Source: http://www.bradleyfirm.com/staff/belsome
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:21:22+00:00

Document:
Brad Belsome, a founding member of the firm, focuses his practice on casualty and insurance litigation. He handles matters involving transportation law, specifically within the Rail Industry. Brad has represented a Class I Carrier in actions brought in the State and Federal courts of Louisiana as well as before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit including claims prosecuted pursuant to the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq. (1908), actions involving grade crossing accidents, invitee and trespasser injuries, right-of-way and track usage disputes, occupational injury and exposure claims and pedestrian -- train accidents.
Brad’s practice also involves all aspects of medical malpractice litigation including medical review panel proceedings, litigation, appeals and administrative adjudication proceedings brought before the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, Louisiana State Board of Nursing, the Louisiana State Board of Dentistry and the Louisiana Physical Therapy Board. He represents healthcare facilities, including a Political Subdivision -- Hospital Service District, physicians, nurses, pharmacists, dentists, physical therapists and emergency medical technicians in a wide variety of cases including those arising out of and involving psychiatric care, patient transport, patient supervision, emergency medicine, blood borne pathogens, Prenatal, Labor and Delivery complications, EMTALA, medical products liability, chronic narcotic pain management and claims of Eight Amendment Deliberate Indifference.
Brad has also handled administrative regulation, enforcement, permitting and compliance matters before the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality enforcement and permitting divisions, including solid waste transportation and disposal, Title V air permit reporting and compliance, waste water quality compliance, the NPDES/LPDES permitting program, Underground Storage Tank (UST) program and the LDEQ Risk Evaluation/Corrective Action Program (RECAP).
Mr. Belsome was admitted to practice in The United States District Court for the Eastern, Middle, and Western Districts of Louisiana in 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 2003, the Supreme Court of the United States in 2013, and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in 2017.
Trenesha Love v. Illinois Central Railroad Company et al.; 40th Judicial District Court, Parish of St. John Louisiana, Case No. 57717. This action was brought by a driver who was involved in a railroad highway grade crossing collision with an Eastbound IC train in Laplace, Louisiana. Plaintiff alleged that a sight obstruction on or near the IC right-of-way prevented her from seeing the approaching Eastbound locomotive. Plaintiff also alleged that the crossing’s warning system was inadequate. Following discovery we moved on behalf of our client, Illinois Central Railroad Company, for rendition of summary judgment seeking dismissal of the plaintiff’s action with prejudice. As to plaintiff’s allegations regarding the sufficiency of the crossing’s warning system we argued that under Louisiana law, absent a finding that the crossing constituted a dangerous trap the railroad only had the statutory obligation to install cross bucks at the crossing. The judge found that the claimed sight obstruction did not render this crossing a dangerous trap as contemplated by Louisiana jurisprudence and therefore the railroad’s duty was satisfied by the installation and maintenance of the cross bucks. There was no evidence of any operational fault on the part of the railroad crew causative of the collision. As a result the judge granted our motion and dismissed the action with prejudice.
Eugene and Shannon Anderson v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, et al. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Case No. 10-153. This case was brought on behalf of the parents of a then 10-year old boy who suffered a traumatic amputation of the outer portion as well as two toes of his right foot while playing on IC’s right of way near an IC train on its approach to Mays Yard in Harahan, Louisiana. The parents also asserted bystander claims pursuant to Louisiana Civil Code article 2315.6 as a result of their finding the boy and providing immediate medical care while awaiting EMS and police to arrive on scene. United States District Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt granted summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice the suit and claims of Mr. and Mrs. Eugene Anderson, individually and on behalf of their minor son. Judge Engelhardt agreed with our position and found that IC owed no duty under Louisiana Law to provide additional warnings to the minor, whose presence on the railroad’s right-of-way that day was unknown to the railroad and its train crew, of the obvious risks posed by playing on or near a momentarily stationary inbound train. See Eugene Anderson et al. v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 2011 WL 1303865 (E.D.L.A. 4/4/2011), Engelhardt, J. (slip opinion). A unanimous three-judge panel of The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (5th Cir. 11-30747) subsequently affirmed the dismissal.
