gets.primecure.net

Tag: wrongful death

  • Siblings Awarded $200K in Legal Malpractice Case: A Cautionary Tale of Attorney Negligence

    In a poignant reminder of the potential consequences of attorney negligence, the Louisiana Court of Appeal recently upheld a substantial $200,000 legal malpractice award to four siblings who tragically lost their brother due to their former attorneys’ alleged mishandling of a wrongful death lawsuit. This case highlights the importance of competent legal representation and the potential consequences of attorney negligence.

    Case Background

    The plaintiffs, siblings of the deceased Frank Anthony Dawson, hired the defendants, Gray & Gray and James Gray, II, to represent them in a wrongful death and survival action against the Sheriff of St. Tammany Parish. Mr. Dawson tragically died by suicide while under suicide watch in the sheriff’s custody.

    The initial lawsuit was dismissed due to procedural errors. While an appeal led to a partial reversal and remand, the case was ultimately dismissed again due to abandonment, primarily caused by the defendants’ inaction.

    Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a legal malpractice claim against their former attorneys, alleging negligence in handling their original case. The trial court granted partial summary judgment on the liability issue, finding the defendants negligent. After a trial on damages, each of the four plaintiffs was awarded $50,000.

    Key Issues on Appeal

    The defendants appealed the judgment, challenging the grant of summary judgment on liability and the damages awarded. They also argued for a new trial due to the trial court’s failure to provide written reasons for its decision, which was attributed to the trial judge’s illness.

    Court’s Analysis

    The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision on several key points.

    • Liability: The court upheld the summary judgment on liability, finding that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie legal malpractice case. The defendants’ negligence in failing to comply with procedural rules led to the dismissal of the original lawsuit, causing the plaintiffs to lose their opportunity to pursue their claims.

    • Damages: The court found the $50,000 award to each sibling reasonable, considering the evidence presented and prior awards in similar cases. The plaintiffs’ emotional loss and the value of their potential recovery in the underlying wrongful death suit were considered.

    • Written Reasons for Judgment: The court acknowledged the defendants’ request for written reasons but determined that the absence of such reasons did not warrant a new trial. It emphasized that the appellate court reviews judgments, not reasons for judgment and that a complete record and trial transcript were available for review.

    Conclusion

    This case is a stark reminder of the importance of competent legal representation, especially in sensitive matters like wrongful death claims. Attorney negligence can have devastating consequences, depriving clients of their opportunity to seek justice and compensation.

    The court’s decision underscores the need for attorneys to adhere to procedural rules and diligently pursue their clients’ cases. It also highlights the potential for substantial damages in legal malpractice cases when negligence results in the loss of a viable claim.

    If you believe you have been a victim of legal malpractice, seeking advice from another attorney is crucial. They can assess your case, determine if you have a valid claim, and help you pursue the compensation you may be entitled to.

    Additional Sources: Connie Dawson, et al. v. Gray & Gray, A Professional Law Corporation, and James A. Gray, II

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Blog Articles on Legal Malpractice: Understanding Legal Malpractice Claims: Establishing Negligence and Loss and Louisiana Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Legal Malpractice Case, Underscoring Importance of Contractual Claims in Insurance Disputes

  • Louisiana Court Grapples with Complexities of Adoption in Wrongful Death Case

    A recent ruling by the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, has shed light on the complex interplay between adoption and the right to file wrongful death and survival actions. The consolidated cases, stemming from a tragic car accident that claimed the lives of Richard Stewart, Jr., and his two minor children, raised questions about whether adopted children and biological half-siblings can pursue such claims.

    The accident resulted in the deaths of Richard Stewart, Jr., and his two minor children. Mr. Stewart was survived by his wife, Lisa Stewart, and two adult sons, Daniel Goins and David Watts, who were adopted as minors. Additionally, the deceased minor children had a biological mother, Brandi Hardie, who was not a party to the lawsuits.

    Following the accident, multiple survival and wrongful death actions were filed. The central issue was whether Goins and Watts, as adopted children and biological half-siblings, had the right to bring these claims.

    The trial court denied the defendants’ exceptions of no right of action, allowing Goins and Watts to pursue their claims. The court reasoned that biological relationships and dependency, rather than legal classifications, should determine a child’s rights in such cases.

    The Court of Appeal, in a split decision, granted the defendants’ exceptions of no right of action concerning Goins’ claims for the deaths of his biological father and half-siblings. The majority concluded that adoption terminates the legal relationship between the adopted child and their biological parents, barring them from pursuing wrongful death claims.

    Judges Cooks and Savoie dissented, arguing that the Louisiana Civil Code articles governing wrongful death and survival actions do not exclude adopted children or half-siblings. They emphasized the importance of biological relationships and the potential unconstitutionality of denying adopted children the right to file such claims.

    Judge Conery concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing with the dissenters regarding the inclusion of adopted children and half-siblings but disagreeing on the specific outcome of the case. He highlighted the need for the biological mother of the deceased minor children to be included in the proceedings to determine her potential abandonment and its impact on the siblings’ right to sue.

