Download pdf - UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE ... › static › USDCW_2013-01536.pdf · WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION Bayard versus Cameron

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTWESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LAFAYETTE DIVISION

Bayard

versus

Cameron Inc

Civil Action No. 6:13-01536

Magistrate Judge Carol B. Whitehurst

By Consent of the Parties

AMENDED JUDGMENT

The Court’s March 6, 2018 Judgment in this action is Amended as follows:

The trial of this matter was conducted before a jury on February 26, 27, 28 and

March 1, 2018. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, Brayton Bayard, and against

defendant, Cameron Inc., finding Cameron Inc. sixty-five percent (65%) at fault,

Berard Transportation, Brayton Bayard’s employer, twenty-five percent (25%) at fault

and plaintiff Brayton Bayard ten percent (10%) at fault for the underlying accident.

The jury awarded Four Million Two Hundred Seventy-One Thousand Three Hundred

and 00/100 Dollars ($4,271,300.00).

In accord with the jury verdict rendered on the 1 day of March, 2018,st

IT IS ORDERED that judgment be and is hereby entered in favor of plaintiff,

Brayton Bayard, and against defendant, Cameron Inc., for any and all amounts

remaining from the Judgment of Two Million Seven Hundred Seventy-Six Thousand

Three Hundred Forty-Five and 00/100 Dollars ($2,776,345.00) , with pre-1

The Court reduced the Judgment in favor of plaintiff by Berard Transportation’s comparative fault1

(continued...)

Case 6:13-cv-01536-CBW Document 153 Filed 03/12/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 2563

judgment interest on the amount of past damages from the date of judicial demand to

the date of entry of judgment at the Louisiana rate of judicial interest, as well as post-

judgment interest on the total amount of the judgment at the rate provided for by Title

28, United States Code, Section 1961, from date of entry of this amended judgment

until paid.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Judgment be entered in favor of

Intervenor, American Interstate Insurance Company, against Cameron, Inc. and

Brayton Bayard in the amount of $228,285.32, sixty-five percent (65%) of the total

amount of $351,208.18, with pre-judgment interest on said amount at the Louisiana

rate of judicial interest, as well as post judgment interest at the rate provided for by

Title 28, United States Code, Section 1961, from the date of entry of this amended

judgment until paid.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that American Interstate Insurance Company

recover sixty-five percent (65%) of any future benefits paid with judicial interest at

the rate provided for by Title 28, United States Code, Section 1961, from the date any

such benefits are paid until the judgment is paid.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an amount not exceeding one-third (1/3)

of the amount of American Interstate Insurance Company’s award of $228,285.32,

plus judicial interest, shall be paid to the attorneys of Brayton Bayard for attorney’s

(...continued)1

of twenty-five percent and plaintiff, Brayton Bayard’s comparative fault of ten percent.


fees and costs in the case, including the cost of litigation and court costs.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that American Interstate Insurance Company

is entitled to a credit on all amounts received by Brayton Bayard, after deductions for

all amounts received from the judgment by American Interstate Insurance Company

and for amounts received by the attorneys of Brayton Bayard for fees and costs. It

is also ordered that American Interstate Insurance Company is entitled to interest on

its credit against future compensation at 6% per year.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Cameron Inc. is taxed with the

costs of this proceeding, as may be permitted under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, pursuant to

Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

JUDGMENT SIGNED this 12 day of March, 2018 at Lafayette, Louisiana.th

3.


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTWESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LAFAYETTE DIVISION

Bayard

versus

Cameron Inc

Civil Action No. 6:13-01536

Magistrate Judge Carol B. Whitehurst

By Consent of the Parties

JUDGMENT

The trial of this matter was conducted before a jury on February 26, 27, 28 and

March 1, 2018. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, Brayton Bayard, and against

defendant, Cameron Inc. finding Cameron Inc. sixty-five percent (65%) at fault,

Brayton Bayard’s employer, Berard Transportation, twenty-five percent (25%) at fault

and plaintiff Brayton Bayard ten percent (10%) at fault for the underlying accident.

The jury awarded Four Million Two Hundred Seventy-One Thousand Three Hundred

and 00/100 Dollars ($4,271,300.00).

