gets.primecure.net

Blog

  • Louisiana Court Upholds Modest Damages in Minor Car Accident Case: Highlighting the Importance of Proving Causation and the Impact of Pre-Existing Conditions

    A recent ruling from the Louisiana Court of Appeal underscores the challenges of securing substantial damages in personal injury cases, especially when pre-existing conditions and the severity of the accident are at play. The case, Pourciau v. Melville and State Farm, involved a minor rear-end collision. While the defendant admitted fault, the court ultimately upheld a modest damage award, emphasizing the plaintiff’s burden to prove a direct causal link between the accident and the claimed injuries.

    Douglas Pourciau was rear-ended by Dennis Melville at an intersection in Baton Rouge. While the accident was minor, Pourciau claimed it aggravated his pre-existing back and neck pain. He sued Melville and his insurer, State Farm, for damages.

    The trial court found Melville partially at fault but awarded Pourciau only a modest amount in general damages, citing the lack of evidence linking his ongoing pain to the accident. Pourciau appealed, seeking a higher award and additional damages for future medical expenses and loss of use of his vehicle.

    The Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision, emphasizing the plaintiff’s burden to prove causation and the extent of their injuries.

    • Pre-existing Conditions and Causation: The court acknowledged Pourciau’s prior back and neck issues and highlighted the need to establish a direct causal link between the accident and any claimed aggravation. It noted that Pourciau had reported improvement and a return to his pre-accident condition shortly after the accident, raising questions about the ongoing nature of his complaints.

    • Credibility and Medical Evidence: The court considered Pourciau’s testimony and medical records. It noted inconsistencies in his reporting of neck pain and the lack of evidence supporting his claims of severe ongoing pain. The court also found that Pourciau had not sought further medical treatment beyond chiropractic care and was managing his pain with over-the-counter medication.

    • Future Medical Expenses and Loss of Use: The court rejected Pourciau’s claims for future medical expenses and loss of use of his vehicle. It found insufficient evidence to support these claims, particularly given the lack of recent medical treatment and the absence of evidence showing any rental car expenses or significant inconvenience caused by the loss of his vehicle.

    Things to Know: 

    The Pourciau decision highlights several important aspects of personal injury claims:

    • Proving Causation is Crucial: It’s not enough to have pre-existing conditions and experience pain after an accident. You must prove that the accident directly caused a new injury or significantly worsened your existing condition.
    • Medical Evidence Matters: Consistent medical records and expert testimony are vital in proving the extent of your injuries and their connection to the accident.
    • Credibility is Key: Your testimony and the consistency of your claims play a significant role. Inconsistent statements or gaps in medical treatment can weaken your case.
    • Mitigating Damages: If you’re seeking damages, you must take reasonable steps to mitigate them. This includes following medical advice and seeking appropriate treatment.

    The Pourciau case serves as a reminder that even in cases where fault is admitted, proving the extent of damages and their connection to the accident can be challenging, particularly when pre-existing conditions are involved.

    If you’ve been injured in a car accident, consulting with an experienced personal injury attorney is critical. They can help you gather strong medical evidence, build a persuasive case, and fight for the compensation you deserve. Remember, understanding the legal requirements and having skilled representation can make all the difference in securing a fair outcome.

    Additional Resources: DOUGLAS POURCIAU VERSUS DENNIS MELVILLE AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Pre-existing Injuries: Louisiana Court Awards Damages in Car Accident Case Despite Pre-Existing Conditions and How Does a Pre-Existing Injury affect your Workers’ Compensation Claim?

  • Title: Louisiana Court Upholds Earlier Will in Succession Dispute: The Importance of Proper Will Execution

    In a recent case, the Louisiana Court of Appeal emphasized the importance of adhering to the strict formalities required to execute a valid will. The case, In the Matter of the Succession of Sandra Gabor Dale, involved a dispute between siblings over their mother’s estate after a later will was deemed invalid due to improper execution.

    Sandra Gabor Dale passed away, leaving behind three children: Felicia, Christopher, and Michael. Felicia, named as the sole heir in a 2014 will, was granted possession of the entire estate. However, Christopher and Michael later contested this, presenting a 2016 will that divided the estate equally among the three siblings.

    The dispute centered on the validity of the 2016 will. The trial court found it to be “absolutely null” due to non-compliance with the formalities required for a notarial testament under Louisiana law. The brothers appealed this decision.

