This case involved a workers' compensation claim by Debra L. Bennett Vicknair against her former employer, The Nature Conservancy, seeking supplemental earnings benefits (SEB's) for the period from August 4, 1996, to May 21, 1997, after she injured her knee in a workplace fall in 1995. The workers' compensation judge denied the claim, finding that Vicknair failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her injury prevented her from earning at least 90% of her pre-injury wages, and the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, affirmed. The court reasoned that Vicknair's treating physician had not restricted her from working, she had voluntarily left two jobs including one with higher pay, and there was no evidence that her physical therapy schedule or knee condition made employment impossible, as she had chosen a distant therapy provider without attempting local options. The appellate court applied the manifest error standard and found the trial court's factual conclusions reasonable under Louisiana Revised Statute 23:1221(3)(a).
In Glover v. Medical Center of Baton Rouge, a husband sued the hospital for injuries from a fall in his room after surgery, and his wife joined seeking damages for loss of consortium and emotional distress from witnessing his condition. The hospital, as a qualified provider under the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act, filed an exception of prematurity asserting the claims required review by a medical panel first; the exception and supporting papers referred only to the husband. The trial court granted the exception and dismissed both spouses' claims, but the wife appealed after her motion to amend the judgment was denied. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, reversed the dismissal of the wife's claims, holding that the trial court lacked authority to adjudicate issues not raised by the parties and that due process requires adequate notice of matters to be decided, as the exception addressed only the husband's complaint. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
This case involved a nationwide class action lawsuit brought by owners of certain General Motors pickup trucks alleging that the vehicles had a defective design due to side-mounted fuel tanks that increased the risk of fires in collisions, causing economic damages. Plaintiffs filed petitions in Louisiana state court seeking class certification on claims including negligence, breach of warranty, and redhibition, while excluding those with personal injuries from accidents. The trial court certified a settlement class of approximately 5.8 million owners and approved a proposed settlement over objections from numerous parties. On appeal, objectors challenged the class certification and the fairness of the settlement under Louisiana class action rules, with the court addressing procedural requirements for certification, amendments to judgments, and comparisons to federal standards.
The case involved Roy Dorman, a Louisiana inmate serving a sentence for cocaine distribution who was paroled and later convicted of crimes in Florida. Florida courts ordered his Florida sentences to run concurrently with any Louisiana parole revocation sentence, but the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections denied him credit for time served in Florida, a decision upheld by the trial court. Dorman sought judicial review, arguing that Louisiana law required the credit. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that LSA-R.S. 15:574.10 and LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 883.1 entitled Dorman to credit for time served in Florida from June 28, 1994, through November 1, 1995, because the statutes permit concurrent sentencing directed by a court and mandate credit for time served on concurrent out-of-state sentences.
The case involved parents suing a Catholic diocese, school boards, and the parents of an opposing basketball player after their daughter was intentionally kicked in the knee by the other player following a game loss. The jury awarded damages only against the other player's father and dismissed claims against the schools and diocese. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, finding no manifest error in the jury's conclusion that the incident was unforeseeable and that the schools and diocese were not negligent in failing to prevent it. The court also rejected claims of improper jury argument or instructions that would warrant de novo review.
In this case, a patient and her family sued a Louisiana state hospital for negligence and strict liability after she contracted Hepatitis C from a blood transfusion received in 1982 during childbirth. The hospital filed a dilatory exception of prematurity, arguing that the negligence claims had to first be submitted to a medical review panel under the Medical Liability and Insurance Act (MLSSA). The trial court denied the exception, and the Court of Appeal affirmed that ruling. The court reasoned that the MLSSA's definition of malpractice excludes claims arising from defects in blood or blood products, so the plaintiffs' allegations regarding the collection, screening, and administration of tainted blood did not require panel review. The decision turned on statutory interpretation of the MLSSA's scope for state health care providers.