In accord with the jury verdict rendered on the 1 day of March, 2018,st

IT IS ORDERED that judgment be and is hereby entered in favor of plaintiff,

Brayton Bayard, and against defendant, Cameron Inc., in the amount of Two Million

Seven Hundred Seventy-Six Thousand Three Hundred Forty-Five and 00/100 Dollars

( $2,776,345.00) , with pre-judgment interest on the amount of past damages from the1

date of judicial demand to the date of entry of judgment at the Louisiana rate of

The Court reduced the Judgment in favor of plaintiff by Berard Transportation’s comparitive fault1

of twenty-five percent and plaintiff, Brayton Bayard’s comparative fault of ten percent.


judicial interest, as well as post-judgment interest on the total amount of the judgment

at the rate provided for by Title 28, United States Code, Section 1961, from date of

entry of judgment until paid.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Cameron Inc. is taxed with the

costs of this proceeding, as may be permitted under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, pursuant to

Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

JUDGMENT SIGNED this 6 day of March, 2018 at Lafayette, Louisiana.th




UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LAFAYETTE DIVISION

BRAYTON BAYARD

CASE NO. 6:13-CV-01536

VERSUS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE WHITEHURST

CAMERON INC

MINUTES OF COURT: Jury Trial

Date: February 26, 2018 Presiding: Magistrate Judge Carol B. Whitehurst Court Opened: 9:30 a.m. Courtroom Deputy: Christina Chicola Court Adjourned: 4:20 p.m. Court Reporter: Cathleen Marquardt Statistical Time: 05:35 Courtroom: CR3

APPEARANCES Jerome Moroux For Brayton Bayard, Plaintiff Howard L. Murphy and Margaret Guidry For Cameron International Corp, Defendant Todd A. Delcambre (RET) For American Interstate Insurance Co,

Intervenor Plaintiff

PROCEEDINGS CASE CALLED: JURY TRIAL – DAY 1 PROCEEDINGS: Motions Ruled on Jurors selected and sworn to try the case Witnesses sequestered by agreement of counsel Opening statements by Plaintiff and Defendants Testimony/Evidence for Plaintiff began COMMENTS: The Court conducted voir dire and a jury of 8 jurors was selected. Preliminary instructions and stipulations were read to Jury. Counsel agreed to the rules of Sequestration of witnesses. The Court took up the Motion in Limine filed by Brayton Bayard (Rec. Doc. 130) and the Motions in Limine filed by Cameron International Corp. (Rec. Doc. 131, 132). Based on the agreement by the parties and reasons stated on the record; IT IS ORDERED that the Motions in Limine (Rec. Doc. 130, 131, 132) are DENIED AS MOOT. The Court then took up the Motion to Strike Defendant’s Supplemental Expert Reports filed by Brayton Bayard (Rec. Doc. 140). Based on the reasons stated on the record, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Strike (Rec. Doc. 140) is GRANTED.


Robert Borison accepted by the Court as an expert in the field of Safety Professional. The jury was released at 4:15 p.m. and ordered to return at 9:00 on February 27, 2018. Court was laid over until the next day and will resume at 9:00 a.m.



LAFAYETTE DIVISION

BRAYTON BAYARD

CASE NO. 6:13-CV-01536

VERSUS


CAMERON INC



APPEARANCES Jerome Moroux For Brayton Bayard, Plaintiff Howard L. Murphy and Margaret Guidry For Cameron International Corp, Defendant

PROCEEDINGS CASE CALLED: JURY TRIAL – DAY 2 PROCEEDINGS: Testimony & evidence for plaintiff, continued COMMENTS: Dr. Darrel Henderson accepted by the Court as an expert in the field of Hand Surgery. Dr. James Blackburn accepted by the Court as an expert in the field of Psychiatry. Dr. Cornelius E. Gorman accepted by the Court as an expert in the field of Vocational Rehabilitation Counseling and Life Care Planner. Dr. Shelly Savant accepted by the Court as an expert in the field of Life Care Planning. The jury was released at 5:20 p.m. and ordered to return at 9:00 on February 28, 2018. Court was laid over until the next day and will resume at 9:00 a.m.



LAFAYETTE DIVISION

BRAYTON BAYARD

CASE NO. 6:13-CV-01536

VERSUS


CAMERON INC




PROCEEDINGS CASE CALLED: JURY TRIAL – DAY 3 PROCEEDINGS: Testimony & evidence for plaintiff, continued and concluded Testimony & evidence for defendant, began COMMENTS: Dr. Denis Boudreaux accepted by the Court as an expert in the field of Economics. At the end of Plaintiff’s testimony and evidence, the Court took up Defendant’s Oral Motion for Directed Verdict. For the reasons stated on the record, IT IS ORDERED that the Oral Motion for Directed Verdict is DENIED. The jury was released at 5:05 p.m. and ordered to return at 9:00 on March 1, 2018. Court was laid over until the next day and will resume at 9:00 a.m.