    The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision, affirming the invalidity of the 2016 will. It highlighted Louisiana Civil Code Article 1577, which outlines the specific requirements for a notarial testament:

    1. The testator must declare the document as their will in the presence of a notary and two witnesses.
    2. The testator must sign the will at the end and on each separate page.
    3. The notary and witnesses must sign an attestation clause confirming these formalities were met.

    The 2016 will contained a disclaimer from the notary stating they hadn’t prepared or read the document, only attesting to the signatures. The court found that this disclaimer nullified the essential declarations required for a valid notarial will. It created ambiguity about whether the testator declared it her will and whether she signed it in the presence of the required parties.

    Key Takeaways

    • Strict Formalities for Wills: Louisiana law has strict requirements for executing a valid will. Any significant deviation can render the will invalid, potentially leading to unintended consequences for the distribution of your estate.
    • The notary’s Role is Crucial: The notary public plays a vital role in ensuring a will’s validity. Their attestation clause confirms that all legal formalities have been followed. A notary’s disclaimer, as seen in this case, can invalidate the will.
    • Consequences of an Invalid Will: If a will is declared invalid, the estate will be distributed according to Louisiana’s intestacy laws, which may not align with the deceased’s wishes.
    • Importance of Legal Counsel: When creating or updating your will, seeking guidance from an experienced estate planning attorney is crucial. They can ensure your will is executed correctly, minimizing the risk of future disputes and ensuring your wishes are carried out.

    The Succession of Sandra Gabor Dale case is a powerful reminder of the importance of meticulous will execution in Louisiana. A seemingly minor oversight can have significant consequences, leading to family disputes and the potential disregard of the deceased’s true intentions. If you’re considering creating or updating your will, consulting with an estate planning attorney is not just advisable—it’s essential. Protect your legacy and ensure your wishes are respected by taking legal steps today.

    Additional Sources: IN THE MATTER OF THE SUCCESSION OF SANDRA GABOR DALE

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Blog Articles on Will requirements: Surviving Spouse Loses Fight with First Wife Over Provisions of “Clear and Unambiguous” Will in Louisiana  and Louisiana Court Promotes Liberal Construing of Will Execution Requirements

  • 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?

  • When Does an Insurance Contract End? Louisiana Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Dispute Over Coverage Extension

    In the complex world of insurance coverage disputes, a recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision underscores the importance of thoroughly examining factual issues before granting summary judgment. The case involved a personal injury lawsuit and a subsequent dispute over insurance coverage. The appellate court’s ruling is a stark reminder that seemingly straightforward cases can hinge on nuanced contractual interpretations and disputed facts.

    The case originated from a 1998 accident where Bobbie Sanders, an employee of Mark A. Robicheaux, Inc., was injured while working on a vessel constructed by Swiftships, Inc. Sanders sued Swiftships, which, in turn, filed a third-party demand against its insurer, United Fire & Casualty Company, claiming coverage under a policy issued to Robicheaux.

    The crux of the dispute was whether Swiftships qualified as an additional insured under Robicheaux’s policy, even though the initial contract between the two companies had expired. Swiftships argued that the business relationship continued under the original contract’s terms, while United Fire contended there was no agreement to extend the contract.

    The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Swiftships, but this was later overturned on appeal due to procedural errors. On remand, the trial court again ruled for Swiftships, ordering United Fire to pay defense costs. Both parties appealed this decision.

    The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s summary judgment and vacated the subsequent judgment, awarding defense costs to Swiftships. It emphasized that summary judgment is only appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact. In this case, there was an apparent dispute about whether the original contract between Swiftships and Robicheaux had been extended and, if so, whether its terms, including the insurance coverage provisions, still applied.

    The court stressed that the trial court’s role in a summary judgment motion is not to weigh evidence or make credibility determinations but to identify whether any genuine factual disputes exist that require a trial. By granting summary judgment, the trial court had effectively decided these disputed facts, which was an error.

    The Sanders case highlights several critical points:

    • Contractual Interpretation Matters: The outcome of insurance coverage disputes often hinges on the interpretation of contracts and agreements. It’s vital to carefully review all relevant documents and consider potential ambiguities.
    • Summary Judgment is Not Always Appropriate: Even when a case seems straightforward, underlying factual disputes can preclude summary judgment. Courts must be cautious not to usurp the jury’s role in resolving such conflicts.
    • The Importance of Appealing Procedural Errors: The initial summary judgment in favor of Swiftships was overturned on appeal due to procedural errors. This underscores the importance of following proper legal procedures and the potential consequences of failing to do so.