    This case illustrates the legal complexities surrounding adoption and inheritance rights in the context of wrongful death and survival actions. It underscores the ongoing debate about the balance between biological and legal relationships in determining who can seek compensation for the loss of a loved one.

    The dissenting opinions raise important questions about the potential implications of excluding adopted children from pursuing wrongful death claims, particularly concerning their constitutional rights.

    As the law continues to evolve in this area, it is crucial for individuals involved in adoption or facing the tragic loss of a loved one to seek legal counsel to understand their rights and navigate the complexities of the legal system.

    Additional Sources: KHRISTY GOINS RISMILLER, TUTRIX FOR DANIEL EDWARDS GOINS VERSUS GEMINI INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Who Has a Right to Bring a Lawsuit: Louisiana Court holds that tutors are not considered a “parent” entitled to bring a claim for loss of consortium and Biological Father Denied Claim in Son’s Louisiana Wrongful Death LawSuit

  • 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 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

  • 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

  • Granddaughters and Medical Malpractice in Louisiana: Who Can Initiate the Claim?

    In the recent Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, decision of Guffey v. Lexington House, the court delved into the complexities of prescription (the Louisiana equivalent of a statute of limitations) in medical malpractice cases. This ruling provides valuable insights into the interplay between the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (LMMA) and the state’s Civil Code, specifically concerning who can initiate a medical review panel and how that affects prescription for potential plaintiffs. This blog post will dissect the Guffey decision, analyze its implications, and offer guidance for navigating medical malpractice claims in Louisiana.

    Case Background

    Geneva Guffey, a nursing home resident, suffered a severe leg injury when a Lexington House employee dropped her during a transfer. She tragically passed away a few months later. Her granddaughter, Deana Fredrick, initiated the medical review panel process, a prerequisite to filing a medical malpractice lawsuit in Louisiana.

    Lexington House challenged Deana’s right to file the request, arguing she wasn’t a direct beneficiary under Louisiana law. The trial court and the Court of Appeal initially sided with Deana, allowing the medical review panel to proceed.

    The panel found that Lexington House had breached the standard of care. Subsequently, two of Geneva’s children filed a lawsuit. Lexington House responded with exceptions of vagueness and prescription, the latter being the focus of this appeal. They argued that the lawsuit was filed beyond the one-year prescriptive period and that Deana’s initial filing did not suspend prescription for the other potential plaintiffs. The trial court denied the exception of prescription, leading to this appeal.

    Court’s Ruling

    The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision, denying the exception of prescription. The court focused on the definition of “claimant” under the LMMA and concluded that there’s a distinction between the right to initiate the medical review panel process and the right to file a lawsuit after the panel’s decision.

    The court reasoned that the LMMA’s definition of “claimant” is broad, encompassing not just direct beneficiaries but also representatives of the patient or the decedent’s estate. This broad definition serves the LMMA’s purpose, which is to facilitate the efficient resolution of medical malpractice claims.

    The court also addressed the argument that allowing anyone to initiate the medical review panel process would render meaningless a provision allowing healthcare providers to raise an exception of no right of action. The court countered that the LMMA’s definition of “claimant” is specific enough to prevent frivolous claims.

    Key Takeaways from the Guffey Decision

    • Broad Definition of “Claimant”: The LMMA’s definition of “claimant” is inclusive, allowing not only direct beneficiaries but also representatives of the patient or the decedent’s estate to initiate the medical review panel process.
    • Suspension of Prescription: Filing a request for a medical review panel suspends prescriptions for all potential plaintiffs, even those not directly involved in the panel process.
    • Distinction Between Panel Initiation and Lawsuit: The right to initiate the medical review panel process doesn’t necessarily equate to the right to file a lawsuit after the panel’s decision. The Louisiana Civil Code’s provisions on wrongful death and survival actions determine the latter.

    Implications for Medical Malpractice Claims

    The Guffey decision clarifies several aspects of medical malpractice litigation in Louisiana. It underscores the importance of initiating the medical review panel process in a timely manner, as this suspends prescriptions for all potential plaintiffs. It also highlights the broad definition of “claimant” under the LMMA, potentially allowing a wider range of individuals to initiate the process.

    However, it’s important to remember that initiating the panel process doesn’t automatically guarantee the right to file a lawsuit. The right to sue is still governed by the Louisiana Civil Code, which specifies the classes of beneficiaries who can bring wrongful death and survival actions.

    If you are considering filing a medical malpractice claim in Louisiana, consulting with an experienced attorney is crucial. They can help you navigate the complexities of the LMMA, ensure compliance with procedural rules, and protect your rights throughout the process.

    Additional Sources: JAMES E. GUFFEY, ET AL. VERSUS LEXINGTON HOUSE, LLC 

    Article Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Prescription: Grieving Widow Granted Opportunity to Fight Prescription in Medical Malpractice Case and Trial Court Errs by Granting an Exception of Prescription to Insurance Company