the work conditions. Here, Davenport did not allege anything suggesting she had suffered such severe harassment a reasonable person would have felt the need to resign. She only alleged other employees had discussed nude photos in front of her. She did not link this incident to her decision to resign from Edward Jones. Therefore, the appellate court agreed the trial court had properly dismissed her constructive discharge quid pro quo claim.

    Davenport also argued the trial court erred in dismissing her bonus-based quid pro quo claim because the owner promised her a “big bonus” if she dated the wealthy prospective client. The appellate court agreed denial of a bonus could be a tangible employment action for quid pro quo claims. See Russell v. Principi. Although Davenport claimed to have been promised a bonus, she did not provide sufficient evidence that such a bonus was available or that she was eligible for and denied such a bonus. Therefore, the appellate court also agreed the trial court properly dismissed Davenport’s bonus-based quid pro quo claim. 

    As Davenport learned here, it is essential to provide sufficient evidence to succeed in a sexual harassment case. If you feel like you are dealing with sexual harassment at work, it is essential to consult with a good attorney who can advise you on a potential lawsuit. 

    Additional Sources: Tyanne Davenport v. Edward D. Jones & Co. 

    Article Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Title VII Claims: Unveiling the Shield: Understanding Retaliation Protections and Discrimination Claims under Title VII

  • Harvey Man Denied Damages For Truck Falling On Foot, Importance of Proof in Lawsuits

    If part of a car falls on you at a vehicle yard, you should be able to recover damages for your injuries from the yard owner. However, if you do not provide sufficient evidence, you will likely be unable to recover for your injuries.

    While Rico Lee was a customer at a Pull-A-Part vehicle yard in Harvey, Louisiana, he was injured when the rear of a pickup propped up on rims fell on his foot. He filed a lawsuit against Pull-A-Part and their insurer, claiming he was injured when the pick-up truck in Pull-A-Part’s control and control fell on his foot, injuring him. At trial, the jury found Pull-A-Part was not negligent. Lee appealed.

    On appeal, Lee argued the jury erred in finding in favor of Pull-A-Part, and the trial court erred by not instructing the jury about res ispa loquitor. Res ispa loquitor is a legal doctrine that allows a court to find negligence by the mere fact that the accident occurred by using circumstantial (not direct) evidence. See Cangelosi v. Our Lady of the Lake Reg’l Med. Ctr. Here, La. C.C. art. 2317.1 required Lee to show the truck was in Pull-A-Part’s custody or control; it had a defect that resulted in an unreasonable risk of harm, Pull-A-Part knew or should have known about this unreasonable risk, and the defect caused his injury. 

    The appellate court explained that Lee did not provide evidence about the truck’s alleged defect at trial. He did not present any photos of the truck or provide testimony about what defect might have caused it to fall on his foot and injure him. Only Lee himself testified about how the accident purportedly occurred. He did not call any of the purported witnesses to testify at trial. In contrast, Pull-A-Part provided testimony about the vehicle yard and the daily safety checks for each vehicle. Their medical expert also testified it was unusual Lee had not crushed a bone or fractured his foot given the type of accident Lee testified had occurred.

    Furthermore, Lee claimed the trial court should have instructed the jury about res ispa loquitor. However, Lee and his attorneys did not object to the jury charges at trial. Additionally, the appellate court reviewed the jury charges and found the trial court had instructed the jury on res ispa loquitor. Therefore, based on its review of the evidence presented at trial, the appellate court held the jury did not err in finding in favor of Pull-A-Part.

    Even with the unusual situation of part of a truck falling on Lee’s foot, he could still not recover from Pull-A-Part because he did not provide sufficient evidence. It would have helped his case if he had provided additional evidence, such as testimony from first-hand witnesses and photographs of the truck. A good lawyer can help you prepare and present evidence to support your claims and maximize your chances of succeeding in your lawsuit. 

    Additional Sources: Rico Lee v. Pull-A-Part of New Orleans West, LLC and XYZ Ins. Co.

    Article Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Personal Injury Liability: Bench and Lawsuit Collapse for Gretna, Louisiana Woman Against Local Flooring Store

    What is Res Ipsa Loquitor?