    The Sanders case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in insurance coverage disputes and the critical role of the courts in ensuring a fair resolution. If you’re involved in a dispute with your insurance company or agent, seeking legal advice is crucial. An experienced attorney can help you navigate the legal landscape, protect your rights, and fight for the coverage you deserve.

    Additional Resources: BOBBIE J. SANDERS, JR. VERSUS SWIFTSHIPS, INC.

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Blog Articles on Insurance Disputes: Injured Pedestrian in Ouachita Parish Unable to Recover from Multiple Insurance Policies and How Is Coverage Divided When Multiple Insurance Policies Are Involved?

  • Federal Court Upholds Dismissal of VA Doctor’s Discrimination and Retaliation Claims

    A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit highlights the complexities and high standards involved in proving employment discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case, Stroy v. Gibson, involved a Black physician employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) who alleged racial discrimination and retaliation following a peer review of his patient care.

    Dr. John Stroy, an African-American physician at the VA’s Lafayette Community-Based Outpatient Clinic, faced a peer review after a patient he treated was hospitalized with acute renal failure. The review initially found that “most experienced competent practitioners would have managed the case differently.” Dr. Stroy, believing this review was racially motivated, filed an EEO complaint alleging discrimination.

    Later, Dr. Stroy was accused of leaving a patient unattended. Following an investigation, he received a memorandum outlining expectations for his future behavior. He then attempted to amend his existing EEO complaint to include a retaliation claim, which was denied. He subsequently filed a separate retaliation complaint.

    Before the 180-day waiting period for his retaliation complaint to be processed administratively, Dr. Stroy filed a federal court lawsuit, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation.

    The district court dismissed Dr. Stroy’s retaliation claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as he had filed his lawsuit prematurely before exhausting his administrative remedies. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of the VA on the discrimination claim, finding that Dr. Stroy had not established a prima facie racial discrimination case.

    The Court of Appeals upheld both of these decisions.

    • Retaliation Claim: The court affirmed the dismissal of the retaliation claim, emphasizing the importance of exhausting administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit. While acknowledging that this requirement isn’t jurisdictional, the court stressed its necessity to allow for voluntary compliance before resorting to litigation.
    • Discrimination Claim: The court agreed with the district court that Dr. Stroy failed to establish a prima facie discrimination case. It reasoned that the peer review process did not constitute an “adverse employment action” under Title VII, even with its initial negative finding. Adverse employment actions are typically significant decisions like hiring, firing, demotion, or changes in compensation or benefits. According to the VA’s policy, peer review couldn’t be used for such actions.

    The Stroy v. Gibson case highlights several crucial aspects of employment discrimination and retaliation claims:

    • Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: The administrative process must be completed before a lawsuit under Title VII can be filed. A premature filing can result in the dismissal of the claim.
    • Adverse Employment Action: To prove discrimination or retaliation, an employee must show they suffered an adverse employment action, typically involving a significant change in their employment status or benefits.
    • High Standard of Proof: Proving discrimination or retaliation requires clear evidence. Courts apply a rigorous standard to ensure that claims are based on solid evidence, not just speculation or subjective feelings.

    Navigating the complexities of employment discrimination and retaliation law can be challenging. If you believe you’ve been a victim of discrimination or retaliation in the workplace, consulting an experienced employment lawyer is essential. They can guide you through the administrative process, assess the strength of your case, and represent you in court if necessary.

    Remember, understanding your rights and taking timely action is crucial in protecting yourself from workplace discrimination and retaliation.

    Additional Sources: JOHN F. STROY, v. SLOAN GIBSON, Interim Secretary on behalf of Department of Veterans Affairs

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Employment Issues: Pregnancy as a Disability and Employment Discrimination: A Case Analysis and Louisiana Employment Discrimination Case Fails Due to Summary Judgment

  • No Pain, No Gain? Understanding the Importance of Proving Injury in Louisiana Car Accident Cases

    A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision, Cruz v. Creecy, underscores the critical importance of proving injuries in personal injury cases arising from car accidents. The case reminds us that even when fault is established, a plaintiff must still provide credible evidence of their injuries to secure damages.

    The case started when Rosa Cruz was involved in a car accident with Martha Creecy. A lawsuit was filed, and the trial court found Ms. Creecy to be at fault for the accident. However, the court declined to award damages to Ms. Cruz, concluding she failed to prove she sustained any injuries directly caused by the accident.

    Ms. Cruz appealed this decision, arguing that her testimony and medical records were sufficient to prove both injury and causation.

