Articles Posted in Brain Injury

| by

The Baton Rouge, Louisiana personal injury law firm of Dué Guidry Piedrahita Andrews Courrege L.C. was selected for first tier (those firms that scored within a certain percentage of the highest scoring firms) inclusion in the 2010 inaugural rankings of U.S. News – Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms”, in the practice areas of Personal Injury Plaintiffs and Product Liability Plaintiffs. “The selection involved surveying thousands of law firm clients; leading lawyers and law firm managers; partners and associates; and marketing officers and recruiting officers. Each were asked what factors they considered vital for clients hiring law firms, for lawyers choosing a firm to refer a legal matter to, and for lawyers seeking employment.”

“Client and lawyer surveys collected mostly reputational data. Using a scale of 1 (weakest) to 5 (strongest), clients voted on expertise, responsiveness, understanding of a business and its needs, cost-effectiveness, civility, and whether they would refer another client to a firm. Lawyers voted on expertise, responsiveness, integrity, cost-effectiveness, and whether they would refer a matter to a firm and whether they consider a firm a worthy competitor.”

| by

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal in Guillot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 2008-1485 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/24/10), upheld awards of $2,775,000 to a mother and $2,100,000 to a father for the death of their 17 day old brain damaged baby who was surgically removed from the mother’s abdomen following an accident, and was removed from life support 17 days later. The mother was pinned between the vehicle door and a brick column when the defective Jeep Cherokee rolled backwards.

The Court of Appeal reasoned as follows: “We do not find that the trial court abused its vast discretion with respect to the general damage award, nor do we find that the award shocks the conscience. It is indisputable that the unique facts of this case are extraordinarily tragic. Additionally, the Louisiana Supreme Court has held that ‘[t]he determination of the severity of mental anguish of distress resulting from the death of another is a fact question which depends upon several components, including, but not limited to, the closeness of the ties between the parties, the degree of love in the relationship, and the length of the relationship.’ Herbert v. Webre, 2008-0060 (La.5/21/08), 982 So.2d 770, n. 7 (citing Hill v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 05-1783 (La.7/10/06), 935 So.2d 691, 695).”

| by

The Louisiana Supreme Court on March 16, 2010, reversed in part and affirmed in part the matter of Brewer v. J.B. Hunt Transport, 2009-1408 c/w 2009-1428. Brewer was permanently and severely injured when his pick-up truck rear-ended and rode underneath an 18 wheeler on I-12 in Livingston Parish, Louisiana.

The Twenty-First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Livingston entered judgment on the jury verdict finding Brewer 100% at fault for the rear-end collision. The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal reversed based on the trial court’s legal error in allowing evidence of Brewer’s unrelated prior bad acts (pre-accident drug use and arrests) into evidence, and on de novo review, found Brewer 40% at fault for the rear-end collision and the 18 wheel tractor trailer driver 60% at fault for suddenly changing lanes in a construction zone and into Brewer’s lane of travel. The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal awarded a total of $10,677,634.93 in special damages and $2,500,000.00 in general damages for Brewer’s injuries, which included a traumatic injury to the right anterior temporal lobe of his brain, resulting in bed-wetting, seizures, short-term memory deficits, a lowered IQ, personality changes, and disinhibition.

The Louisiana Supreme Court found that the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal’s de novo review of the trial court judgment was inappropriate because the bad acts evidence was directly related to the central issue of damages and not to the central issue of liability, which was the basis for the jury’s ultimate conclusion. However, the Louisiana Supreme Court still determined that the jury’s allocation of fault between the parties was manifestly erroneous. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the allocation of fault and reassessed fault 70% to Brewer and 30% to the 18 wheel tractor trailer operator.
Continue reading

| by

On February 16, 2010, a Southland Steel Fabricators construction worker suffered a fatal traumatic brain injury and another worker sustained minor injuries in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, after the construction workers fell 20 feet to the ground from a lift after it was struck by a beam.

According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 1,178 fatal work injuries occurred in the construction industry in 2007, the most of any industry, with laborers accounting for the largest number of fatal work injuries among construction occupations.

According to Baton Rouge, Louisiana brain injury attorney, Scott Andrews, construction workers injured or killed on the job are usually barred from filing a personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit because of Louisiana’s strict worker’s compensation immunity for direct and statutory employers. However, if the construction worker’s accident was caused in part by the fault of the employee of a different subcontractor or independent contractor, then the injured construction worker may be able to file a third-party tort action. Injured workers or their families should always consult with an experienced industrial accident or construction accident injury attorney before accepting the employer’s representation that worker’s compensation is the exclusive remedy for the injury or death.
Continue reading

| by

In an Illinois medical malpractice case involving a four year old girl who suffered brain damage at birth, LeBron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, the Illinois Supreme Court held on February 4, 2010, that a 2005 medical malpractice cap on noneconcomic damages, such as pain and suffering, is unconstitutional. The cap limited awards to $500,000 from doctors and $1,000,000 from hospitals. The Supreme Court reasoned: “That ‘everybody is doing it’ is hardly a litmus test for the constitutionality of the statute.”

