Justia Louisiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court granted the writ application in this case to answer the question of whether a one-year time period for instituting a survival action pursuant to La. Civ. Code art. 2315.1, particularly as amended by Acts 1986, No. 211, section 2, was prescriptive, within the meaning of La. Civ. Code art. 3447, or is peremptive, within the meaning of La. Civ. Code art. 3458. The trial court granted the defendants’ peremptory exceptions of peremption and no cause of action. The trial court found the plaintiff’s survival action was extinguished because it was perempted, having been filed more than one year from the date of the decedent’s death. The court of appeal reversed, finding the one-year period for bringing the survival action is a period of liberative prescription rather than a period of peremption. The court of appeal then remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeal’s decision. View "Watkins v. Exxon Mobil Corporation" on Justia Law

Marie Reed appeared before Judge Clark as a plaintiff in "Reed v. East Baton Rouge Sheriff Dept." Specifically, the Formal Charge at issue centers on a colloquy which took place in open court between Judge Clark and Ms. Reed while Ms. Reed’s lawyer was absent and on Judge Clark’s order dismissing Ms. Reed’s suit without prejudice after Ms. Reed was unable to prove her eligibility to proceed in forma pauperis. Ms. Reed had an unusual history of continuing to act many times as her own lawyer, even after she hired counsel. The Supreme Court found that because Judge Clark had signed an order dismissing Ms. Reed’s case without prejudice on April 18, 2011, the brief exchange she had with Ms. Reed on April 19th was of no substantive moment. Judge Clark testified, as the written order confirmed, that she denied the motion to stay and dismissed the case without prejudice the prior day. She took the bench only to announce her ruling on the record (an oral entry which would have been made even if no one associated with the case had been present that morning). The Court was "fully persuaded" that nothing with which the Commission charged Judge Clark warranted the Court’s sanction for judicial misconduct. View "In re Hon. Janice Clark" on Justia Law

The question before the Supreme Court was whether La. R.S. 23:1203.1 applied to requests for medical treatment and/or disputes arising out of requests for medical treatment in cases in which the compensable accident or injury occurred prior to the effective date of the medical treatment schedule. The Office of Workers’ Compensation (OWC) ruled that the medical treatment schedule applied to all requests for medical treatment submitted after its effective date, regardless of the date of injury or accident. The court of appeal reversed, holding that La. R.S. 23:1203.1 was substantive in nature and could not be applied retroactively to rights acquired by a claimant whose work-related accident antedated the promulgation of the medical treatment schedule. The Supreme Court disagreed with the conclusion of the court of appeal and found that La. R.S. 23:1203.1 was a procedural statute and, thus, did not operate retroactively to divest a claimant of vested rights. As a result, the statute applied to all requests for medical treatment and/or all disputes emanating from requests for medical treatment after the effective date of the medical treatment schedule, regardless of the date of the work-related injury or accident. View "Church Mutual Insurance Co. v. Dardar" on Justia Law