LAFAYETTE DIVISION

BRAYTON BAYARD

CASE NO. 6:13-CV-01536

VERSUS


CAMERON INC


Date: March 1, 2018 Presiding: Magistrate Judge Carol B. Whitehurst Court Opened: 9:00 a.m. Courtroom Deputy: Christina Chicola Court Adjourned: 6:55 p.m. Court Reporter: Cathleen Marquardt Statistical Time: 05:40 Courtroom: CR3


PROCEEDINGS CASE CALLED: JURY TRIAL – DAY 4 PROCEEDINGS: Testimony & evidence for defendant, continued and concluded Evidence Closed Closing Statements Jury instructed Jury deliberations began at 4:30 p.m. Jury verdict returned at 6:50 p.m. Jury polled FILINGS: Witness List Exhibit Lists Jury Notes Verdict Form


VERDICT, RULING, COMMENTS: Dennis Howard accepted by the Court as an expert in the field of Safety. F. Charles Frey, IV, Ph.D. accepted by the Court as an expert in the field of Psychology The parties stipulated Michael S. Frenzel as an expert Vocational Rehabilitation. This stipulation was accepted by the Court. Dan M. Cliffe accepted by the Court as an expert in the field of Economics. The jury instructions were finalized by the Court and counsel. Thereafter, the jury was brought in. Closing arguments were delivered and the jury was instructed. The Court ordered that a meal be provided to the jury during deliberations. At 4:45 p.m., after receiving a note from the jury, a response was sent back to the jury at 4:58 p.m. to continue its deliberations. At 5:25 p.m., after receiving a note from the jury, a response was sent back to the jury at 6:30 p.m. to continue its deliberations. At 6:25 p.m., after receiving a note from the jury, a response was sent back to the jury at 6:34 p.m. to continue its deliberations At 6:45 p.m., the Court discussed with attorneys the previous jury response and at 6:51 p.m. an amended response was sent back to the jury to continue its deliberations. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff. The jury was released at 6:54 p.m. and Court was adjourned.


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LAFAYETTE DIVISION

BRAYTON BAYARD CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 6:13-cv-01536

VERSUS JUDGE DOHERTY

CAMERON INC. MAGISTRATE JUDGE WHITEHURST

JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER

Trial Date: 02/26/2018

Pretrial Conference Date: 01/25/2018

Type of Trial: Jury

Estimate Length of Trial: 4 days

Trial Attorneys Attending:

Jerome H. Moroux on behalf of Plaintiff, BRAYTON BAYARD

Howard L. Murphy on behalf of Defendant, CAMERON INC.

Kenneth W. DeJean on behalf of Intervenor, KENNETH W. DEJEAN

Todd A. Delcambre on behalf of Intervenor, AMERICAN INTERSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

1. JURISDICTIONAL BASIS:

Plaintiff, BRAYTON BAYARD and Defendant, CAMERON INC.

Subject matter jurisdiction is based upon diversity of citizenship jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1332. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs.

Plaintiff, Brayton Bayard, is a domiciliary of the State of Louisiana. Cameron International

Corporation is a company that was organized and exists under the laws of the State of Delaware

and maintains a principal place of business in the State of Texas.


Intervenor, KENNETH W. DEJEAN

Jurisdiction for the captioned matter is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1332 as the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and there is diversity of citizenship

among the plaintiff, Brayton Bayard, and defendant, Cameron International Corporation.

Jurisdiction for the Intervenor is proper under FRCP 24 as the Intervenor claims an interest

relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and is so situated that

disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair Intervenor’s ability to protect his interest

and/or has a claim that is incidental to the main action and shares with the main action a common

question of law and/or fact.

Intervenor, AMERICAN INTERSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

Jurisdiction for the captioned matter is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1332 as the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and there is diversity of citizenship

among the plaintiff, Brayton Bayard, and defendant, Cameron International Corporation.

Jurisdiction for the Intervenor is proper under FRCP 24 as the Intervenor claims an interest

relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and is so situated that

disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair Intervenor’s ability to protect his interest

and/or has a claim that is incidental to the main action and shares with the main action a common

question of law and/or fact.

2. CLAIMS AND RESPONSES:

Plaintiff, BRAYTON BAYARD

This matter arises from an incident that occurred on November 30, 2011 at an enclosed

facility owned and operated by defendant, Cameron, located in the Port of Iberia, Iberia Parish,

Louisiana.

On November 30, 2011, plaintiff, Brayton Bayard, was working as a driver and rigger for

Berard Transportation, Inc. (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “Berard”) on a job at Cameron’s


enclosed facility that involved securing a large cylindrical vessel (sometimes referred to herein as

a “desalter”) on a mobile transporter known as a “Goldhofer.” The vessel was to be transferred

from Cameron’s manufacturing building to an adjoining storage yard owned and operated by

Cameron.

The job involved lowering the vessel onto the Goldhofer (also known as a “crawler”),

securing the vessel with wooden chocks and industrial chain, then transporting the vessel to the

storage yard. After the vessel was lowered onto the Goldhofer by a crane owned and operated by

Cameron, Brayton Bayard, along with his co-employees, Jacob Boudreaux, Henry Lee and Dustin

Lemaire, two unknown employees of Cameron (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the two

“unknown Cameron Employees”), and Ravis Belaire, Jr., another Cameron employee, wedged two

wooden chocks on each side of the vessel (four chocks total) to secure the vessel and prevent it

from rotating or falling while it was being moved.