According to Louisiana medial malpractice attorney, Scott Andrews, Louisiana’s medical malpractice cap on damages, which limits awards for noneconomic damages and lost earnings to $500,000, is also under attack. The Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal had ruled the cap unconstitutional, but the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed on procedural grounds and remanded the case to the trial court for another trial on the issue. The Louisiana Legislature is expected to tackle the med mal cap again this legislative session with trial lawyers pushing for an increase in the cap on damages, and health care providers pushing for more restrictions on medical malpractice lawsuits.
Continue reading

| by

Louisiana’s Traumatic Head Injury or Spinal Cord Injury Trust Fund provides services to Louisiana citizens who survive traumatic head or traumatic spinal cord injuries, and who have exhausted all other governmental and private resources. Individual services are limited to $15,000 per year, with a cap of $50,000 over the individual’s lifetime. Services include evaluations, post-acute medical care rehabilitation, therapies, medication, attendant care, equipment necessary for activities of daily living, and other goods and services deemed appropriate and necessary. Baton Rouge, Louisiana brain injury and spinal cord injury attorney, Scott Andrews, suggests that eligible individuals immediately contact the Traumatic Head Injury or Spinal Cord Injury Trust Fund office for more information and to be placed on the waiting list for available services, since it could take several years to become a trust fund beneficiary for this first come first served program.
Continue reading

| by

The family of a football player who suffered a brain injury in a football game one month after suffering a concussion settled their case against La Salle University for $7,500,000. The family claimed in their lawsuit that the earlier concussion made the football player more vulnerable to brain damage from another severe blow to the head.

Better training on proper tackling techniques and proper blocking have greatly reduced the number of paralyzing football injuries. However, there remains an enormous amount of controversy and disagreement over the seriousness of concussion injuries. Just this season, Tim Tebow, Kurt Warner and Ben Roethlisberger went down with concussion injuries. Certainly, these three stars received the finest medical treatment available and did not return to play until it was neurologically safe to do so. However, many young men and women do not receive proper treatment and are pushed back onto the field by over zealous coaches before it is safe to return to full contact, and are unnecessarily exposed to a high risk of brain injury.

The Louisiana injury lawyers at Dué Guidry Piedrahita Andrews Courrege L.C. are no strangers to sports injury cases, having handled one of the most well-known reported sports injury cases in Louisiana– Fox v. Board of Supervisors, involving a rugby player rendered quadriplegic after being allegedly improperly tackled by an opposing player.
Continue reading

| by

18 Wheeler Driver who did not Follow Training 60% at Fault for Livingston Parish, Louisiana Accident. In Brewer v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., 9 So.3d 932 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2009), an 18 wheeler driver changed lanes on a multi-lane highway in Livingston Parish and was rear-ended by a following motorist. A Livingston Parish jury found the truck driver free from fault and found the rear-ending motorist 100% at fault. On appeal, the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal reversed. The Court of Appeal found that the truck driver was 60% at fault for disregarding his training as a professional truck driver and for acting negligently in attempting to make a lane change across the solid white lane line, which requires extreme care or caution, as mandated by the Louisiana Driver’s Guide which provides that such maneuvers may only be made with “great care.” The Court of Appeal also found the rear-ending motorist to be negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout and to timely react to the situation caused by the truck driver. Although the following motorist initially made a rightward steering maneuver in response to the movement of the 18-wheeler, he failed to anticipate that the 18-wheeler would slow its speed and would not be able to completely move into the left lane before being stopped by traffic ahead caused by the merging of the two lanes of traffic. The Court of Appeal specifically found that the following motorist breached the duty to timely apply his brakes.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the following motorist contributed to the accident, but was not the primary cause of the accident. He was plainly unaware of the danger and was merely inattentive. The truck driver, by contrast, had the ability to discern from his high vantage point that he could safely and promptly complete his lane change before crossing over the lane line. The magnitude of the risk created by the 18-wheeler and the careless manner in which he attempted to change lanes; his knowledge as a professional truck driver of the danger involved in lane changes, especially across a solid white lane line; his greater experience and training; and the magnitude of the harm created all supported a finding that the truck driver and his employer should bear a greater degree of liability. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal assigned 60% fault to the truck driver and his employer and 40% fault to the following motorist, and awarded total damages in excess of $13,000,000.
Continue reading

| by

In Brewer v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., 9 So.3d 932 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2009), an 18 wheeler driver changed lanes on a multi-lane highway in Livingston Parish and was rear-ended by a following motorist. The following motorist was awarded in excess of $13,000,000 in total damages for multiple injuries, including permanent brain damage. The following motorist sustained traumatic injury to the right anterior temporal lobe of his brain. Dr. John Clifford, the treating neurological surgeon, testified that the plaintiff’s magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports show atrophy and brain cell death. Dr. Clifford also noted that he suffered seizures following the accident and that his initial electroencephalogram (EEG) report, prior to the use of anticonvulsant medications, was markedly abnormal. Dr. Clifford opined that Brewer’s various items of brain damage and epilepsy could be attributable to the accident. The body of medical testimony showed that Brewer’s brain injury is permanent. Dr. Clifford testified, based on his review of two separate neuropsychologists’ reports, that Brewer has residual brain impairments and that there will be future worsening of his cognitive functioning.
Continue reading