  • How To Determine Personal and Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Car Accident Lawsuit

    If you’ve been involved in a car accident and are considering filing a lawsuit, it’s essential to be aware of one crucial aspect often overlooked – the appropriate court venue. Venue refers to the location where a lawsuit is filed, and getting it right is crucial for the court to have jurisdiction, granting it the legal authority to issue judgments in the case.

    Cea Tillis was involved in a car accident on Frenchmen Street. He filed a lawsuit against the driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident, Jamal McNeil, and his insurance company (the defendants) in the Second Parish Court for the Parish of Jefferson. Tillis asserted Jefferson Parish was the proper venue under La. C.C.P art. 74, which allows a lawsuit to be brought in the location where the accident occurred or where the damages were sustained. 

    McNeil countered Jefferson Parish was not the proper court because the accident occurred outside the court’s jurisdiction, and Tillis did not live in the applicable area. The defendants argued the court did not have personal or subject matter jurisdiction and could not enter a judgment in the case. The Second Parish Court eventually transferred the case to the First Parish Court. The First Parish Court ruled in favor of the defendants, finding there was no personal or subject matter jurisdiction. The court then dismissed Tillis’ lawsuit, and he appealed. 

    The appellate court noted the trial court transcript indicated the trial court granted the exceptions of lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction because the accident occurred and Tillis lived in Orleans Parish, which was outside the court’s territorial bounds. However, the appellate court explained these arguments about where the accident occurred and where Tillis lived related to venue, not personal jurisdiction. 

    Here, First Parish Court had personal jurisdiction because a resident of Louisiana properly brought the lawsuit. Therefore, the First Parish Court had personal jurisdiction over the case. The appellate court then considered La C.C.P. art  4847 to determine whether the First Parish Court had subject matter jurisdiction.  La C.C.P. art 4847 establishes limits for the jurisdiction of parish courts. 

    The type of case (a car accident) and amount of damages at issue in the lawsuit were within the statutory limit, so the First Parish Court also had subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the First Parish Court’s grant of the exceptions for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction and reversed the dismissal of Tillis’ claims against McNeil and his insurer. 

    Filing a lawsuit in the proper court is crucial to ensure that the court has jurisdiction to hear and rule on your case. A skilled lawyer can help you navigate the complexities of court jurisdiction, venue selection, and other procedural requirements, ensuring your lawsuit is filed in the appropriate court and giving your case the best chance of success.

    Additional Sources: Cea Tillis v. Jamal McNeil & General Ins. Co. of Am.

    Article Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Venue: Vermilion Parish Car Accident Case Hangs on Thread Over Improper Venue

  • Terminated Employee Not Entitled to Additional Unpaid Wages

    Getting terminated from a job is always a stressful situation. You are likely concerned about how you are going to make ends meet. This is even more true if you believe your former employer has not paid you all the wages you are entitled to. 

    Rick Calamia worked for Core Lab for under a year. He was terminated from his job. He claimed he was owed various unpaid wages, which Core Lab denied. Calamia filed a lawsuit against Core Lab under La. R.S. 23:631 for his purportedly unpaid wages and associated penalties, fees, and costs. Calamia claimed he was owed $1,808.16 for 73.8 hours of work, consisting of 7 hours of time entry pay, 16 hours of holiday pay, 49 hours of PTO, and 3.34 hours of Extended Illness Break hours, as well as 90 days of penalty wages. 

    Core Lab argued Calamia had been paid everything to which he was entitled. One of the witnesses at trial was Cerly Watson, Core Lab’s payroll manager. She testified about the payroll procedure at Core Lab, including the two-week lag between when an employee submits a timecard and when it is reconciled on a pay statement. She testified about Calamia’s pay statements that were at issue in the lawsuit and explained how the discrepancies were later reconciled. At trial, the court ruled in favor of Core Lab and found Calamia was not entitled to additional wages. Calamia appealed.

    Calamia had the burden of proof for his claim for unpaid wages and the associate penalties under La. R.S. 23:631 and La. R.S. 23:632. On appeal, Calamia claimed the trial court erred because his pay statement for pay period two improperly included a deduction of seven hours. The appellate court agreed with the trial court’s finding that Calamia did not provide sufficient proof to support this claim, given Watson’s testimony about Core Lab’s payroll procedure and the lag between submitted timecards and pay statements.