After the chocks were in place, the next step to secure the vessel on the Goldhofer was to

wrap an industrial chain around each set of chocks, and use a ratchet binder (which consists of a

body and two threaded ends) to link the chain together and tighten it around the chocks, such that

the chocks were wedged firmly in place against the vessel.

This process of securing the wooden chocks by wrapping industrial chain around them

entailed employees of Cameron (the two “unknown Cameron employees” and Ravis Belaire, Jr.)

and Berard (plaintiff and Jacob Boudreaux) stationing themselves on top of the Goldhofer and

around the chocks, passing the industrial chain to each other and then using the ratchet binder

mechanism to link the chain together.

During this process, plaintiff, Brayton Bayard, and Ravis Belaire, a Cameron employee,

were positioned around the chocks located on the left side of the vessel while plaintiff’s co-

employee, Jacob Boudreaux, and the two unknown Cameron employees were positioned around


the chocks located on the right side of the vessel, which was on the opposite end of the Goldhofer

as plaintiff and Ravis.

Jacob Boudreaux and the two unknown Cameron employees, who were on the opposite

side of the Goldhofer as plaintiff, Brayton Bayard, wrapped the chain around the two chocks

located on their side, tightened it with the ratchet binder and then Jacob Boudreaux passed the

ratchet binder to Brayton Bayard in order for him to secure the chain around the two chocks located

on his side of the Goldhofer. (Exhibit 1, p. 97, 103 – 105, Exhibit 2, paragraphs 4-8, and Exhibit

3, paragraph 9). Brayton Bayard then hooked one end of the ratchet binder on the chain that was

wrapped around the two chocks located on the side of the Goldhofer that he and Ravis Belaire, Jr.

were positioned on. Brayton Bayard then attempted to attach the other end of the ratchet binder

onto the other end of the chain, and as he did so, a threaded connection of the ratchet binder

violently came apart from the body of the ratchet binder, causing Brayton Bayard to fall off the

Goldhofer and sustain serious injuries to his left hand and wrist.

At trial, we will present the expert witness testimony of Bob Borison, a safety expert who

has experience in the safe planning and execution of industrial jobs. Borison’s evaluation has

shown has recognized that Bayard may have Borison has examined the facts and testimony in

this case and has concluded that, among other things, Cameron violated industry and company

procedures when they failed to perform a pre-job safety analysis/meeting before the job began with

Berard. At trial, Borison will explain the importance of pre-job meetings and equipment checks.

It is beyond dispute that Cameron employees were participating with the Berard employees in

securing the load to the flatbed; as a result of their work, Cameron’s participation in this job process

required that

Brayton was injured and suffered a long and torturous ordeal in an attempt to get better.

On account of his injuries and the multiple surgeries to his wrist and hand area, Brayton’s prior

medical bills are approximately $185,000.00. Dr. Gorman has opined that Brayton will be severely


restricted from returning to meaningful employment and will testify that Brayton’s ‘vocational

assets are low average and below and his wage potentials are entry/re-entry level.’ Dr. Denis

Boudreaux, an economics professor, has evaluated Brayton’s special damages as follows:

Past Medical Expenses $185,000.00

Future Medical Expenses $968,422.00

Past Lost Earnings $1,586,322.00

Future Lost Earnings $1,988,112.00

With respect to plaintiff’s general damages, plaintiff will present the trial testimony of Dr.

Darrell Henderson and Dr,Robbie LeBlanc. The accident discussed above caused tremendous pain

to Brayton and resulted in more than five surgeries which have severely limited Brayton . Over

six years after the accident, Brayton continues to have daily discomfort and pain in the site of

injury. The chronicity of the pain and his inability to work has caused him severe emotional

distress and sadness. At trial, we will present the medical testimony of Dr. James Blackburn to

help the jury understand Brayton’s emotional injury.

Defendant, CAMERON INC.

Defendant, Cameron International Corporation (hereinafter “Cameron”) contracted with

Berard Transportation, Inc. (hereinafter “Berard”), to move a desalter, a large cylindrical vessel

that was approximately 82 feet in length and 14 feet in diameter, and weighed 159 tons, from an

enclosed facility to an outside yard. Berard is an independent contracting company that specializes

in moving extremely large items using specialized equipment. Berard provided a transporter

vehicle, other equipment and personnel to move the desalter. Plaintiff, Brayton Bayard, and Jacob

M. Boudreaux (hereinafter “Boudreaux”) were two of the members of a six-person Berard crew.

Bayard was employed by Berard as a rigger.

