tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-316568452011-10-15T05:06:19.072-05:00William H. Burris is the creator and moderator of this webpage, and is currently an associate with Seale, Smith, Zuber and Barnette. Seale, Smith, Zuber and Barnette is a prestigious civil litigation law firm in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, which specializes in Professional Malpractice and Insurance Defense. Seale, Smith, Zuber and Barnette's website can be viewed at http://www.sszblaw.com.William H. Burrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17731034986839373882noreply@blogger.comBlogger81100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31656845.post-87864665934423808492007-08-01T15:44:00.000-05:002007-08-03T08:39:12.479-05:00

My wife, Lacy Burris (associate with KPMG - State and Local Tax Department), has recently passed all of the exams required for her Certified Public Accountant ("CPA") license, and thus will become a Louisiana CPA in a few short months. This has inspired me to review Louisiana law regarding CPA professional liability in Louisiana. I found that accountants are not sued as often as health care

William H. Burrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17731034986839373882noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31656845.post-79558507932806840762007-08-01T15:28:00.000-05:002007-08-01T15:42:44.598-05:00

The last post stated that the Louisiana Supreme Court recently remanded Arrington v. Galen-Med, Inc. and Taylor v. Clement back to the Third Circuit on a procedural issue. Now, the Third Circuit has remanded the case to the Calcasieu Parish trial court. Although there were two dissents from judges ready to rule the cap unconstitutional again, the majority held that the trial court should

William H. Burrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17731034986839373882noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31656845.post-43952667843811259912007-06-15T09:50:00.000-05:002007-06-15T10:09:05.641-05:00

As an update to the previous post, the Louisiana Supreme Court vacated the judgment of Arrington v. Galen-Med., Inc., 2007 WL 29339 (La. 2/2/07). However, they did not reach the merits of the case, and said nothing as to the constitutionality of the statute.The Court dismissed the case because the issue of constitutionality was not raised at the trial court level. For those non-legal readers,

William H. Burrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17731034986839373882noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31656845.post-1159499246147128702006-09-28T21:58:00.000-05:002006-09-28T22:11:27.486-05:00

It is all the buzz today in Louisiana Medical Malpractice circles. As many of you have already heard, the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal has held in two different decisions, both released September 28, 2006, that the $500,000 statutory cap violates the Louisiana Constitution. Specifically, Louisiana Constitution art. 1 § 22, which provides that “[a]ll courts shall be open, and every

William H. Burrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17731034986839373882noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31656845.post-1158116404050511662006-09-12T21:43:00.000-05:002006-09-12T22:02:20.866-05:00

Ginger Bailey was prescribed Depakote in May 1997 because she suffered from bipolar disorder. Depakote is a prescription drug that may cause birth defects in the unborn children of pregnant women who consume the drug. In July or August of 1997, Ms. Bailey became pregnant and ceased all use of her prescription medicine, but her obstetrician informed her on September 25, 1997 that

William H. Burrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17731034986839373882noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31656845.post-1154102649426043012006-07-28T11:03:00.000-05:002006-07-28T12:59:51.946-05:00

A common issue in Medical Malpractice Defense occurs when a plaintiff fails to provide an expert witness who is qualified to give an opinion as to the standard of care for a medical provider’s specialty. One would think that a plaintiff’s attorney might view the fact that they cannot find a doctor to testify to the alleged breach of care as the first sign that their case is not worth pursuing.

William H. Burrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17731034986839373882noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31656845.post-1154011804306068502006-07-27T09:43:00.000-05:002006-07-31T17:21:21.176-05:00

Not much. The Fifth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, in Ballard v. Wall, et al., 413 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 2005), states that a plaintiff merely has to allege that the judge might have given “significant aid” to a lawyer to deprive a plaintiff of his rights. The plaintiff in Ballard alleged that he was held in a “debtor’s prison.” The plaintiff failed to appear for a judgment debtor examination

William H. Burrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17731034986839373882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31656845.post-1153863196070475282006-07-25T16:30:00.000-05:002006-07-28T16:00:14.646-05:00

Posts from the expert attorneys and law clerks at Seale, Smith, Zuber and Barnette will be coming soon!!!Please bookmark this page, and reference it often.To learn more about the law firm of Seale, Smith, Zuber and Barnette, please visit http://www.sszblaw.com.Thank you.

William H. Burrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17731034986839373882noreply@blogger.com