    The Court’s Ruling

    The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision, emphasizing Ms. Cruz’s burden to prove both the existence of injuries and that those injuries were caused by the accident.

    • Credibility Issues: The court highlighted inconsistencies in Ms. Cruz’s testimony. She claimed to have vomited and suffered a head injury immediately after the accident, but this was contradicted by other witnesses and the police report. The court found Ms. Cruz to be an “extremely poor historian” and questioned her credibility.
    • Medical Evidence: The court scrutinized the medical records, noting that Ms. Cruz’s initial complaints at the hospital focused on headaches and stomach problems. Only later did she report a wider range of symptoms to a chiropractor. The court found that the medical evidence did not definitively link her complaints to the accident.
    • The Housley Presumption: Ms. Cruz invoked the “Housley presumption,” a legal principle that can help plaintiffs establish causation in personal injury cases. However, the court pointed out that this presumption only applies after an injury has been proven. Since the court found Ms. Cruz failed to prove she suffered any injury from the accident, the Housley presumption was irrelevant.

    Key Takeaways

    • Proving Injury is Essential: Even if the other party is at fault in a car accident, you must prove you were injured to receive damages.
    • Credibility Matters: Your testimony plays a crucial role in proving your case. Inconsistent statements or a lack of corroborating evidence can undermine your credibility and harm your chances of success.
    • Medical Evidence is Key: Medical records and expert testimony are often critical in establishing the existence and cause of your injuries.
    • The Housley Presumption has Limits: The Housley presumption can be a helpful tool for plaintiffs, but it only applies if you can first prove you were injured in the accident.

    Additional Sources:ROSA LOPEZ CRUZ VERSUS MARTHA CREECY AND USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Proving Damages: Louisiana Appeals Court affirms no damages should be allocated to minors Because of Lack of Proof and Harvey Man Denied Damages For Truck Falling On Foot, Importance of Proof in Lawsuits

  • Can You Sue Your Ex-Spouse for Abuse After Divorce in Louisiana?

    In a recent Louisiana lawsuit, a woman’s attempt to sue her ex-husband for damages related to alleged domestic abuse during their marriage was initially blocked by the doctrine of res judicata. However, the Court of Appeal reversed that decision, shedding light on the limits of res judicata in cases involving spousal abuse.

    In Hoddinott v. Hoddinott, the plaintiff (wife) filed a tort lawsuit against her ex-husband seeking damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress stemming from alleged domestic abuse during their marriage. The defendant (husband) argued that the wife’s claims were barred by res judicata, as they should have been raised during the divorce proceedings. The trial court initially agreed and dismissed the wife’s lawsuit. However, the Court of Appeal reversed this decision.

    The Court of Appeal focused on two key points:

    1. Exceptional Circumstances: Louisiana law allows exceptions to the res judicata doctrine in “exceptional circumstances.” The court found that the wife’s inability to sue her husband for tort damages during their marriage due to spousal immunity created such an exceptional circumstance. Once the divorce was finalized, she was no longer barred from pursuing her claims.
    2. Scope of the Consent Judgment: The court also examined the language of the Consent Judgment signed during the divorce proceedings. It concluded that the judgment only addressed specific domestic relations matters and did not encompass any potential tort claims arising from the alleged abuse.

    Key Takeaways:

    • Spousal Immunity and Tort Claims: In Louisiana, spouses cannot sue each other for tort damages during the marriage. La. R.S. 9:291. However, this immunity does not extinguish the cause of action; it merely delays the right to sue until after the marriage ends.
    • Res Judicata and Exceptional Circumstances: The doctrine of res judicata, which prevents relitigation of the same issue between the same parties, has exceptions. La. R.S. 13:4231. Exceptional circumstances, such as the procedural bar of spousal immunity, can allow a party to bring a claim even if it could have been raised in a prior proceeding.
    • Clarity in Settlement Agreements: The ruling emphasizes the importance of clear and explicit language in settlement agreements or consent judgments. Ambiguity can lead to disputes over the scope of what has been resolved.

    This decision is significant for survivors of domestic abuse in Louisiana. It clarifies that they are not necessarily precluded from seeking damages for abuse that occurred during the marriage, even if they did not raise those claims during the divorce proceedings.

    If you or someone you know has experienced domestic abuse and is considering legal action, consulting with an attorney experienced in family law and personal injury is crucial. They can help you understand your rights and options and guide you through the legal process.

