Morris Albert Lottinger jr

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).

labor & employmenttorts & liability

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.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

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.

proceduretorts & liability

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.

criminal law

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.

torts & liability

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.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

This case involved James Kevin Woods, who was convicted by a jury of armed robbery in Louisiana and later admitted to being a second-felony habitual offender, resulting in a sentence of sixty-five years at hard labor. On appeal, Woods challenged the trial court's rulings on two main issues: the denial of his Batson objections to the prosecutor's peremptory strikes of prospective jurors, which he claimed were racially discriminatory, and the allowance of an amendment to the bill of information changing the named victim from the bank to the individual tellers. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, affirmed the conviction and sentence, reasoning that the prosecutor's explanations for the strikes were race-neutral and that the defendant was not prejudiced by the technical amendment to the charging document, as he had notice of the charges through a preliminary examination.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case concerned whether the Louisiana State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) could deny a teaching certificate to John David Newchurch under its regulation (LAC 28:I.903E(1)) because he had a prior felony conviction for conspiracy to maliciously damage buildings by fire, even though that offense was not among the specific crimes listed in La. R.S. 15:587.1(C). The trial court ruled the regulation invalid as conflicting with La. R.S. 17:15, which restricts school hiring of individuals convicted of listed crimes. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that La. R.S. 17:15 limits only the hiring practices of school systems and does not preempt or restrict BESE's separate statutory and constitutional authority under La. R.S. 17:7(6) to set qualifications and certify teachers. The court found no legislative intent to limit BESE's broader power to deny certification based on any felony conviction.

criminal lawlabor & employment

In State v. Druilhet, the defendant was charged with aggravated battery after striking a police officer during a fight with his brother at an accident scene, causing the officer to lose an eye; he was convicted by jury of the lesser offense of second degree battery and sentenced to five years at hard labor. On appeal, the defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove the specific intent required for second degree battery because he claimed he intended to hit his brother rather than the officer. The Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit, affirmed the conviction, holding that the jury could reasonably find the defendant acted with specific intent to inflict serious bodily injury, as the blow caused permanent loss of an eye and any intent directed at the brother could transfer to the actual victim under applicable legal principles. The court applied the Jackson v. Virginia standard, concluding that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and supported the verdict.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from a 1995 bus accident in Lafayette Parish, Louisiana, in which multiple passengers sued the bus company (Frontier), its liability insurer (Clarendon), the driver, and others for personal injuries, filing the suit in St. Mary Parish where one plaintiff was domiciled and insured under a UM policy by Prudential. The defendants Frontier and Clarendon raised an exception of improper venue, arguing that St. Mary Parish was not a proper venue for them as they were domiciled in Tangipahoa Parish and the accident occurred elsewhere. The court held that under Louisiana law, a tortfeasor and a plaintiff's UM carrier are solidary obligors (per Hoefly), making venue proper as to Frontier, but a tortfeasor's liability insurer and a UM carrier are not solidary obligors (per Rizer), making venue improper as to Clarendon. Nevertheless, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of the venue exception, construing the venue rules liberally to allow the entire case to proceed in one parish in the interests of justice.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved a workers' compensation claimant, Joseph Weston, who was receiving benefits from Clarendon National Insurance Company after an on-the-job injury but allegedly failed to report earnings from a sugarcane truck he claimed to have sold. The insurer sought to terminate benefits under La. R.S. 23:1208, alleging fraud via false statements on earnings reports. The workers' compensation judge found willful false statements, ordered forfeiture of benefits, and recommended civil penalties. On appeal, Weston challenged subject matter jurisdiction, but the court held that disputes over false statements to obtain benefits fall within the workers' compensation court's authority as they are integrally related to claim administration. The court affirmed the forfeiture ruling based on the supporting evidence.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Folse v. Folse, a divorced father appealed a trial court judgment granting his ex-wife sole custody of their two minor children and denying him all visitation, based on a finding that he had sexually abused their daughter under Louisiana's Post-separation Family Violence Relief Act. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, first dismissed the mother's untimely answer to the appeal seeking attorney fees. It then held that the trial court committed legal error by admitting hearsay statements from the child (who did not testify) to her mother, aunt, grandmother, and therapist, ruling that Code of Evidence article 1101(B)(2)'s relaxed evidentiary standards do not apply to PSFVRA proceedings because they involve a significant permanent loss of parental rights; the statements did not qualify as non-hearsay initial complaints under article 801(D)(1)(d) since the child was available to testify. Without the improperly admitted evidence, the court found insufficient proof of sexual abuse by clear and convincing evidence, reversed the custody and visitation ruling, and remanded for further proceedings on the children's best interests using current information.

