John T. Pettigrew

OXY USA Inc. filed suit seeking contribution and indemnity from Quintana Production Co., its alleged predecessor, and numerous insurers after settling an earlier lawsuit over oilfield contamination on property owned by Brownell Land Company. The claims arose from oil and gas operations under a 1979 Farmout Agreement covering a specific lease, with OXY alleging that the defendants were joint tortfeasors responsible for the contamination and that some had contractual indemnity obligations. In response to peremptory exceptions raising the objection of no right of action filed against the original and amended petitions, the trial court dismissed many of the claims. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's maintenance of the exceptions as to the defunct Quintana entities but reversed as to Corbin J. Robertson Jr. and his insurers, allowing those claims to proceed. The decision turned on whether OXY had a viable right of action for contribution against each named defendant under Louisiana law.

environmenttorts & liabilityprocedureproperty

This worker’s compensation case arose after Joseph Brown suffered shoulder, neck, and back injuries in a 2005 logging accident while employed by A M Logging; after surgery and treatment, the Office of Workers’ Compensation found him permanently and totally disabled and awarded indemnity benefits plus penalties, attorney fees, costs, and interest. A M Logging appealed, challenging the admission of a vocational report, the disability finding, and the imposition of penalties and fees. The court affirmed the disability determination and related indemnity award, holding that the evidence supported Brown’s inability to return to suitable employment given his medical restrictions, limited skills, and criminal record. It reversed the penalties and attorney fees, however, because the employer had reasonably controverted the claim by presenting contrary medical and vocational evidence showing potential light-duty work. Legal interest on the reversed awards was also vacated.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a dispute between Hwy. 21 N. Covington, L.L.C. and French Market Supply, L.L.C. The Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit, affirmed the lower court's decision in a ruling issued on July 26, 2011. The opinion was not published, and no specific reasoning was provided in the decision.

business & regulatory

In this workers’ compensation dispute, claimant Hollie Novitsky sought benefits after a 2008 work-related vehicle accident, alleging injuries including to her low back with resulting incontinence. The workers’ compensation judge awarded temporary total disability benefits and medical expenses for her neck, shoulder, left leg, and left knee injuries based on the parties’ stipulations but denied benefits for the back injury after finding no supporting medical evidence connected it to the accident. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial, holding that the judge’s factual finding on the claimant’s failure to carry her burden of proof was reasonable and not manifestly erroneous.

labor & employment

The case involved an insurer's subrogation claim under the Louisiana Products Liability Act against a fabricator of an I-beam used in a warehouse, after the roof collapsed under accumulated snow in 2008; the insurer sought recovery for payments made to its insured following the 2001 construction. The trial court granted the defendants' peremptory exception of peremption under La. R.S. 9:2772 and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the court held that the peremptive period does not bar the claim because La. R.S. 9:2772 applies only to design and construction activities by contractors and does not extend to manufacturers of defective component parts sued under the LPLA, which lacks a comparable peremptive period; the nature of the action as one for manufacturing defect controls whether the statute protects the defendant.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a dispute over a defaulted $18 million promissory note and related loan documents executed by Louisiana Hospital Center (LHC) in favor of GE Commercial Finance Business Property Corporation (GECF) to finance construction of a medical facility. LHC transferred the property to the Hammond Area Economic and Industrial Development District for tax incentives and leased it back, with a bond issued that the documents described as representing the same concurrent debt as the original note. After LHC missed payments, GECF accelerated the balance and sued LHC and the guarantors for liability under the note and guaranty agreements. The trial court granted partial summary judgment on liability in GECF's favor, and the court of appeal affirmed, holding that the bond and lease terms explicitly preserved the original loan obligations without disturbance.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This workers' compensation case involved Robb Harrelson, who settled his claim against employer Bestaff Arcadia for a $125,000 payment that included $42,010 to fund a Medicare Set-Aside account for future medical expenses. The settlement agreement contained a provision making MSA funding contingent on approval by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the employer paid the non-MSA portion promptly but funded the MSA only after receiving CMS approval in early 2010. Harrelson moved for statutory penalties and attorney fees under LSA-R.S. 23:1201 G, claiming the employer failed to pay the full settlement within thirty days of the final judgment. The Workers' Compensation Judge denied the motion, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the suspensive condition in the settlement agreement prevented enforcement of the MSA funding obligation until CMS approval occurred, which was an uncertain event outside the employer's control.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a dispute over reimbursement under Louisiana's workers' compensation laws for a hospital surgery performed on an injured employee. The employer, Winn-Dixie, paid the hospital more than the standard per diem rate after being told it owed 85% of billed charges as an outlier case, but later sought reimbursement claiming the case did not qualify. The Office of Workers’ Compensation Administration ruled in favor of Winn-Dixie, ordering the hospital to repay the excess amount. The court affirmed, reasoning that the employee's degenerative condition and routine surgery did not meet the criteria for an "outlier" reimbursement because it was not atypical due to case acuity, meaning a short and severe course of treatment.

labor & employmenthealthcarebusiness & regulatory

In this case, plaintiff Lillian P. Lyons alleged that she slipped and fell on algae-covered concrete in a parking lot while seeking disaster assistance from the State of Louisiana after Hurricane Gustav, claiming the defendants were negligent in maintaining the premises. The State raised an exception of no cause of action based on immunity under the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act (La. R.S. 29:735 A(1)), which shields the state from liability for injuries resulting from emergency preparedness activities during a declared disaster. The trial court sustained the exception and dismissed the claims against the State with prejudice. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the petition's allegations placed the incident squarely within the statutory immunity because the State was directing disaster assistance in the aftermath of a gubernatorially declared emergency, and the facts left no reasonable hypothesis for liability outside the immunity provisions.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, homeowners Jennifer and Frank Caminita sued the builders of their new home, Regina and Barney Core, for breach of contract, warranty, and damages after discovering defective Chinese drywall that caused air conditioning issues, blackened wiring, appliance failures, and health problems. The trial court sustained the builders' peremptory exception of peremption and dismissed the claims. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the New Home Warranty Act's one-year peremptive period applied rather than the five-year period for major structural defects. The core reasoning was that the petition failed to allege physical damage to load-bearing portions of the home caused by failure of those portions, as required by the statutory definition of a major structural defect, so the claims were untimely filed more than two years after the purchase agreement.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

