FRANKE & SALLOUM, PLLC
Attorneys at Law
FIRM NEWS
The firm obtained a victory for a local shipbuilding company in the case of Osprey Ship Management, Inc., et al vs. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc., et al. The case was filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333 seeking damages arising out of an allision involving Plaintiffs' vessel, the M/V AMERICAN CORMORANT. Richard P. Salloum represented Northrop Grumman Ship Systems in the case at trial. On September 18, 2008, United States District Judge Halil S. Ozerden rendered his opinion in this case dismissing Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc. from the case with prejudice. Click here to read the opinion in its entirety.
If you would like to speak with Richard Salloum about this decision or have a case involving similar issues, email him at RPS@FRSLaw.com.
In Daniel Bacon v. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc., Paul B. Howell successfully defended Northrop Grumman in a workers’ compensation claim for nasopharyngeal cancer allegedly due to welding fume exposure. Click here to read the opinion in its entirety.
If you would like to speak with Paul Howell about this decision or have a case involving similar issues, email him at PBH@FRSLaw.com.
In the case of Jason Brown v. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc., claimant alleged that he had a work-related injury while working the night shift after only working a few months. The following day, he sought medical treatment but did not mention an injury. He had two witnesses handwrite statements advising that he had complained of a back injury and he allegedly reported the injury to his supervisor.
Through the investigation by Donald P. Moore, it was determined that claimant had sought treatment just the month before his alleged accident from the same physician that he saw the day following the alleged accident. At that time, it was recommended he return in approximately a month and possibly undergo a MRI for his complaints of longstanding and chronic back pain with flare ups. The return visit was scheduled the same day of his alleged accident.
Through further investigation, it was learned that this man had at least two prior workers’ compensation injuries with other employers involving his knees and had long standing pain management treatment several years prior to his alleged accident with the shipyard. During the course of that treatment, and prior to his alleged accident, he complained intermittently of low back pain and advised his doctor that he intended to have his back checked out as soon as he “obtained health insurance”.
The Administrative Law Judge determined that claimant failed to even establish a prima facie claim as he did not prove that he had a work-related injury. The Judge found the claimant incredible as he denied prior complaints of back pain even at the time of trial and even after being confronted with various medical records that confirmed he had longstanding back problems. The Judge went further and found alternatively, that even if the claimant did establish a prima facie claim, the Employer had rebutted the presumption of compensability and claimant had failed to establish that he had a work-related injury. The Judge also rejected the deposition testimony of the claimant’s treating neurosurgeon. Click here to read the opinion in its entirety.
This case is currently on appeal before the Benefits Review Board.
If you would like to speak with Donald Moore about this decision or have a case involving similar issues, email him at DPM@FRSLaw.com.
In Lamar Tate v. All Coast Intermodal Services, Inc., Donald P. Moore obtained a rare decision for the client, All Coastal Intermodal Services (ACIS). ACIS is a trucking company that contracts with various agents who then contract with owners/operators of trucks for transportation of cargo. Claimant was injured while driving a truck owned by another individual, Charlie Reeves. Claimant contended that ACIS was his employer alleging that ACIS had direct control over him, had the right to hire and fire him and alleging that he was paid ACIS.
The Administrative Judge applied the various factors enunciated by the Mississippi Supreme Court to determine whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor and determined that the factors weighed in favor of ACIS and that claimant was not their employee. (See the Decision and Order for application of the factors to this claim). Click here to read the opinion in its entirety.
The Decision was not appealed.
If you would like to speak with Donald P. Moore about this decision or have a case involving similar issues, email him at DPM@FRSLaw.com.
In Kenneth Craven v. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc., Paul B. Howell was successful in having a Longshore claim for substantial attorney fees denied due to the claimant’s attorney’s failure to comply with the strict requirements of 33 U.S.C. § 928(b). Click here to read the opinion in its entirety.
If you would like to speak with Paul Howell about this decision or have a case involving similar issues, email him at PBH@FRSLaw.com.
In the case of Willie James Jones v. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc., Paul B. Howell successfully defeated a Northrop Grumman Ship Systems supervisor’s claim for permanent and total disability after the claimant was offered a modified position which he refused. Click here to read the opinion in its entirety.
If you would like to speak with Paul Howell about this decision or have a case involving similar issues, email him at PBH@FRSLaw.com.
The firm was recently successful in having a case against a government contractor which had been sued for claims arising out of storm debris removal in the clean-up of the Mississippi Gulf Coast following Hurricane Katrina dismissed. Finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the United States District Court, for the Southern District of Mississippi, granted the defendant's Motion to Dismiss based upon derivative governmental immunity and the provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act. Click here to read the opinion in its entirety.
If you would like to speak with Fred Feeney about this decision or have a case involving similar issues, email him at FBF@FRSLaw.com.
In McDonald v. Memorial Hospital at Gulfport, 8 So.3d 175 (Miss. 2009), Shellye McDonald successfully represented Memorial Hospital at Gulfport at the trial court level and the appellate level following dismissal of this suit by the Circuit Court. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and held that Plaintiff’s claim for medical malpractice and wrongful death must be supported by competent expert testimony not only identifying and articulating the requisite standard of care, but also establishing that the failure to comply with the standard of care was the proximate cause, or proximate contributing cause of the Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. The Court held that the trial judge did not err in finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to causation and thus, summary judgment in favor of Memorial Hospital was proper where Plaintiff’s expert was not competent to address medical causation. Click here to read the opinion in its entirety.
If you would like to speak with Shelly McDonald about this decision or have a case involving similar issues, email her at SVM@FRSLaw.com.
