gets.primecure.net

Tag: Burden of Proof

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

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

    Case Background

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

    Medical Malpractice in Louisiana

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

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

    The Importance of Expert Testimony

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

    The Court’s Analysis

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

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

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

    Key Takeaways

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

    Outcome

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

  • 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 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?

  • 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

  • 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