Jack C. Watson

This workers' compensation case involved claimant Harold J. Charles, who alleged head and back injuries from an unwitnessed fall at his welding job and sought benefits including reimbursement for mental health treatment allegedly caused by the physical injury. The hearing officer awarded medical expenses for psychological care plus penalties and attorney fees after finding the mental issues stemmed from the accident, a decision affirmed in part on appeal. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed those portions of the judgment, holding that Charles failed to prove a compensable mental injury by clear and convincing evidence under the statute, which requires diagnosis by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist meeting DSM criteria. Multiple evaluations indicated malingering rather than a qualifying mental condition, and no qualifying expert testimony supported the claim. As a result, the employer was not liable for the mental health expenses or penalties for refusing payment.

labor & employment

This case was a criminal matter in Louisiana involving defendants Sedric C. Hampton, Billy Gene Abney, and Bobby L. Perry. The Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed an application for relief from a lower court decision. The court issued a one-word ruling of denied. No additional reasoning or explanation was provided in the opinion.

criminal law

This case involves the direct appeal of Lawson Eugene Strickland's convictions for first-degree murder, armed robbery, and conspiracy to commit armed robbery, along with his death sentence, stemming from the 1992 shooting death of Jesse Pinsonneault during a robbery of bank deposit bags outside a Louisiana bank. A jury found Strickland guilty and recommended the death penalty based on the aggravating factor that the murder occurred during an armed robbery. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions after reviewing multiple assignments of error, including claims related to joinder of offenses and other trial issues. It conditionally affirmed the death sentence but remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to address Strickland's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase, reserving his right to appeal any adverse ruling on that issue.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a video gaming licensee who sought to contribute to an advertising fund supporting video poker and challenged Louisiana Revised Statute 27:13(C)(6), which barred gaming licensees, permittees, and related parties from making contributions or expenditures to any candidate or committee. The trial court declared the statute unconstitutional to the extent it restricted contributions to committees advocating for or against ballot issues or propositions, and issued a preliminary injunction. On direct appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny to the First Amendment implications of the contribution ban, examined definitions of committees under campaign finance law, and reviewed precedents distinguishing candidate contributions from independent issue advocacy.

free speechelectionsbusiness & regulatory

This case arose from a 1991 highway accident on I-10 in which Embry Teel suffered severe injuries after a vehicle hydroplaned on accumulated water, spun out of control, and struck him while he was assisting another driver. The Teels sued the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) alleging both negligence and strict liability under Civil Code article 2317 for failing to maintain the roadway and warn of the hazard. The trial court allocated 50% fault to the DOTD and awarded damages, but only after declaring R.S. 9:2800 unconstitutional on the ground that its notice requirement for public-entity strict liability constituted an impermissible vestige of sovereign immunity under the state constitution. The Louisiana Supreme Court vacated the trial court's constitutional ruling and remanded the case, holding that a determination of the statute's validity was unnecessary because DOTD liability could be assessed under negligence principles without reaching strict liability. The Court noted that related issues such as fault allocation and damages were not addressed in this appeal.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a dispute over whether a statute on the time limits for filing certain claims applied retroactively, arising from an exception of prescription that the trial court had sustained but the court of appeal overruled before remanding for trial on the remaining issues. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application seeking review of that appellate decision. In a concurring opinion, Justice Lemmon explained that the denial carries no res judicata effect on the prescription question because the judgment was interlocutory rather than a final determination of the merits in whole or in part, and the court routinely declines supervisory review of partial judgments that remand for trial.

procedure