    Additional Sources: JO SCHERNBECK HODDINOTT VERSUS REGINALD KENNING HODDINOTT, III

    Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Blog Articles on Res Judicata: Ascension Parish Plaintiff has Lawsuit Barred due to Res Judicata and Res Judicata Does Not Apply To Dismissal Without Prejudice

  • Can a Public Employee be Fired for Off-Duty Gambling?

    The Louisiana Court of Appeal recently reversed a decision of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) that upheld the termination of a public employee for gambling while off-duty. The case involving Carnell Collier, a Quality Assurance and Safety Inspector for the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans (S&WB), highlights the complexities of disciplinary actions for off-duty conduct, particularly when the conduct occurs on company property.

    Mr. Collier was fired after being caught gambling at a retirement party held on S&WB property. While the CSC initially upheld his termination, the Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that the punishment was too severe for the offense.

    Key Points of the Ruling:

    • Off-Duty Conduct and Termination: The court acknowledged that even off-duty conduct can be grounds for termination if it impairs public service efficiency. However, it emphasized that the severity of the discipline should be commensurate with the infraction.
    • Factors to Consider: The court considered several factors, including the nature of the offense, the employee’s work record, and past disciplinary history. In Collier’s case, the court noted his long and generally positive service record, the lack of a specific rule against gambling, and that other employees involved in the same incident were not disciplined.
    • Proportionality of Punishment: The court ultimately determined that termination was too harsh a penalty for Collier’s off-duty gambling. It reasoned that while the S&WB had a legitimate interest in promoting ethical conduct, the evidence did not support the conclusion that Collier’s actions significantly impaired the agency’s operations.

    Implications for Public Employees

    This ruling reminds us that even off-duty conduct can have consequences for public employees. However, it also highlights the importance of considering the context and severity of the misconduct when determining appropriate disciplinary action. Termination should generally be reserved for the most serious offenses or when an employee’s conduct severely undermines the public’s trust or the agency’s efficiency.

    Employer Takeaways:

    • Clear Policies: Employers should have clear policies regarding employee conduct, both on and off duty, and communicate these policies effectively to all employees.
    • Proportionate Discipline: When considering disciplinary action, employers should carefully weigh the severity of the offense, the employee’s work history, and any mitigating factors. Termination should be a last resort, reserved for the most severe infractions.
    • Consistency is Key: To avoid claims of arbitrariness, employers should strive for consistency in their disciplinary practices.

    The Collier decision emphasizes the importance of proportionality in disciplinary actions and the need to consider all relevant factors before terminating an employee. If you’re an employee facing disciplinary action or an employer navigating the complexities of employee discipline, seeking legal advice is crucial. An experienced employment lawyer can help you understand your rights and obligations and ensure that any disciplinary action is fair and justified.

    If you have questions about employment law or disciplinary actions in Louisiana, don’t hesitate to contact a reputable law firm specializing in employment law. They can provide the guidance and support you need to navigate these complex issues and protect your rights. Remember, understanding the law and seeking timely legal advice can make all the difference in achieving a fair and just outcome.

    Additional Sources: CARNELL COLLIER VERSUS SEWERAGE & WATER BOARD

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Blog Articles on Employment Issues: Permanently Disabled Individual Not Acting Under Scope of Employment In Workers’ Compensation Case and Pregnancy as a Disability and Employment Discrimination: A Case Analysis

  • Employee Termination Upheld for Unauthorized Vehicle Use and Dishonesty

    Leotis Johnson, an employee of the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans (S&WB), was assigned a company vehicle equipped with a GPS. S&WB policy prohibited personal use of company vehicles without supervisor authorization. Johnson was accused of using the vehicle for personal errands during work hours and lying about his whereabouts when questioned.

    The Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans dismissed Johnson due to unauthorized use of a company vehicle and non-compliance with established policies and procedures. Johnson challenged this decision and the Civil Service Commission’s supporting findings.

    The Court of Appeal Fourth Circuit upheld Johnson’s termination, stating that his actions constituted “cause” for termination as they were detrimental to the efficient operation of the S&WB. The court found that Johnson’s unauthorized use of the company vehicle for personal purposes during work hours was a clear violation of company policy. Additionally, his dishonesty in initially denying the allegations and providing false explanations further supported the termination.

    Key Takeaways

    1. Importance of Company Policies: Employers have the right to establish policies and procedures for using company property, including vehicles. Employees must adhere to these policies to avoid disciplinary action, including termination.

