| by

Randy Piedrahita of the Baton Rouge, Louisiana law firm of Dué Guidry Piedrahita Andrews Courrege L.C. wins candidacy challenge, creating new election law. Randy represented the challenger to the incumbent Mayor of Walker. The incumbent Mayor filed his candidacy paperwork two minutes late on the last day of qualifying, resulting in a challenge brought by Randy’s client. Despite the lack of case law, Randy Piedrahita was able to convince the trial court and Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal that the deadline was firm and had not been met, resulting in the challenger being declared the winner without a formal election.

| by

Before the medical review panel was convened, Baton Rouge, Louisiana medical malpractice lawyer,  Scott Andrews, settled a medical malpractice wrongful death case for $300,000.

A fifty year old father of two adult children, who was a heavy smoker with a history of heart murmur, hypertension/high blood pressure, cardiomegaly, high cholesterol and triglyceride levels, anxiety, COPD, and a family history of heart disease died from a 90% blockage of the left anterior descending coronary artery. During the months leading up to his death, the decedent presented multiple times to his treating family physician and internist in Zachary, Louisiana, with progressing symptoms of heart disease, including chest pains, shortness of breath and leg cramps/Charlie Horse. The doctor diagnosed mild CHF and prescribed Nitroglycerin on the last visit, which visit occurred on the day of the death. The Louisiana medical malpractice attorneys at Dué Guidry Piedrahita Andrews Courrege L.C. alleged that despite these symptoms and an abnormal EKG finding, the treating physician failed to prescribe aspirin, to order a cardiac stress test and/or cardiac imaging, and to refer his patient to a cardiology specialist.
Continue reading

| by

After unanimously winning the medical review panel, Baton Rouge, Louisiana medical malpractice lawyer, Scott Andrews, settles a failure to diagnose compartment syndrome case against an emergeny room doctor for $450,000.

Plaintiff, a fifty-one year old nurse, presented to the Lane Memorial emergency room in Zachary, Louisiana, on the evening of September 5, 2005, with a history of falling twice within the last week, right lower leg and ankle pain of 10/10, swelling in the right foot, ankle and lower leg, and the inability to feel her toes. Plaintiff had a long history of back problems and pain that had required two lumbar surgeries and she was being actively treated for progressing lumbar disease and pain in the weeks before the emergency room visit. Physical examination by the emergency room physician revealed edema, pain on movement, pain on palpation and diminished range of motion. X-rays ruled out fractures and an ultrasound ruled out DVT. The emergency room physician sent plaintiff home with a diagnosis of “sprain”, without any consideration being given to the differential diagnosis of acute compartment syndrome–a medical emergency requiring immediate surgical intervention. The next morning, plaintiff was unable to flex her foot. She went to work and saw her treating neurosurgeon, who immediately sent her to the Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center emergency room in Baton Rouge for a four compartment fasciotomy. Because of the delay in diagnosing the compartment syndrome and relieving the compartmental pressure, plaintiff sustained a permanent drop-foot.
Continue reading

| by

Kirk Guidry and Scott Andrews settled a product liability case involving multiple burn injuries and deaths from a fuel-fed fire for a confidential amount. On August 6, 2002, five passengers were severely burned and two of them died from their severe burn injuries after their 2000 Chrysler/Plymouth Grand Voyager mini van (NS body 1996-2000) climbed upon and straddled a metal guard rail on Interstate 55 (I-55) in Kentwood, Louisiana, after sustaining a tire blow-out. A metal I-beam supporting the guard rail sliced the mini van’s unprotected high density polyethylene fuel tank which was located forward of the rear axle.

The Baton Rouge, Louisiana burn injury lawyers at Dué Guidry Piedrahita Andrews Courrege L.C. brought a product liability action under the Louisiana Products Liability Act, La. La.R.S. 9:2800.51, et seq., against the mini van’s manufacturer, DaimlerChrysler Corporation, alleging that the numerous skid plates, metal shields and other protective devices used on many all wheel drive vehicles and most SUVs are designed to prevent fuel tank puncture from guard rails, road debris, curbs, sign posts, etc., and were capable of preventing the fuel-fed fire that caused plaintiffs’ injuries, and therefore should have been incorporated into the design of the mini van’s fuel system. A claim was also brought against the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transportation and Development for the unreasonably dangerous condition of the metal I-beams supporting the guard rail.
Continue reading

| by

The Baton Rouge, Louisiana injury lawyers at Dué Guidry Piedrahita Andrews Courrege L.C. settled an industrial accident case caused by a defective horizontal boring machine. The plaintiff, a machine operator at Cooper Cameron Valves in Ville Platte, Louisiana, sustained severe orthopaedic injuries on March 9, 2004 while operating a 6″ horizontal boring machine, model G-60T, which had been retro-fitted with a Numeripath 8000 CNC control, and which was manufactured by Giddings & Lewis. Plaintiff became entangled in the rotating spindle while reaching across the spindle to check the depth of a hole he had just tapped on a large valve body.

