gets.primecure.net

Blog

  • 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

  • Louisiana Court Upholds Medical Malpractice Review Requirement in Hospital Device Lawsuit

    In a recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision, the court reinforced the importance of the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (LMMA) in determining the course of lawsuits against healthcare providers. The case involved a patient who allegedly suffered injuries due to a medical device used after surgery.

    Gregory Arrington, following surgery at St. Tammany Parish Hospital, was provided with an Alternating Leg Pressure (ALP) wrap to prevent blood clots. He claimed the device malfunctioned, causing him harm. The Arringtons sued the hospital, alleging negligence in the selection, purchase, and implementation of the ALP wrap.

    The hospital countered with a dilatory exception of prematurity, arguing that the claims fell under medical malpractice and required a medical review panel’s evaluation before proceeding to court. The trial court agreed and dismissed the Arringtons’ claims against the hospital without prejudice. The Arringtons appealed this decision.

    The Court’s Ruling and the Coleman Factors:

    The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling, focusing on the LMMA’s definition of “malpractice” and the six “Coleman factors” used to determine if a claim falls under medical malpractice.

    The court held that the hospital’s actions regarding the ALP device constituted “healthcare” under the LMMA. They reasoned that the selection and use of medical devices are intertwined with patient treatment and require medical expertise.

    The court also considered the Coleman factors, particularly:

    • Treatment-Related: The use of the ALP wrap was directly related to Mr. Arrington’s post-surgery treatment and involved professional medical judgment.
    • Expert Medical Evidence: Determining if the hospital was negligent in choosing and using the device would necessitate expert medical testimony.
    • Assessment of Patient’s Condition: The decision to use the ALP wrap involved assessing Mr. Arrington’s risk for DVT, a medical condition.
    • Physician-Patient Relationship: The incident occurred within the context of a physician-patient relationship and the scope of activities a hospital is licensed to perform.
    • Injury Related to Treatment: The injury allegedly wouldn’t have happened if Mr. Arrington hadn’t sought treatment at the hospital.

    Things to Know: 

    • Importance of the Medical Review Panel: The LMMA mandates that medical malpractice claims be reviewed by a medical review panel before litigation. This process aims to filter out meritless claims and encourage early resolution.
    • Broad Scope of the LMMA: The LMMA’s definition of “malpractice” is expansive, encompassing not just the direct treatment of patients but also decisions about medical devices and equipment used in their care.
    • Coleman Factors as a Guide: The six Coleman factors provide a framework for courts to determine whether a claim falls under medical malpractice, even in cases where the line between administrative and medical decisions may seem blurred.

    This case emphasizes the importance of understanding the LMMA and its procedural requirements when pursuing claims against healthcare providers in Louisiana. It reinforces the necessity of a medical review panel’s assessment in cases involving allegations of negligence related to medical devices and equipment. If you have suffered an injury due to a medical device, it is crucial to seek legal counsel to navigate the complexities of the LMMA and protect your rights.

    Additional Sources: GREGORY ARRINGTON HUSBAND OF/AND CLARNETTA ARRINGTON VERSUS ST. TAMMANY PARISH HOSPITAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 1 D/B/A ST. TANIMANY PARISH HOSPITAL AND CURRIE MEDICAL SPECIALTIES, INC. 

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Blog Articles on Medical Malpractice: What Type of Expert Testimony Is Needed in a Louisiana Medical Malpractice Lawsuit? and Louisiana Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Case: The Importance of Expert Testimony

  • Work-Related Injury and Subsequent Leave: When is Compensation Due?

    Navigating the complexities of workers’ compensation claims can be challenging, especially when subsequent health issues and leaves of absence are involved. A recent case highlights the importance of understanding the nuances of Louisiana workers’ compensation law and the critical role of proving causation in obtaining benefits.

    Jerry Neal, Jr., a radiology technician, sustained a back injury while lifting a patient at St. Tammany Parish Hospital in 2014. He returned to work on modified duty and eventually full duty. However, he re-injured his back in a similar incident in 2015. Again, he was placed on modified duty but later took a leave of absence for an unrelated neck surgery. When his leave expired, he was terminated because he was not medically cleared to return due to his neck, not his back. Subsequently, he filed for workers’ compensation benefits, claiming he was unable to work due to his back injury.

