In a case before the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, the court addressed whether a plaintiff had met his burden of showing a genuine issue of material fact existed at trial. Since the defendants had moved for summary judgment, Louisiana law required the plaintiff to show there remained a material fact in dispute regarding their liability. DSC05235-BIn this particular case, the issue was whether the defendants had notice of a twisted or bent stop sign at an intersection. The plaintiff contended that due to the failed stop sign, he drove into a ditch and suffered injuries and damage to his vehicle.
A recent case before the Third Circuit Court of Appeal addressed the materiality of an inaccurate statement on an insurance application. The insurance company sought to deny issuing the policy proceeds to the beneficiary, but the court analyzed whether the information, had it been accurately provided, would have led the insurer to deny coverage or issue coverage at a higher rate. Louisiana law applies this standard to determine whether recovery is precluded under the policy.
The Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal addressed issues concerning what is “medically necessary” under Louisiana workers’ compensation laws. The enactment of the Louisiana Medical Treatment Guidelines serves to deliver efficient medical care, but the treatment must be necessary in order to be compensated.
The Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal addressed an appeal in a maritime injury dispute following an accident that injured a welder working on a floating mat for a construction project. The injured plaintiff, in this case, was awarded over three million dollars, and liability was imposed upon his employer. At issue on appeal was whether the court properly found he had seaman status under the Jones Act and whether the award of general damages was an abuse of discretion.
Louisiana Court Holds Workers’ Compensation Claimant Failed to Meet Burden of Proof Regarding Alleged Shoulder Injury
The Second Circuit Court of Appeal issued a decision in a case involving the award of damages in a
workers’ compensation case. At issue was whether the alleged injury occurred from an on-the-job accident. The court reviewed the testimony of supervising employees, medical evidence, and the claimant’s testimony concerning his injuries to determine whether he met his burden of proof to show his injuries were caused by a workplace accident.