family lawprocedure

The case involved Leroy Timothy Young, who was charged with stalking and simple assault against a judge presiding over his divorce and child custody proceedings. After a bench trial, Young was convicted of stalking based on phone calls to court staff, courthouse appearances, and other incidents tied to his ongoing civil case; he was acquitted of assault and sentenced to probation with a no-contact order. On review, the Court of Appeal recalled its prior denial, granted the writ, reversed the conviction, and entered an acquittal. The court held that the evidence was constitutionally insufficient under the stalking statute because Young's conduct occurred in the context of constitutionally protected litigation activity, lacked proof of willful or malicious intent, and did not demonstrate a threat or specific intent to place the judge in fear of death or bodily injury.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether the Louisiana State Civil Service Commission could adopt rules authorizing classified employees to appeal adverse actions based on categories of discrimination beyond the four listed in La. Const. Art. X, § 8(B) (political or religious beliefs, sex, or race). The Department of Agriculture and Forestry sought a declaratory judgment that several Commission rules were unconstitutional because they exceeded the Constitution's express limits on appealable discrimination claims. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Commission, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that § 8(B) guarantees a right of appeal for the enumerated categories but does not exclusively limit the Commission's authority. The court reasoned that the Commission's broad rulemaking power under Art. X, § 10(A) permits it to expand appealable discrimination grounds to non-merit factors in order to administer the classified service effectively.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

In Connolly v. Seeley Service Construction, a carpenter filed a workers' compensation claim after injuring his neck, left shoulder, and right knee in a fall from a ladder on the job. The Office of Workers' Compensation ordered the employer and its insurer to authorize and pay for recommended surgical procedures on the claimant's knee, shoulder, and neck, despite conflicting medical opinions from several orthopedic surgeons. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, affirmed the judgment, reasoning that the workers' compensation judge had discretion to credit the treating physician's recommendations over other experts' reports, particularly since the treating physician was the only expert to testify at trial and treating physicians' opinions generally receive greater weight.

labor & employment

Eleanor May sued Mitchell Brothers, Inc. and its insurer after a ricocheting softball from a milk-bottle-toss game at the Livingston Parish Fair injured her while she stood near the booth. The trial court found both parties negligent, apportioned 20% fault to May and 80% to Mitchell, and awarded $50,000 in damages. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Mitchell was not negligent because it had no duty to protect against all possible hazards and the booth's three-sided enclosure plus top provided reasonable precautions. The court explained that amusement operators are liable only if they breach a duty by creating an unreasonable risk, which the scant evidence failed to show here as such accidents were possible but not probable, and no feasible alternative precautions were proven.

torts & liability

The case involved former white female customer service clerks at CLECO suing the company, a black co-worker, and a black supervisor for racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliatory discharge under Louisiana Fair Employment Practice and Human Rights statutes. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no evidence that workplace acrimony was due to racial issues, and the Court of Appeal affirmed this decision. The court reasoned that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as required elements like discriminatory animus and employer inaction were not met, and individuals could not be sued in their personal capacities under the relevant laws.

civil rightslabor & employment

In State v. Eames, the defendant was convicted of second-degree murder after a jury trial for his role in a home invasion robbery that resulted in the shooting death of Kevin Evans in Baton Rouge. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. On appeal, the defendant raised assignments of error challenging certain testimony about a co-perpetrator's separate trial and related procedural issues, but the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, found the claims lacked merit because objections were not properly preserved at trial and the testimony did not improperly reference a conviction. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence while remanding solely to correct a discrepancy in the minutes regarding the sentence conditions.

criminal lawprocedure

Thomas A. Lott, a Louisiana State Police helicopter pilot, was terminated in 1995 for alleged dishonorable conduct after sending anonymous and pseudonymous letters to the FAA and officials criticizing his supervisor; he appealed to the State Police Commission, which upheld the firing after multiple hearings. Lott challenged the process on due process grounds, noting that commission membership changed over time, a quorum was absent during one hearing day in September 1996, and only two of the six members who decided the case had attended all testimony sessions. The court held that these procedural irregularities violated Lott's due process rights because a majority of the decision-making panel did not hear and weigh all the evidence, including testimony about alternative suspects and lack of forensic links to Lott. It therefore reversed the Commission's ruling and remanded for further proceedings. The topics are labor & employment, procedure, and civil rights.

labor & employmentprocedurecivil rights

In this case, an employee of a nursing home lessee and her husband sued the property owner and the lessee-employer after she slipped and fell on a defective wooden ramp, alleging premises liability and an intentional tort. The trial court granted summary judgment to both defendants, and the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, affirmed. The court held that under the 1989 amendment to the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Act, workers' compensation is the employee's exclusive remedy against her employer even where the employer had contractually assumed liability for premises defects under La. R.S. 9:3221, and that no evidence supported an intentional tort claim. It further ruled that the owner was relieved of liability because the lease validly shifted responsibility to the lessee.

labor & employmentpropertytorts & liability