Newton M. Harris v. St. Tammany Parish Hospital Service District No. 1 et al. 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany Louisiana; Case No. 2007-13187 c/w 2010-12773. Defense verdict no negligence on the part of our client St. Tammany Parish Hospital and its employed Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist. The case involved the death of a patient following Mitral Valve replacement surgery. On arrival in the Cardiac Care Unit the hospital employed C.R.N.A. gave the patient an injection of Brevibloc—a fast acting beta blocker—in response to the C.R.N.A.’s observation of an increased heart for the patient. Some fifteen minutes after the patient had arrived in the C.C.U. and the administration of Brevibloc, the patient suffered a cardiac event—a suspected myocardial infarction—of unknown origin. Despite a nearly six-hour resuscitative effort on the part of several physicians and nurses, the patient was never revived. Plaintiff, the patient’s surviving husband, brought a medical malpractice action against the C.R.N.A. and the treating anesthesiologist. The plaintiff also brought a general negligence action against the C.R.N.A., the treating anesthesiologist and the local funeral home which handled internment services. In the malpractice action the plaintiff alleged medical negligence on the part of the C.R.N.A. on account of his decision both to administer and the amount of Brevibloc given. The plaintiff also alleged a failure to supervise on the part of the treating anesthesiologist. Plaintiff alleged that the C.R.N.A.’s unsupervised administration Brevibloc caused the patient to suffer from irreversible hypotension and cardiac ischemia ultimately resulting in her death. In the negligence action the plaintiff alleged that hospital, the anesthesiologist and the funeral home intentionally destroyed evidence by sending the patient’s body to the funeral home where it was subsequently embalmed before the written order for an autopsy was given by the patient’s cardio-thoracic surgeon. The actions were consolidated following the statutorily mandated medical review panel proceeding and tried to a twelve-person civil jury over the course of five days in August 2010. Prior to the start of trial the treating anesthesiologist was dismissed on a motion for summary judgment. At the close of plaintiff’s case in chief the funeral home was dismissed on a motion for directed verdict. When the actions were submitted to the jury only the hospital remained as a party defendant. Following deliberations the jury returned a no negligence verdict against the Hospital in the malpractice action and a verdict in the negligence action finding no evidence of an intentional destruction of evidence on the part of the Hospital. Plaintiff appealed the verdicts to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit of Louisiana. A three-judge panel, with two judges concurring in the result, affirmed the verdict in the malpractice action—affirmed in part, reversed in part and rendered a verdict in the negligence action finding that the trial judge committed reversible error by not properly instructing the jury as to plaintiff’s negligence action—specifically, the existence of a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Court then rendered a verdict against the Hospital on that theory and awarded plaintiff $35,000 dollars in general damages plus medical specials in the amount of $12,675 and the costs of the appeal. The parties’ each applied for rehearing as well as sought writ of certiorari with the Louisiana Supreme Court all of which were denied.
Yolande C. Dugas, etc., et al v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, et al., 29th Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Charles Louisiana (Judge Lemmon); Case No. 44798, Defense verdict; no liability. This case was brought on behalf of numerous St. Charles homeowners against our client, Illinois Central Railroad Company and the Parish of St. Charles. The case arose out of the torrential rainfall that inundated St. Charles Parish as well as a number of other southeast Louisiana parishes over the course of the late evening hours of May 8, 1995. Among the areas affected by the storm were three St. Charles Parish residential areas situated on the east bank of the Mississippi River between River Road and IC's Baton Rouge-to-Harahan right of way and track. The fifty-seven plaintiffs, who all resided in those residential areas, alleged that their homes and personal property sustained damage due to water inundation caused as a result of the IC track structure acting as a dam to the natural flow of water from the Mississippi River towards Lake Pontchartrain and loose discarded railroad crossties clogging Parish maintained drainage canals. The case was tried over the course of nine days beginning in February and finally to completion in April 2010. Following the trial Judge Lemmon entered a judgment finding that plaintiffs' damages were not caused by any negligent or substandard conduct on IC's part.
