Daren Sarphie's Legal Cases (3)

Workers compensation

BRIDGES V. GATEN’S ADVENTURES UNLIMITED, L.L.C.

Apr 02, 2015

OUTCOME: The court ruled in favor of my client, finding her testimony credible and her actions reasonable. The employer’s justification for denying the claim was deemed unfounded.

This was an example of the employer punishing the employee for having an accident and asserting her right to workers’ compensation benefits. My client was driving a charter bus full of school children. ... One child was in a wheelchair and needed a parent to assist getting him on and off of the bus. At one stop the parent was having trouble getting the child back on, so my client helped. Unfortunately, she hut her lower back in the process. Case Summary In Bridges v. Gaten’s Adventures Unlimited, L.L.C., 2014-CA-1132 (LA. APP. 1 CIR. 4/2/15), 167 S.3d 992, my client faced employer retaliation after asserting her right to workers’ compensation benefits. While driving a charter bus full of school children, she injured her lower back while assisting a parent with a child in a wheelchair. Employer’s Denial The employer denied her claim, arguing she reported the accident four days late. They contended she should have immediately reported her injury, but my client prioritized the children’s safety, avoiding a potential delay in their transportation. Reporting Delays The following day, my client attempted to report the injury but couldn’t find her supervisor and left after waiting an hour. The employer criticized her for not staying longer, ignoring that a supervisor was unavailable during normal business hours. Medical Attention and Employer’s Response My client sought medical attention over the weekend and reported the accident on Monday. Despite the employer’s denial, their Director of Operations admitted that the delay in reporting did not raise doubts about the accident’s occurrence. Court’s Decision The court ruled in favor of my client, finding her testimony credible and her actions reasonable. The employer’s justification for denying the claim was deemed unfounded. Lessons Learned This case underscores the importance of promptly reporting workplace accidents. Workers should utilize email or text to document their injury reports, ensuring there’s a record. Employers often shift blame to injured workers, as seen in Bridges, making thorough documentation crucial. Conclusion Workers’ compensation benefits are a legal right, but employers may resist fulfilling this obligation. If injured, insist on completing an accident report and document your requests in writing. This safeguards your rights and counters any claims of late reporting.

Workers compensation

ALBERT V. STRATEGIC RESTAURANTS ACQUISITION CO.

Dec 23, 2014

OUTCOME: The counselor admitted that my client lacked many of the necessary skills and qualifications for those jobs. This concise cross-examination demonstrated the counselor’s bias and lack of thorough assessment, ultimately benefiting my client’s case.

In 2013, Louisiana had enacted a new process, called a Preliminary Determination Hearing, to allow an employer a practice trial in front of the workers’ compensation judge and get an advisory opinion o ... n the issues raised by the claimant in the lawsuit. The decision was not binding, nor could it be appealed. The losing side had the opportunity to accept the recommendations and avoid the penalty of possible penalties and attorney fees, or could proceed to a trial on the merits. Case Background In Albert v. Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Co., LLC, 2014 CA 1001 (La. 1 Cir. 12/23/14), 168 So.3d 507, a significant legal process called a Preliminary Determination Hearing (PDH) was introduced in Louisiana in 2013. This allowed employers a practice trial before a workers’ compensation judge to get an advisory opinion on claimant issues. The decision from this hearing was non-binding and non-appealable, giving the losing side the choice to accept the recommendations and avoid potential penalties and attorney fees or proceed to a full trial. Implications for Claimants For claimants, avoiding a PDH is crucial. The Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act threatens employers with penalties and attorney fees to ensure compliance with the law. The PDH process reduces this incentive, allowing employers to avoid adverse consequences by following the non-binding recommendations from the practice trial. Stress on Injured Workers Trials, whether practice or real, are stressful for injured workers, especially when they are not receiving the benefits needed for recovery. This case highlighted the emotional and physical toll on claimants already struggling to regain normalcy in their lives. Court of Appeal Guidance This case provided significant analysis and guidance from the Court of Appeal on the Preliminary Determination Hearing requirements. It addressed ambiguities in the statute and offered clarity on the procedural aspects of PDHs. Vocational Rehabilitation Cross-Examination The case underscored the importance of cross-examining vocational rehabilitation (voc rehab) counselors. These counselors are ethically obligated to help the injured worker, but insurance companies often employ and pay them. It is rare for a voc rehab report from an insurance-hired counselor to conclude that someone is unemployable or requires significant retraining. Outcome and Lessons My client’s workers’ compensation payments were terminated based on a vocational rehab counselor’s identification of suitable jobs. However, during the trial, the counselor admitted that my client lacked many of the necessary skills and qualifications for those jobs. This concise cross-examination demonstrated the counselor’s bias and lack of thorough assessment, ultimately benefiting my client’s case. Conclusion The Albert case highlighted the challenges and intricacies of the Preliminary Determination Hearing process and the importance of diligent legal representation. It emphasized the need for claimants to be wary of the PDH process and showcased the critical role of effective cross-examination in protecting the rights of injured workers.

Workers compensation

SALOMONE V. GREATER GULF COAST AUTO AUCTIONS

Apr 26, 2013

OUTCOME: The Court of Appeal upheld the decision on April 26, 2013.

This is probably my fondest case over my entire career because it was a true David vs. Goliath story, and a perfect example of how an insurance company can build trust with an injured worker and use th ... at trust to its advantage. Case Background In Salomone v. Greater Gulf Coast Auto Auctions, 2012 CA 0952 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/26/13), 115 So.3d 1177, my client faced a daunting battle against a powerful employer and their extensive legal team. His foot had been severely injured by a co-worker operating a car at an auto auction, leading to orthopedic and neurological problems. David vs. Goliath This case exemplified a true David vs. Goliath scenario. The employer, part of a national corporation, hired one of the state’s largest defense firms. They aggressively pursued the case, taking about 12 depositions, including multiple ones from my client’s treating orthopedic doctor. The employer used tactics to delay and complicate the case, such as changing compensation checks and stopping medical treatment, adding psychological stress to my client’s physical suffering. Trial Preparation and Tactics Before the trial, the judge reviewed all evidence and briefs, warning the employer of potential penalties and offering settlement recommendations. Despite this, the employer offered a minimal settlement, far below the judge’s recommendation, pushing my client to proceed to trial. Endurance and Victory My client and his wife endured a grueling two-day trial. The judge ruled in their favor on every issue. The decision, delivered on October 24, 2011, was delayed further when the employer appealed, prolonging my client’s suffering. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision on April 26, 2013. Client’s Resolve The entire process spanned about four years. Despite the psychological and physical toll, my client’s determination to stand up against his employer was unwavering. His bravery in the face of adversity and his refusal to be bullied were inspiring. It was an honor to support him through this challenging journey.

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

The Avvo Rating explained