    2. Honesty is Crucial: When confronted with misconduct allegations, employees must be truthful. Dishonesty can be grounds for termination, especially when it obstructs an investigation or demonstrates a lack of trustworthiness.

    3. Burden of Proof: In cases of employee termination, the employer has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the employee’s actions were detrimental to the organization and justified the disciplinary action taken.

    4. Employee Rights: While employers have the right to discipline employees for cause, employees also have the right to appeal their termination through the Civil Service Commission. However, the Commission’s decision is given great deference and will only be overturned if it is arbitrary or capricious.

    This case reminds employees of the importance of adhering to company policies and being honest in the workplace. For employers, it highlights the need for clear policies and procedures and the importance of conducting thorough investigations when allegations of misconduct arise.

    Navigating the complexities of employment law and challenging a termination can be daunting. If you are in a similar situation where you believe your termination was unjust or the Civil Service Commission’s findings were erroneous, seeking legal advice is crucial. A knowledgeable employment lawyer can help you understand your rights, assess the strength of your case, and guide you through the appeals process. Don’t hesitate to contact a reputable law firm specializing in employment law to ensure your rights are protected and you receive the justice you deserve. Understanding your rights and taking timely action is essential to navigating employment disputes.

    Additional Sources: LEOTIS JOHNSON VERSUS SEWERAGE & WATER BOARD

    Written by Berniard Law Firm 

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Articles on Employment Issues: When one employee attacks a supervisor, can a supervisor proceed with a lawsuit against the employer?  and When Can an Employer be Held Responsible for Employee’s Wrongdoing?

  • Coroner Not Liable for Burial of Foster Child’s Remains

    A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit decision has highlighted the complex legal issues surrounding the handling of deceased individuals’ remains, particularly in the context of foster care. The case, involving the parents of a minor child who passed away while in foster care, underscores the challenges in establishing liability against a coroner for the disposition of remains.

    In this case, the parents of Eli Simmons, a minor child who died while in foster care, sued various parties, including the Orleans Parish Coroner, alleging negligence in the handling of their son’s remains. The Coroner filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, dismissing the parents’ claims.

    The parents appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in its decision. However, the Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding that the parents failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their negligence claims against the Coroner.

    Key Points of the Ruling:

    • Burden of Proof: The Court emphasized that in a summary judgment motion, the burden of proof initially rests with the mover (the party requesting the summary judgment). However, once the mover establishes that there’s no genuine issue of material fact, the burden shifts to the opposing party to present evidence demonstrating a factual dispute that warrants a trial.
    • Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED): The parents’ primary claim was for NIED, alleging that the Coroner’s actions caused them emotional distress. The court noted that to succeed in an NIED claim, the plaintiff must prove the defendant violated a legal duty and engaged in outrageous conduct.
    • Coroner’s Duties and Immunities: The court highlighted specific Louisiana laws outlining the Coroner’s duties and immunities. Louisiana law grants coroners immunity for discretionary acts within their lawful powers and duties. Additionally, no action can be taken against a cemetery authority (which includes the Coroner’s office in this context) for the remains left in its possession for over 60 days unless a written contract exists for their care.
    • Lack of Evidence: The court found that the parents failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding the Coroner’s alleged negligence or outrageous conduct.

    Coroners in Louisiana enjoy a degree of immunity that allows them to perform their duties without the constant threat of litigation. La. R.S. 13:5713. The immunity, however, isn’t absolute. It doesn’t protect them from claims arising from actions that are:

    • Outside the scope of their lawful powers and duties
    • Criminal, fraudulent, malicious, intentional, or grossly negligent

    In the Simmons case, the court found the Coroner’s actions fell within the scope of their lawful duties and were not unreasonable or outrageous, thus entitling them to immunity.

    This case highlights the complexities surrounding the handling of deceased individuals’ remains, particularly in cases involving foster children. While the parents’ grief is understandable, the court’s decision underscores the legal framework protecting coroners from liability in certain situations.

    The ruling also emphasizes the importance of understanding the burden of proof in summary judgment motions. If you are involved in a legal dispute, it’s crucial to consult with an experienced attorney to ensure your rights are protected and that you present sufficient evidence to support your claims.

    Additional Sources: PATRICK SIMMONS, SR., ET. AL VERSUS THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Blog Articles on Coroners  and Statutory Immunity: Coroner’s Outrageous Actions Result In Loss of Statutory Immunity in Louisiana Lawsuit and Understanding Statutory Employer Immunity in Workers’ Compensation Cases in Louisiana