     Watson testified that the seven-hour deduction was because Calamia only had 41 hours of PTO and Extended Illness Break hours, but he had put 48 hours of it on his timesheet for Period 1. Therefore, the seven-hour deduction was to reconcile this issue. Although Calamia claimed he had over 48 hours available, the appellate court did not find the testimony or documentary evidence at trial supported this claim.

    Calamia also claimed the trial court erred in finding he was not owed any holiday pay when he was terminated. Core Lab claimed that Calamia had received the 16 hours of holiday pay to which he was entitled. Watson testified this was because he had not worked on the holidays, so the 80 hours of work on his final paycheck included the 16 hours of holiday pay. The appellate court found no error in the trial court’s agreement with Watson’s testimony and agreed Calamia had been paid for the 16 hours of holiday pay. 

    Calamia argued the trial court erred in holding he was not entitled to any wages for PTO or Extended Illness Break at the time of his termination. Here, the appellate court again agreed with the trial court’s finding Calamia had received all PTO and Extended Illness Break hours to which he was entitled because he was not entitled to accrue those hours while on a leave of absence. Therefore, the appellate court agreed with the trial court’s decision to dismiss Calamia’s claims against Core Lab.

    If you have been terminated from your job and think you have not received all the wages you are entitled to – including benefits such as PTO – a good lawyer can help advise you on possible legal action to receive those wages. 

    Additional Sources: Rick Calamia, JR. V. Core Laboratories LP

    Article Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Unpaid Wages: Seeking Unpaid Wages in Louisiana: Clarifying Petition Requirements for Employees

  • What Constitutes a Violation of a Prisoner’s Constitutional Rights?

    Prisoners, like all individuals, retain their constitutional rights even while incarcerated. However, proving a violation of these rights within the prison system can be challenging, as demonstrated in the following case. This case considers what a prisoner must show to succeed in a lawsuit against a prison supervisor alleging a constitutional violation.

    Kyle Smith Hauenstein was imprisoned at Rapides Parish Detention Center -1 (“RPDC-1”). He filed a lawsuit against the Rapides Parish Sheriff, William Hilton, and the Assistant Warden, Pat Ashley. He alleged Hilton and Ashley violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by delaying providing him adequate medical treatment after his right foot developed an infection. He claimed they were “deliberately indifferent” to his serious medical needs. 

    Sheriff Hilton filed a summary judgment motion, arguing qualified immunity prohibited the Section 1983 claims from being brought against him in his individual capacity. The trial court denied Sheriff Hilton’s summary judgment motion, finding qualified immunity did not prohibit Hauenstein from bringing the Section 1983 claims against Hilton in his individual capacity. Hilton appealed. 

    To overcome Sheriff Hilton’s claim of qualified immunity, Hauenstein had to show a clearly established constitutional right was violated and Hilton’s conduct was objectively unreasonable. See Hare v. City of Corinth. Here, Hauenstein claimed his Eighth Amendment right was violated because he did not receive adequate medical treatment while imprisoned at RPDC-1.

    The appellate court explained Sheriff Hilton could only be held liable for a Section 1983 violation if he knew RPDC-I’s medical system was so deficient that it put prisoners such as Hauenstein at a substantial risk that their serious medical needs would be unmet and he did not properly attempt to correct it. Additionally, because Sheriff Hilton was in a supervisory position, Hauenstein was required to show Hilton affirmatively participated in the at-issue acts that violated his constitutional rights or implemented policies that evidenced deliberate indifference to the prisoners’ medical needs. 

    The trial court denied Sheriff Hilton’s summary judgment motion claiming qualified immunity because of factual issues about whether Hilton had implemented policies. Such issues included that RPDC-I used paramedics from the Coroner’s office to treat prisoners. Because those paramedics were providing medical treatment to prisoners without a physician’s direct supervision, the trial court found there were factual issues about whether Sheriff Hilton could be held individually liable under Section 1983. 