The City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge sought injunctive relief against defendant Stephen Myers to compel him to cease his alleged violation of the City-Parish’s Unified Development Code (the “UDC”), Title 7, Chapter 8, Section 8.201, Appendix H, entitled “Permissible Uses.” The City-Parish alleged that more than two unrelated persons were residing in a home owned by the defendant in an area zoned “A1” and restricted to “single-family dwellings.” The defendant answered the petition, admitting that he was the owner, but denying that he occupied the premises, as he had leased the property to other occupants. The defendant sought dismissal of the action for injunctive relief and asserted, both as an affirmative defense and as the basis for his reconventional demand for declaratory judgment: that the UDC zoning law’s restrictive definition of “family” was unconstitutional on its face and as applied, violating his state and federal constitutional rights of freedom of association; deprived him of his property without due process of law; denied him an economically viable use of his property; and violated his equal protection rights, contending the ordinance “impose[d] greater limitations on owners who choose to rent their homes . . . than it does on owners who choose not to rent their homes” and also by prohibiting “foster children and non-adopted stepchildren without a living biological parent from being able [to] reside with their respective foster parents and stepparents . . . while allowing an unlimited number of very distant relatives via blood, marriage or adoption to reside together.” The defendant also urged, along with defenses and/or matters not relevant hereto, that the zoning law’s definition of “family” should be declared void for vagueness because its prohibitions were not clearly defined and it does not contain an unequivocal statement of law. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in its rulings; therefore, the Court reversed the declaration of unconstitutionality and the denial of a suspensive appeal, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "City of Baton Rouge v. Myers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to consider whether La. R.S. 23:1203.1 applied to a dispute arising out of a request for medical treatment where the request for treatment was submitted after the effective date of the statute and the medical treatment schedule, but the compensable accident and injury that necessitated the request occurred prior to that date. Both the Office of Workers’ Compensation (OWC) and the court of appeal ruled that La. R.S. 23:1203.1 applied to all requests for medical treatment submitted after the statute’s effective date, regardless of the date of accident and injury. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Cook v. Family Care Services, Inc." on Justia Law