After the desalter was placed on the transporter vehicle, Berard personnel engaged in

securing the desalter using wooden chocks, around which chains were fastened, to hold the wooden


chocks in place. Plaintiff and Boudreaux installed chains around the set of chocks located toward

the rear of the desalter. Plaintiff was positioned on the transporter vehicle on one side of the

desalter and Boudreaux was positioned on the opposite side. Two chains were used. These were

laid on the transporter and extended from the set of chocks on Boudreaux’s side to the set of chocks

on plaintiff’s side. Boudreaux attached the ratchet binder to the ends of the two chains on his side

and connected the chains to the ratchet the binder. In the process, he tossed or slid a ratchet binder

to plaintiff, that plaintiff was to attach to the ends of the two chains on his side. According to

plaintiff, he attached the end of one chain to the right side of the ratchet binder and he then pulled

on the ratchet binder to hook the opposite pin to the other end of the chain. When he pulled, the

pin to the right side of the ratchet binder separated and he fell from where he was positioned on

the transporter vehicle, landing on the floor.

When plaintiff was deposed, he testified the ratchet binder he was using came from a

Berard truck, where Berard equipment was kept, located on the opposite side of the desalter from

him (in other words, Boudreaux’s side). According to plaintiff, a Cameron employee handed the

ratchet binder to Boudreaux. Plaintiff has acknowledged that he did not see the ratchet binder

when it was taken from the truck and he did not see a Cameron employee hand the ratchet binder

to Boudreaux. Plaintiff also acknowledged that Boudreaux had passed the ratchet binder to him

under the desalter.

Boudreaux claimed there were two male Cameron employees on his side of the desalter

that were helping him by “doing what I asked them to do.” He did not know their names. He

thought the two men were new to Cameron because he had not seen them on the 10 to 20 times he

had worked in a Berard crew to move desalters at Cameron’s facility in the past. According to

Boudreaux, the chains and ratchet binders were taken from a truck or equipment bin located on

the opposite side of the desalter from where he was located (in other words, plaintiff’s side).

Boudreaux, like plaintiff, did not see who fetched the ratchet binders from the truck or the bin. He


said the chains and ratchet binders were laid out on the floor about five to ten minutes before he

began to position the chains around the chocks. He said one of the Cameron employees picked

up the ratchet binder from the floor, handed it to him, and he passed it to the plaintiff. Boudreaux

saw nothing wrong with the ratchet binder before he passed to plaintiff. Passing the ratchet binder

to plaintiff involved Boudreaux flinging or sliding it about four to five feet across the surface of

the transporter and through the opening just beneath the desalter. Boudreaux estimated that

plaintiff fell about two and a half minutes after he had passed the ratchet binder to him.

Cameron’s defenses include a general denial of liability and the following affirmative defenses:

Cameron and its employees did not cause plaintiff’s alleged injury;

Plaintiff’s alleged injury is due to his sole fault, or alternatively, his comparative fault;

Plaintiff’s alleged injury is due to the normal risks and hazards of plaintiff’s employment;

Plaintiff’s alleged injury is due to the negligence or fault of others;

Plaintiff’s alleged injury is due to the negligence of plaintiff’s employer;

Plaintiff failed to heed medical advice and treatment protocols;

Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages;

Credit or set-off as a result of release and/or compromise; and

Plaintiff’s alleged injury is due to a pre-existing condition.

Cameron denies that either it or its employees acted negligently. Cameron also denies that

either it or its employees owed a duty to plaintiff to inspect the ratchet binder or to ensure the pin

would not separate from the body of the ratchet binder, especially when the ratchet binder was

flung or slid by Boudreaux from one side of the transporter to the other and was then manipulated

by plaintiff to connect one end of the chain.

Additionally, Cameron claims the alleged incident arose solely from the actions of plaintiff,

who had extensive experience using ratchet binders. It was the responsibility of plaintiff to check

the ratchet binder before connecting it to the chain to ensure the pin was adequately threaded into


the body of the ratchet binder. Although plaintiff could have backed out the pin and re-inserted it

to ensure an adequate thread connection existed, he did not exercise this precaution. It also was

plaintiff’s responsibility to take action to properly stabilize himself while positioned on or in

relation to the transporter, other than to use a ratchet binder attached to a chain as an improvised

support.

Additionally, Cameron retained a specialized independent contractor, Berard, to move the

desalter. Berard was exclusively tasked with the responsibility to secure the desalter to the

transporter prior to moving the desalter outside. Generally, a principal, like Cameron, is not liable

for the negligent acts of an independent contractor, like Berard, when such acts occur while the

independent contractor is performing duties under a contract. Because Cameron and its employees

exercised no operational control over the work Berard was performing, Cameron had no duty to

discover and remedy hazards created by Berard. Cameron also had no duty to ensure, through

instructions or supervision, that Berard perform its obligations in a safe manner.

Alternatively, Cameron contends that if plaintiff is not solely at fault for the alleged

incident, fault should be assigned to Berard for failing to provide a ladder or platform that plaintiff

could have used to connect the chains to the ratchet binder instead of plaintiff positioning himself

on the transporter and having to use the ratchet binder connected to the chain as a means of support.


a) The law and any contractual provisions supporting the claim(s):

On or about May 6, 2014, the Intervenor, Kenneth W. DeJean, was employed as

co-counsel with attorney Michael L. Barras by the plaintiff, Brayton Bayard, to

represent him in connection with the captioned matter. In connection with this

representation, the plaintiff, Brayton Bayard and the Intervenor, Kenneth W.