The case State v. Cooper was a criminal prosecution in Louisiana in which the defendant was convicted on multiple counts. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit considered the appeal regarding Counts IV and V. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences on those counts. Because the decision was rendered without a published opinion, the underlying facts and specific legal analysis are not detailed in the record.

criminal law

This case involved an appeal by defendant Poindexter from a criminal conviction and sentence entered in Louisiana state court. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, reviewed the matter on May 6, 2011. The court issued its decision without a published opinion. It affirmed the conviction and sentence.

criminal law

The case BLD Services, LLC v. IED, LLC involved a civil dispute between two limited liability companies that reached the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit. The court issued a decision without a published opinion and affirmed the lower court's ruling. No details about the underlying facts, claims, or specific legal issues appear in the excerpt, and the opinion provides no explanation of the core reasoning for the affirmance.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case State v. Brown was a criminal appeal before the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit. The majority reversed the defendant's conviction, vacated the sentence, and remanded the matter for a new trial. The decision was issued without a published opinion, providing no further details on the underlying facts or legal issues presented. One judge dissented and assigned reasons for disagreement.

criminal law

The case concerned a Mississippi hospital's challenge to Louisiana's Medicaid reimbursement methodology for out-of-state providers, which paid lower rates to border hospitals like the plaintiff than to in-state facilities under rules adopted by the Department of Health and Hospitals. The trial court granted summary judgment declaring the methodology unconstitutional and discriminatory. On appeal, the Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed as amended, holding that the reimbursement rule violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution by discriminating against out-of-state hospitals and thereby also violated La. R.S. 40:1300.144(A)(3)(b). The court found the undisputed facts supported this legal conclusion without needing to address equal protection claims.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

In State v. Kimble, the defendant was charged with aggravated burglary and armed robbery after he and a codefendant broke into a victim's apartment, threatened him with a screwdriver and what appeared to be a gun, stole his belongings, and fled in his vehicle. The defendant was convicted by a jury and sentenced to concurrent terms of thirty years for burglary and fifty years without parole for robbery; he appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his request to act as co-counsel without a hearing, that his sentences were excessive, and that a photographic lineup was unduly suggestive and tainted the identifications. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the defendant had not clearly invoked his right to self-representation under Faretta, that the sentences did not violate constitutional limits on cruel and unusual punishment, and that the lineup was not suggestive because the photos depicted individuals with similar features and the victim's identification was independently reliable based on his opportunity to observe the perpetrator. The core reasoning focused on constitutional standards for self-representation, sentencing proportionality, and due-process reliability of eyewitness identifications.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from a 2008 rear-end collision involving a law firm employee driving her personal vehicle, leading to a damages suit by the Josephs against the driver, her insurer Shelter, the firm, and its insurer State Farm. Shelter and State Farm filed cross-motions for summary judgment on which policy provided primary versus excess coverage, resulting in a partial summary judgment favoring State Farm that did not resolve liability or damages. Shelter appealed that ruling after the parties settled and the trial court dismissed all claims with prejudice, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the partial judgment was a non-appealable interlocutory order that became moot upon settlement, with subject matter jurisdiction issues not waivable by party agreement.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a dispute between siblings, who were co-beneficiaries of their parents' revocable living trust, after the plaintiff sister sued the defendant brother (the trustee) for failing to provide a timely accounting of trust assets and expenditures following their parents' deaths. The trial court held the defendant in contempt for not complying with a prior order to furnish an accounting, imposed fines, ordered him to reimburse the plaintiff for certain expenditures deemed inappropriate, and directed disbursements from his attorney's client trust account. On appeal, the Louisiana court reversed in part and affirmed in part. The core reasoning centered on the trustee's mandatory statutory duties under Louisiana trust law to provide accountings to beneficiaries, the plaintiff's right of action to enforce those duties, and the sufficiency of evidence supporting the specific financial reimbursements and disbursements ordered.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case involved a nonparent petitioning to share custody of a child conceived by artificial insemination with the biological mother, who filed an affidavit consenting to joint custody and submitted an unopposed consent judgment. The trial court sua sponte raised and sustained an exception of no cause of action, refusing to sign the judgment because the pleadings did not allege that sole custody to the parent would cause substantial harm to the child under La. C.C. art. 133. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed after raising an exception of no right of action, holding that La. C.C. art. 132 applies only to legal parents and that the nonparent petitioner lacked standing to seek shared custody, while art. 133 requires a specific showing of harm from parental custody that was not present. The court reasoned that the Civil Code provisions limit remedies to the classes of persons they explicitly address and must be applied as written.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant in Louisiana charged with DWI fourth offense who, through counsel, waived his right to a jury trial and was convicted after a bench trial; he later filed a motion to arrest judgment claiming the waiver was not knowingly and intelligently made under state and federal constitutional standards. At the hearing on that motion, the defendant objected on attorney-client privilege grounds when the state sought to call his former counsel to testify about discussions regarding the waiver. The court ruled that the privilege did not bar the testimony, holding that the defendant had anticipatorily waived the privilege by filing the motion and thereby committing to a course of action requiring disclosure of those communications, and it denied the writ application while remanding for completion of the hearing.

criminal lawprocedure