    The court’s decision hinged on whether Mr. Neal’s inability to work was directly caused by his work-related back injury or his non-work-related neck surgery. The court also examined whether he was entitled to temporary total disability (TTD) or supplemental earning benefits (SEB).

    Key Takeaways from the Ruling:

    • Clear and Convincing Evidence for TTD: To receive TTD benefits, an employee must prove by clear and convincing evidence their inability to engage in any employment due to the work-related injury. Mr. Neal’s doctor testified that he could have performed the modified-duty work offered, thus undermining his TTD claim.
    • SEB Eligibility: SEB benefits are available when an employee cannot earn 90% or more of their pre-injury wage due to a work-related injury. The court emphasized that the employee must prove the work-related injury, not another cause, led to the wage loss. Mr. Neal’s voluntary leave for neck surgery was deemed the reason for his inability to work, not his back injury.
    • Doctor’s Testimony and Modified Duty: The court considered the doctor’s testimony that Mr. Neal could have performed modified duty and that his work restrictions were related to his duties as a radiology technician. This further supported the denial of benefits.

    This case underscores the critical importance of establishing a clear causal link between a work-related injury and any subsequent inability to work. If an employee’s absence from work is due to an unrelated medical issue, even if they have a pre-existing work-related injury, they may not be eligible for workers’ compensation benefits. It also highlights the importance of understanding the specific requirements for TTD and SEB benefits and providing sufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof.

    Additional Sources: JERRY HEAL SR. VERSUS ST. TAMMANY PARISH HOSPITAL

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Workers Compensation Issues: 1010 Form Required For Company To Cover Medical Expenses in Workers Compensation and Worker Did Not Commit Fraud In Pre-Work Medical History Questionnaire

  • 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

  • Unexpected Acceleration or Failure to Yield? Louisiana Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Car Accident Case

    In personal injury law, car accidents at intersections are all too common. However, the case of Trapp v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company brings a unique twist: the claim of a sudden, unexpected vehicle malfunction. This Louisiana Court of Appeal decision underscores the importance of thoroughly investigating all aspects of an accident before assigning fault, especially when a vehicle defect may have contributed.

    The case arose from an accident at an intersection in Louisiana. Mr. Trapp was entering the highway from a gas station parking lot when his truck collided with Mr. Martin’s truck. While Mr. Trapp was cited for failure to yield, Mr. Martin claimed his truck suddenly accelerated out of control, preventing him from avoiding the collision.

    The trial court initially granted summary judgment, finding Mr. Martin 100% at fault. However, the Court of Appeal reversed this decision, stating that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding comparative fault and the potential for a third party (the vehicle manufacturer) to be at fault.

    The Court of Appeal emphasized that summary judgment is only appropriate when there’s no genuine dispute about any material facts. In this case, Mr. Martin’s consistent testimony about his truck’s sudden acceleration raised questions about whether the accident was solely his fault. The court noted that while an expert couldn’t reproduce the malfunction, this didn’t negate Mr. Martin’s claim.

    Additionally, the court considered Mr. Trapp’s statement to the investigating officer that he believed Mr. Martin had time to slow down. This suggested Mr. Trapp might have incorrectly assumed Mr. Martin would yield, even though the law required him to yield when entering the highway.

    The court concluded that these disputed facts warranted a trial to determine each driver’s degree of fault and whether any third party, such as the vehicle manufacturer, might also be liable.

    Things to Consider: 

    • Sudden Acceleration Claims: While rare, claims of sudden unintended acceleration can complicate car accident cases. It’s essential to thoroughly investigate such claims and consider all potential contributing factors.
    • Comparative Fault: Louisiana follows a comparative fault system, meaning fault can be apportioned between multiple parties, including drivers and potentially even vehicle manufacturers.
    • Summary Judgment Requires No Disputed Facts: Summary judgment is only appropriate when there’s no genuine dispute about critical facts. These issues must be resolved at trial if there are conflicting accounts or evidence.