DeJean, signed a “Retainer Contract” which states, in the part, the following:

I. ATTORNEY accepts such employment and in consideration,

CLIENT agrees to pay to ATTORNEY as compensation a fee which

shall be a percentage of and shall apply to all of the total aggregate

recovery (both money and/or property) hereinafter made in this legal

matter as follows:


331/3% of whatever gross amount is collected by settlement,

conference or negotiations prior to filing suit;

40% of whatever gross amount is collected if recovery is

made after suit is filed whether the matter is settled.

45% if case tried to verdict and thereafter.

The contingent fee shall be to ATTORNEY immediately when

recovery is made.

II. In the event this claim should be settled by compromise on a

structured settlement basis (i.e., payments over a period of time

through an annuity or other means), the contingency fee shall be

calculated based upon the value of the settlement at the time

settlement is made, and not upon the value of the structured

settlement payments over the payout period.

III. CLIENT authorizes ATTORNEY, in ATTORNEY’S discretion, to

incur and pay on CLIENT’S behalf for expenses related to the

prosecution of this claim such as, but not limited to, investigation

expenses, witness and expert fees, travel expenses, computer-aided

research expenses, mileage reimbursement, medical expenses, court

reporters’ fees, copying charges, bonds, long distance or conference

telephone expenses, postage, clerks’ and sheriffs’ fees, and, courier

service charges. In connection therewith, said ATTORNEY is

authorized to make direct disbursement thereof from any settlement

or recovery to pay such expenses and/or reimburse ATTORNEY for

such expenses he has previously advanced, or guaranteed on behalf

of CLIENT as well as any monies paid to or on behalf of CLIENT

or for CLIENT’S benefit or use, including but not limited to, living

expenses. Costs and expenses are to be taken out of any portion due

the CLIENT and are in addition to ATTORNEY fees. In the event

it is necessary to utilize a line of credit, all of the foregoing is subject

to the Case Expense Agreement signed by ATTORNEY and

CLIENT.

IV. ATTORNEY and CLIENT agree, in consideration for this Retainer

Contract, that CLIENT assigns and sets over in accordance with La.

R.S. 37:218, a security interest in this claim and cause of action to

secure payment of ATTORNEY’s fees and expenses owed under

this contract.

V. CLIENT and ATTORNEY agree that neither may, without the

consent of the other, settle or compromise the suits or claims which

are the subject of this employment agreement.


On April 29, 2015, the plaintiff, Brayton Bayard, and the Intervenor, Kenneth W.

DeJean, executed a “Case Expense Agreement,” which provided, in part, the

following:

III. In order to facilitate the payment of the case expenses, the medical

expenses, and/or the allowable living expenses, the CLIENT

authorizes ATTORNEY to utilize a line of credit in order to borrow

on behalf of the CLIENT, certain monies which would be utilized

to pay these expenses during the pendency of this claim. The

CLIENT acknowledges that the line of credit utilized in this case is

placed at Iberia Bank in Lafayette, Louisiana. In this case, the

ATTORNEY intends to utilize Iberia Bank, the interest charges for

the current year at this institution are 12% percent per annum.

IV. CLIENT agrees to execute the necessary documents, including

Powers of Attorney, which will allow the ATTORNEY to borrow

such money on the CLIENT’s behalf and to pay such vendors for

expenses, and to reimburse ATTORNEY for expenses related tot eh

CLIENT’s legal claim. The CLIENT authorizes the ATTORNEY

to pay and/or reimburse itself from CLIENT’s portion of ay

recovery through settlement, judgment, or otherwise for such

expenses, including interest charged from the banks. This

authorization is given in advance and authorizes the ATTORNEY

to utilize the line of credit without further authorization.

V. CLIENT specifically acknowledges that the interest as set forth

above will be charges by the bank, and that certain related loan fees

and other regular fees charges in the course of commercial banking

activity will apply. CLIENT authorizes the ATTORNEY to

withhold both the principal, interest, and related bank fees at the

time settlement is made and that all such interest, fees and expenses

are deemed to be expenses for the purpose of this contract.

VI. CLIENT agrees that should CLIENT discharge ATTORNEY for

any reason, CLIENT shall immediately pay off all such expenses

incurred by the ATTORNEY, as well as such loans with interest and

related expenses.

VII. In the case of living expenses, CLIENT understands that Rule 1.4(c)

governs ATTORNEY’s ability to utilize the line of credit to advance

the CLIENT’s living expenses. The CLIENT understands that only

those expenses related to food, shelter, utilities, insurance, medical

care treatment, transportation, eduation, or other expenses necessary

for living are allowable under the Louisiana Supreme Court rule.