Louisiana product liability attorney, B. Scott Andrews, brought a product liability action under the Louisiana Products Liability Act, La. La.R.S. 9:2800.51, et seq., against the manufacturer, alleging that it failed to design, construct and retrofit the machine in accordance with accepted hazard control, design and construction safeguarding and failed to equip the machine with a fixed or interlocked movable guard or with other available safeguarding or protective devices such as pull back (pull out) and restraint devices; electro-optical, RF, and area scanning presence-sensing safeguarding devices; safety mat devices; safety edge devices; and/or probe detection devices, all of which were allegedly available options on the retail market at the time of plaintiff’s accident. Giddings & Lewis argued that the plaintiff was solely at fault for reaching across the rotating spindle, that the employer was at fault for failing to properly train plaintiff and/or that the employer was responsible for the selection and implementation of optional safety devices.

The case settled with Giddings & Lewis paying $250,000 and the employer waiving its $180,000 worker’s compensation reimbursement claim and remaining responsible for plaintiff’s accident related future medical expenses.
Continue reading

| by

After an automobile accident in Baton Rouge, the plaintiff had back surgery and a follow-up surgery to correct a complication due to movement of the bone graft. Liability was hotly contested by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and it mounted a vigorous defense on injury causation, arguing that the “low-speed impact” could not have caused the plaintiff’s injuries. Baton Rouge, Louisiana trial lawyer, Randy A. Piedrahita, explained to the jury through expert witness testimony that in collisions involving pick-up trucks, property damage estimates are misleading, and Randy demonstrated exactly how the plaintiff’s back injury correlated to his seating position at the time of the low-speed impact.

After a five day jury trial, the jury awarded over $830,000 to the car wreck victim, which was reduced by 25% for his comparative fault. State Farm settled the case after trial for $755,985.
Continue reading

| by

Kirk Guidry and Scott Andrews of the Baton Rouge, Louisiana personal injury law firm of Dué Guidry Piedrahita Andrews Courrege L.C. completed a $1,500,000 settlement with a trucking company and trailer manufacturer for a defective underride guard. The accident occurred on Interstate 10 in Ascension Parish, Louisiana, when an automobile struck the rear of a moving tractor – trailer at high speed. The trailer was equipped with an ICC underride guard which improperly broke or deformed and allowed the automobile to travel an excessive distance under the rear of the trailer. This excessive underride allowed passenger compartment intrusion and resulted in multiple facial injuries to the driver, and rendered him blind.
Continue reading

| by

Baton Rouge, Louisiana burn injury attorney, Scott Andrews, of the Louisiana personal injury law firm of Dué Guidry Piedrahita Andrews Courrege L.C., completed a settlement involving severe burn injuries sustained by a young woman when a deep-fat fryer overturned.

Plaintiff was injured at a retail food establishment (portable trailer) in Bastrop, Louisiana. The accident occurred as she walked by a counter where an electric counter-top deep fryer was located–she slipped on the recently mopped floor and reflexively grabbed the fryer basket handle and pulled the fryer from the counter-top spilling the hot grease all over her body. She sustained 57% total body surface second degree burns and underwent seven surgeries.

The allegedly defective fryer was a Model 301HLSMA Electric Counter-Top Deep Fat Fryer manufactured by Star Manufacturing International, Inc. The fryer was marketed for “out-of-box” installation because it comes from the manufacturer already assembled, except for the screw-in legs, and plugs into an appropriate electrical outlet. Plaintiff alleged that the deep fryer was defective because it did not include a restraining device and/or because the manufacturer did not inform the purchaser that the fryer should be restrained as it does for the gas counter-top deep fat fryers it manufactures. Star Manufacturing countered that it was not liable because the electric counter-top deep fat fryer and its warnings met all applicable standards.
Continue reading

| by

In Berg v. Zummo, 2000-1699 (La.4/25/01),786 So.2d 708, the Louisiana Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision held that the liability of a vendor of alcoholic beverages who sells or serves alcohol to a person under the legal drinking age is determined under La.Civ.Code arts. 2315 and 2316 using the traditional duty/risk analysis rather than under La.R.S. 9:2800.1. Under this analysis, the vendor owes a duty to refrain from selling or serving alcohol to a person under the legal drinking age, and if the other requirements of breach, causation and damages are proven, then the vendor will be liable even if the vendor does not commit an additional affirmative act, such as unreasonable ejectment from the premises, that increases the peril of the intoxicated patron.

The Supreme Court further held that punitive damages under La.Civ.Code art. 2315.4 cannot be assessed against a vendor of alcoholic beverages for selling or serving alcohol to an intoxicated person whose intoxication while operating a motor vehicle causes injury.

The plaintiff, Berg, was injured during an altercation with Zummo and his companions and was then struck by Zummo’s truck as Zummo left the scene. Berg filed suit against Zummo and his insurer, Zummo’s companions, and a bar that sold Zummo alcohol immediately before the altercation (The Boot). All defendants except The Boot settled.

Continue reading