    The Trapp decision reminds us that assigning fault in car accidents isn’t always straightforward. Factors like potential vehicle malfunctions and the actions of both drivers must be carefully considered.

    If you’ve been involved in a car accident, seeking legal advice from an experienced personal injury attorney is crucial. They can help you investigate the accident, identify all potentially liable parties, and fight for the compensation you deserve.

    Additional Sources: JEFFREY TRAPP, ET AL. VERSUS ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY AND JOHN R. MARTIN

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Car Accidents: Can a Prior Insurance Lawsuit Affect Your Personal Injury Claim?  and Louisiana Court Upholds Modest Damages in Minor Car Accident Case: Highlighting the Importance of Proving Causation and the Impact of Pre-Existing Conditions

  • 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

  • Worker’s Comp in Louisiana: Navigating the Medical Treatment Guidelines

    In the realm of workers’ compensation, ensuring injured employees receive necessary medical treatment can sometimes be a battle. A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision, Deubler v. Bogalusa City Schools, highlights the complexities surrounding the Louisiana Medical Treatment Guidelines and the process of obtaining authorization for treatment. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to these guidelines while also recognizing the need for flexibility when circumstances warrant it.

    Irvin Deubler, an employee of Bogalusa City Schools (BCS), suffered a lower back injury at work. He was receiving workers’ compensation benefits and sought treatment from Dr. Flagg for his chronic pain. Dr. Flagg recommended an MRI and a psychological evaluation to determine if Deubler was a candidate for a spinal cord stimulator (SCS) trial, a potential treatment option for his pain.

    BCS’s insurer, LUBA Casualty Insurance Company, denied these requests, prompting Dr. Flagg to appeal to the Office of Workers’ Compensation (OWC). The OWC’s associate medical director approved the requests, but LUBA and BCS further appealed to the OWC judge.

    The OWC judge upheld the associate medical director’s decision, and the Court of Appeal affirmed this ruling. The court emphasized the role of the Medical Treatment Guidelines in determining appropriate medical care for injured workers. It also highlighted the process for obtaining a variance from these guidelines when necessary.

    Things to Know: 

    • Medical Treatment Guidelines: Louisiana has established Medical Treatment Guidelines to ensure efficient and timely medical care for injured workers. These guidelines create a rebuttable presumption as to what treatments are considered necessary.
    • Variances from the Guidelines: If a healthcare provider recommends treatment that deviates from the guidelines, they can seek a variance by demonstrating to the OWC medical director that the variance is reasonably required to treat the worker’s injuries.
    • Burden of Proof: The initial burden of proof lies with the injured worker to show the medical necessity of the requested treatment. If the OWC medical director approves a variance, the burden shifts to the employer/insurer to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the decision was not in accordance with the law.
    • Appellate Review: The court’s decision is subject to review by the Court of Appeal, which applies the manifest error standard. The appellate court will only overturn the OWC judge’s decision if there is no reasonable factual basis for it.

    Implications for Injured Workers and Employers

    The Deubler case highlights the importance of understanding and navigating the Medical Treatment Guidelines in Louisiana workers’ compensation cases.

    For injured workers, it’s crucial to work closely with your healthcare provider to ensure your treatment requests are supported by medical evidence and comply with the guidelines or justify a variance. If your requests are denied, you have the right to appeal and present additional evidence to the OWC.

    For employers and insurers, it’s essential to be familiar with the Medical Treatment Guidelines and understand the process for challenging treatment requests. While the guidelines provide a framework for medical care, they are not absolute, and variances can be granted when medically necessary.

    Navigating the complexities of workers’ compensation law can be challenging. If you’re an injured worker or an employer facing a dispute over medical treatment, seeking legal advice from an experienced workers’ compensation attorney is crucial to protect your rights and ensure a fair outcome.

    Additional Resources:IRVIN DEUBLER VERSUS BOGALUSA CITY SCHOOLS & LUBA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Workers Compensation: Permanently Disabled Individual Not Acting Under Scope of Employment In Workers’ Compensation Case and  When a Workplace Injury Crosses State Lines: Navigating the Complexities of Workers’ Compensation and Tort Liability