Warner Shane Cox v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 21st Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa, Louisiana; Case No. 2007-0407. Defense verdict; no liability. Following the 5-day trial, the jury returned a verdict denying plaintiff any recovery and finding no negligence on the part of our client, Illinois Central Railroad Company. The case, an action brought pursuant to the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), involved a claim by a former IC employee who alleged to have suffered career ending wrist injuries as a consequence of a purported defect in a company-owned truck provided to him and a co-worker for use in performing their track maintenance duties. In addition to claiming that the truck was unreasonably dangerous due to the presence of unauthorized, homemade welding hose hangers fashioned out of welding rods, the plaintiff also argued that IC was negligent for failing to reasonably inspect the vehicle, discover the condition, and remediate it. In closing argument plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury for a 7-figure damage award. After deliberating for just under three hours, the six-person civil jury rejected plaintiff’s liability theories altogether; deciding that the accident for which plaintiff sued, was not caused by any negligent or substandard conduct on IC’s part.
Sandra Butler v. Illinois Central Railroad Company et al, 19th Judicial District Court, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana; Case No. 536,236, Following the 5-day trial, the 12-person jury returned a verdict denying plaintiff any recovery and absolving our clients, Illinois Central Railroad Company and its conductor, James Carter, from all liability. The action involved the death of a laboratory analyst inside a Baton Rouge chemical plant. The analyst, who was retrieving commodity samples from a Freon storage tank located adjacent to an in-plant line of tracks, was fatally injured when his head and upper extremities were completely severed from his torso by the movement of two empty tank cars. The train crew members, who were in the plant positioning several empty tank cars for subsequent loading on the track adjacent to the Freon storage tank sample location, discovered the decedent’s body beneath one of the empty cars as they worked their train out of the plant. The action was filed by the analyst’s widow, individually and on behalf of their three children. The plaintiff, represented by a 5-member trial team, never made a settlement demand and asked the jury for a 7-figure damage award during closing argument.
Dana Jambon et vir. v. Robert Chugden, M.D. et al. Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans; Case No. 2002-03023 Div "H" (Judge Bagneris) Defense verdict; no liability. Case involved a 32 year old female patient who presented to the West Jefferson Medical Center Emergency Department with noted vascular problems of the right lower extremity. Patient ultimately underwent a high below the knee amputation of the affected extremity the day following her presentation to and discharge from the WJMC ED. Representation of the two Emergency Medicine physicians who saw the patient in the WJMC ER. Allegations of failure to correctly and timely diagnose acute ischemia resulting in the amputation.
Nona Gonzales et vir v. Dr. Ernest C. Hansen III. 34th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Bernard; Case No. 80-446 Div "B" (Judge Fernandez). Defense verdict; no liability. Case involved a 60 year old female patient who was brought to the Chalmette Medical Center Emergency Department with complaints of a sudden onset of chest pain and vomiting. The patient was evaluated and later discharged. Patient presented later that day to the Pendleton Memorial Methodist Hospital Emergency Department where she was diagnosed with an acute myocardial infarction. Representation of the Emergency Medicine physician who saw the patient in the CMC ED. Allegations of failure to correctly and timely diagnose myocardial infarction resulting in damage to the heart and ultimately the patient's death.
Anderson v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., CIV.A. 10-153, 2011 WL 1303865 (E.D. La. Apr. 4, 2011) aff'd, 475 F. App'x 30 (5th Cir. 2012).
Sander v. Mia's Pharmacy, 13-65 (La. App. 5 Cir. 6/27/13), 120 So. 3d 794; writ denied 2013-1460 2013 WL 5614781 (La. 9/27/13).
“Cap Conundrum”, 2012 Fourth Quarter Edition, The Physician Insurer, a national publication of the Physician Insurers Association of America (PIAA). Also published in The Letter, A Lammico Publication, published by LAMMICO, Volume 32, Number 5, September / October 2013.
AV Preeminent® Peer Review Rated in Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent® is a significant rating accomplishment - a testament to the fact that the lawyer's peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence. AV®, BV®, AV Preeminent® and BV Distinguished® are registered certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used under in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies.

References: § 51
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.