The issue this case presented to the Supreme Court centered on whether the Patient’s Compensation Fund (PCF) could be bound by summary judgment rendered solely against a defendant physician in the underlying malpractice proceeding on the issue of causation. Plaintiffs, Majdi Khammash and his wife and children, filed suit against various defendants, including Dr. Gray Barrow. After approving plaintiff’s settlement with Dr. Barrow for the $100,000 Medical Malpractice Act (MMA) cap, the District Court granted partial summary judgment, finding plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the fault of Dr. Barrow. The case then proceeded to jury trial against the PCF for the remaining $400,000 MMA cap. The jury returned a verdict in the PCF’s favor, finding Dr. Barrow’s malpractice did not cause plaintiff damage. The Court of Appeal reversed, finding as a result of the partial summary judgment, the issue of causation was not properly before the jury, and remanded for a new trial on damages only. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the extent, if any, the PCF was bound by the partial summary judgment on causation. The Court found, in accordance with La. Rev. Stat. 40:1299.44(C)(5)(a) and its holding in "Graham v. Willis-Knighton Med. Ctr.," (699 So.2d 365), the partial summary judgment against Dr. Barrow on the issue of causation was not binding on the PCF in plaintiff’s claim for damages exceeding the $100,000 MMA cap. Furthermore, the Court found no manifest error in the jury’s factual findings on causation. The Court therefore reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and reinstated the District Court’s judgment in its entirety. View "Khammash v. Clark" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented to the Supreme Court involved mineral rights and royalties associated with a production well located on a certain tract of land owned by the plaintiffs in Terrebonne Parish. Two conveyances were at issue: a 1966 mineral deed and a 1992 cash sale. The plaintiffs asserted the 1966 mineral deed did not create a valid mineral servitude and, consequently, sought to be declared as owning 100% of the mineral rights since their purchase of the subject property by act of cash sale in 1992, and demanded to be awarded the royalties due from June 29, 1997, until the well stopped producing sometime in 2001 or 2002. Plaintiffs further asserted a violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act based on the allegation that various acts of the defendants amounted to a tortious conspiracy to deprive the plaintiffs of the royalties due them. The trial court ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor, finding the 1966 deed did not create a valid servitude over the subject property, plaintiffs were the owners of the mineral rights as of the 1992 purchase, and the defendants’ conduct amounted to unfair trade practices. The appellate court reversed and vacated the judgment, finding that the 1966 mineral deed had created a valid mineral servitude and that the 1992 act of cash sale had placed the plaintiffs on notice that the mineral rights to the property had been previously conveyed. The appellate court then remanded the case for consideration of the remaining issues associated with any rights the plaintiffs may have acquired from settlements with predecessor mineral interest owners in 2001 and 2005. After its review of the case, the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeal: the 1966 mineral deed was sufficiently specific to identify the property to be conveyed and, thus, to create a valid mineral servitude and to place third parties on notice of the existence of that servitude. Plaintiffs did not acquire the mineral rights to the subject property via the 1992 warranty deed. Furthermore, the actions of the defendants did not rise to the level of an unfair trade practice within the meaning of the act. View "Quality Environmental Processes, Inc. v. St. Martin" on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendant as a principal in the murder of Mark Westbrook, victim of an apparent execution committed by Ortiz Jackson. Based primarily on the circumstantial evidence provided by cellular phone records from Sprint and Verizon tying the cell numbers of defendant and Jackson together with the number of an “unknown” person, the state argued, and jurors ultimately concluded, that defendant, who had intervened in an argument between Westbrook and Rock McKinney, one the victim’s friends, on a night of drinking, got on his cell phone and orchestrated Westbrook’s demise, after exchanging words with the intoxicated victim outside of the bar. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit addressed the state’s contention that defendant threatened the victim, was seen using a cell phone, and that the victim died shortly after a series of phone calls between defendant, an unknown person, and Jackson. Defendant argued because the state could not prove the content of the phone calls made to Jackson and the unknown party before the shooting, the state could not satisfy its burden of proof regarding any specific intent to murder the victim. Finding the state’s case rested wholly on circumstantial evidence, the majority of the Court of Appeal reasoned that, given Sprint and Verizon records indicating that calls linking the cell numbers of defendant’s, Jackson’s, and “unknown’s” phones in the hours well before the late-evening murder, “the State did not exclude that another logical inference, other than to procure murder, could be drawn from these telephone calls; namely, that the defendant may have been returning the phone call of the unknown caller and/or that these calls were to discuss the business that pre-existed among them prior to defendant’s interjection of himself into the altercation between the victim and Rock McKinney.” Underlying the controversy between the state and defendant in this case was the question of how much deference a reviewing court in Louisiana must give to the jury’s verdict in a case involving primarily or exclusively circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court concluded after its review of the case that the court of appeal erred in vacating defendant’s conviction for second degree murder on the basis the state failed to present evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction. Therefore, the conviction and sentence were reinstated, and the court of appeal was directed to address defendant’s remaining claims on the merits on remand of the case. View "Louisiana v. Mack" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Ashley Hoffman was insured under an automobile insurance policy issued by defendant Travelers Indemnity Company of America. Following an automobile accident, plaintiff received medical treatment at Baton Rouge General Medical Center and sought reimbursement for the hospital bill under her Travelers' medical payments coverage. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the Travelers’ policy, which provided for payment of medical expenses "incurred," allowed plaintiff to be reimbursed for the full, nondiscounted amount of the hospital bill when the charges were contractually reduced pursuant to the hospital’s agreement with plaintiff's health insurer, AETNA Insurance Company. The Court answered that question in the negative and reversed the rulings of the lower courts. View "Hoffman v. Travelers Indemnity Company of America" on Justia Law

Dustin Watkins suffered an in utero stroke approximately two days before he was born (in 1990), allegedly arising out of the medical malpractice of the treating obstetrician, Dr. Richard Barry, which resulted in a brain injury. This medical malpractice action followed, and a November 2003 trial resulted in multiple damage awards. At issue in this case was the extent to which the Louisiana Patient's Compensation Fund (PCF) continued to be obligated to make advance payments for custodial/attendant care for a medical malpractice victim, after receiving information indicating that such care may no longer be needed, and whether the PCF had the right to unilaterally terminate such payments, without prior court approval, when a judgment was previously rendered ordering it to make said payments. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that when the PCF denies a claim for payment of a future medical or related expense and the district court thereafter exercises its continuing jurisdiction and issues a ruling as to that matter, the PCF is obligated to comply with the district court's ruling, order, or judgment unless it modified or set aside by the court. View "Watkins v. Lake Charles Memorial Hospital" on Justia Law