    Sheriff Hilton countered there was no evidence other prisoners had suffered adverse health consequences because of the prison’s medical treatment system. Hilton also pointed to Hauenstein’s deposition testimony as evidence the medical system had worked effectively every time he sought care, besides for when he had an infection in his foot. This included treatments for depression, asthma, and kidney stones, among other issues. For each of those issues, Hauenstein had submitted a form and was treated, usually within 24 hours. Thus, Sheriff Hilton claimed he could not be held liable because there was only evidence of one time when the medical system failed at RPDC-I. Additionally, although the trial court held there were factual disputes about whether Sheriff Hilton failed to train guards at the prison, Hauenstein’s complaint did not include any related allegations. Further, there was no evidence any such failure resulted in Hauenstein’s alleged failure to receive adequate medical care. 

    Therefore, the appellate court found Hauenstein failed to show RPDC-I’s medical system was so deficient that it exposed prisoners to a substantial risk of unmet serious medical needs. Consequently, Hauenstein did not show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. The appellate court found the Section 1983 claims against Sheriff Hilton in his individual capacity should be dismissed. 

    This case serves as a reminder that proving a constitutional violation within a prison setting is complex. While prisoners retain their rights, Section 1983 claims require a meticulous presentation of evidence to establish a clear and actionable violation. A qualified attorney can provide valuable guidance in evaluating the merits of such a lawsuit and ensuring the proper evidence is presented to support the claim.

    Additional Sources: Kyle Smith Hauenstein v. William Hilton

    Article Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Section 1983 Claims: Prisoner Sues Prison For Denial of an Extra Pillow And Mattress

  • Duck Dynasty Prevails In Beverage Dispute Because of Ambiguous Contractual Term

    Even celebrities must deal with the often mundane task of negotiating and signing contracts. Although it can be tempting to sign a contract without reading it in depth or consulting with a lawyer, this case illustrates the importance of understanding every term and condition of a contract because of the complexities that can arise if there are ambiguous terms. 

    Duck Commander Inc. is owned by the Robertson family, who starred in the reality TV show Duck Dynasty. Initially, they made and sold duck calls and other related equipment. However, they ventured into the beverage industry partly because one of the family members, Si Robertson, liked iced tea. Subsequently, Chinook USA (a company that manufactures bottles and sells ready-to-drink beverages) and Duck Commander entered into a Licensing Agreement where Chinook would distribute Duck Commander branded iced tea.

    After Duck Commander signed the agreement with Chinook, Duck Commander signed two other contracts involving beverage sales. The first contract was with Go-Time Energy, where Go-Time Energy had the three-year exclusive right to manufacture, license, and sell Duck Commander-branded energy shots. Duck Commander also agreed with Checkered Flag to sell Duck Commander-branded vitamin water.

    Chinook filed a lawsuit against Duck Commander, its licensing agent, Go-Time, Checkered Flag, and other entities, alleging breach of contract and other claims because it claimed it had an exclusive license to manufacture and sell Duck Commander branded ready-to-drink beverages. The trial court found Duck Commander had not breached the contract by entering into contracts with Go-Time Energy and Checkered Flag. Chinook appealed. 

    The relevant contractual language stated Chinook had the right to sell Duck Commander branded “Iced tea, Ready-to-Drink (RTD) Teas, RTD Beverages.” Under Louisiana law, where contractual terms are clear and explicit, courts cannot consider the party’s intent. See La. C.C. art. 2046. However, here, the appellate court found ready-to-drink beverages were not explicitly defined anywhere in the contract, so it was an ambiguous term because it could be interpreted more than one way. See Nelson v. Nelson. For example, it could be interpreted to cover all beverages ready to consume (including vitamin water and energy shots) or only teas ready to drink.

    Because of this ambiguity in the contract, the appellate court looked at the parties’ testimony about their intent in entering into the contract. Individuals involved in the contract negotiation explained the negotiations predominately focused on tea, with a minor discussion of coffee. Therefore, the appellate court agreed with the trial court’s finding the contract only applied to teas and coffees. As a result, the appellate court agreed Duck Commander had not breached the contract by selling energy shots and vitamin water through Go-Time Energy and Checkered Flag.

    This case illustrates how contracts can be complex to understand and enforce, mainly when ambiguous terms exist. A good attorney can help you draft a contract to avoid ambiguities, which can help prevent disputes like this. And, if you are accused of breaching a contract, a good attorney can also advise you on possible legal remedies. 

    Additional Sources: Chinook USA LLC v. Duck Commander Inc. et al.

    Article Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Contract Disputes: Baton Rouge Construction Contract Shows Proof Needed for Contract Dispute