CLIENT also understands that before such financial assistance can

be advanced, that the ATTORNEY must gather certain information

concerning the expenses and agrees to provide such information.


VIII. In summary, CLIENT acknowledges that certain expenses related to

this case, medical expenses, and living expenses are necessary to

prosecute this claim. CLIENT understands that the bank involved

will advance those living expenses and that such monies will be

placed in the trust account of the ATTORNEY. The ATTORNEY

will then pay out of the trust account the vendor or pay for the

expense in question. CLIENT understands that at the end of the

claim, when it is settled or paid, that the bank will have to be paid

back, including all interest fees, and other charges. The CLIENT

willingly consents to this arrangement and understands that it is

necessary for a successful prosecution of this claim. The CLIENT

further understands that all of this is done within the guidelines and

rules handed down by the Louisiana Supreme Court and Rule 1.4(c).

IX. The CLIENT agrees to sign this agreement along with the

ATTORNEY and acknowledges that he/she has been given a written

copy of this agreement, along with a copy of Rule 1.4(c).

Brayton Bayard also executed an Attorney/Client Line Agreement and Disclosure

with IberiaBank on April 29, 2015.

On or about January 18, 2016, Brayton Bayard discharged the Intervenor, Kenneth

W. DeJean, as his attorney.

On February 24, 2016, by Order of this Court, Intervenor was permitted to

withdraw as counsel of record for the plaintiff, Brayton Bayard.

Intervenor is entitled to and claims attorney fees in this matter that were

contractually agreed upon by Intervenor and Brayton Bayard, as per the signed

“Retainer Contract,” which is partially cited above. Additionally, Intervenor and

plaintiff secured a bank loan for case costs and expenses of Brayton Bayard for the

management of this case which remains due and owing.

Intervenor claims a right to reimbursement of out of pocket expenses and the

outstanding bank loan balance together with the agreed upon interest in addition to

attorney fees pursuant to the Retainer Contract between plaintiff, Brayton Bayard,

and Intervenor, Kenneth W. DeJean.

The claims of the Intervenor, Kenneth W. DeJean, are supported by the following

law:

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and/or (b):

(a) Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to

intervene who:

(1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or


(2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the

subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as

a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its

interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.

(b) Permissive Intervention.

(1) In General. On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene

who:

(A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or

(B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a

common question of law or fact.

Louisiana Revised Statute § 37:218:

A. By written contract signed by his client, an attorney at law may

acquire as his fee an interest in the subject matter of a suit, proposed

suit, or claim in the assertion, prosecution, or defense of which he is

employed, whether the claim or suit be for money or for property.

Such interest shall be a special privilege to take rank as a first

privilege thereon, superior to all other privileges and security

interests under Chapter 9 of the Louisiana Commercial laws. In such

contract, it may be stipulated that neither the attorney nor the client

may, without the written consent of the other, settle, compromise,

release, discontinue, or otherwise dispose of the suit or claim. Either

party to the contract may, at any time, file and record it with the

clerk of court in the parish in which the suit is pending or is to be

brought or with the clerk of court in the parish of the client's

domicile. After such filing, any settlement, compromise,

discontinuance, or other disposition made of the suit or claim by

either the attorney or the client, without the written consent of the

other, is null and void and the suit or claim shall be proceeded with

as if no such settlement, compromise, discontinuance, or other

disposition has been made.

B. The term “fee”, as used in this Section, means the agreed upon fee,

whether fixed or contingent, and any and all other amounts

advanced by the attorney to or on behalf of the client, as permitted

by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Louisiana State Bar

Association.

In accordance with the requirements of La. R.S. 37:218, the Intervenor, Kenneth

W. DeJean, recorded his “Retainer Contract” in the Conveyance records of the

Lafayette Parish Clerk of Court on January 20, 2016 (File No. 2016-00002198) and

recorded a certified copy of the “Retainer Contract” in the Mortgage records of the

St. Marin Parish Clerk of Court on January 21 2016 (Instrument No. 494662).


b) The remedy prayed for as to each defendant:

Plaintiff prays that after due proceedings are had, that there be judgment in

Intervenor’s favor awarding him attorney fees pursuant to the contingency fee

arrangement (“Retainer Contract”) and reimbursement of out of pocket expenses

and of the bank loan balance plus the agreed upon interest on said loan, as per the

banking agreement.

c) The law supporting that remedy as to each defendant:

1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and/or (b).

2. Louisiana Revised Statute § 37:218.


a) The law and any contractual provisions supporting the claim(s):

American Interstate Insurance Company is the workers’ compensation carrier for

Berard Transportation, Inc., plaintiff Brayton Bayard’s employer at the time of the

accident made the basis of this case. American Interstate Insurance Company has

paid, as of December 27, 2017, indemnity benefits totaling $164,829.55 and

medical benefits totaling $181,156.47. Indemnity and medical payments continue.

Pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1101(B), the payment of said benefits gives American

Interstate the right to recover amounts paid from any judgment or settlement in this

case. La. R.S. 23:1103(A)(1) provides that American Interstate’s right to the

proceeds of any judgment in this case take precedence over the right of plaintiff,

Brayton Bayard. To the extent that the judgment in this case exceeds the amount

paid by American Interstate for workers’ compensation benefits La. R.S.

23:1103(A)(1) also provides that American Interstate is entitled to a credit against

future compensation exposure and no future workers’ compensation benefits shall

be due until such time as the entire amount of the credit, computed at 6% per year,

shall have been exhausted.

La. R.S. 23:1103(B) provides that the carrier’s first dollar right of recovery shall be

satisfied from the entire judgment, without regard to whether damages are awarded

for items other than medical expenses and lost wages.

Because La. R.S. 23:1103(B) provides a first dollar right of recovery to American

Interstate, taking precedence over the recovery of Brayton Bayard, American

Interstate’s recovery also takes precedence over any recovery by Kenneth Dejean,

as Mr. Dejean’s recovery is derivative of Brayton Bayard’s recovery.

b) The remedy prayed for as to each defendant:

American Interstate prays that after due proceedings are had, that there be judgment

in American Interstate’s favor awarding a complete recovery of all workers’

compensation benefits paid to and on behalf of Brayton Bayard and that any


amounts awarded in excess of American Interstate’s recovery be recognized as a

credit against future workers’ compensation exposure, computed at 6% per annum.

American Interstate also prays that the Court recognize its first dollar right of

recovery and award payment of American Interstate’s lien prior to awarding any

amounts to Brayton Bayard and Mr. Kenneth Dejean.

c) The law supporting that remedy as to each defendant:

1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and/or (b).

2. Louisiana Revised Statute 23:1101-1103.

3. ISSUES OF FACT AND ISSUES OF LAW:


A. Whether Cameron violated its own safety policies on the day of the accident;

B. Whether Cameron’s failure to outline safety policies for joint operations was a

violation of industry standards;

C. Whether Cameron violated its own safety policies on the day of the accident by

failing to perform a JSA before beginning the job.

D. Whether Cameron violated its own safety policies on the day of the accident by

failing to perform a JSA with Berard before beginning the job.

E. Quantum of damages.


A. Manner in which alleged incident occurred;

B. Whether Cameron had a duty, by virtue of an employee handing up a ratchet binder,

to ensure the pin was adequately threaded to the body of the ratchet binder;

C. Whether Cameron had a duty to supervise and direct the work of Berard, an

independent contractor;


D. Whether Cameron had a duty to discover and remedy hazards created by or

attributable to Berard, when it exercised no control over the means and methods

Berard utilized to perform its work;

E. Whether Cameron had a duty to instruct Berard regarding how to perform its work

in a safe manner;

F. Whether Cameron had a duty to intercede in the work Berard was performing;

G. Whether the written terms and conditions between Cameron and Berard assign

exclusive responsibility to Berard to secure the desalter to the transporter;

H. Whether plaintiff was negligent for not adequately checking the threaded pin,

including unscrewing and screwing in the pin to the ratchet binder to ensure an

adequate threaded connection existed;

I. Whether plaintiff should have exercised his “stop work” authority;

J. Whether Berard acted negligently by allowing plaintiff to position himself on the

transporter when connecting the chain to the ratchet binder;

K. Negligence vel non of plaintiff;

L. Negligence vel non of Cameron;

M. Negligence vel non of Berard;

N. Comparative fault;

O. Causation;

P. Existence and extent of damages;

Q. Quantum of damages;

R. Whether plaintiff mitigated his damages;

S. Whether plaintiff followed the advice and treatment protocols of his medical

providers; and


T. Whether plaintiff aggravated his condition through engagement in activities

unrelated to the alleged incident that occurred after the date of the alleged incident.


A. The interest and/or amount of money owed to the Intervenor, Kenneth W. DeJean,

out of any recovery made by the plaintiff in this matter for his attorney fees, out of

pocket expenses and bank loan balance plus interest.


A. American Interstate Insurance Company’s first dollar right of recovery in the

amount of workers’ compensation benefits paid to and on behalf of Brayton Bayard

and American Interstate’s right to a credit for any award received by Brayton

Bayard in excess of American Interstate’s recovery. .

4. STIPULATIONS:

No stipulations at this time, however, the parties will attempt to enter into stipulations in

order to more efficiently present the matter at trial.


American Interstate Insurance Company has proposed to all parties a stipulation to the

amount and enforceability of its lien and is awaiting a response.

5. WILL CALL WITNESSES:


At this time, the Plaintiff believes he will call

A. Brayton Bayard – Plaintiff regarding the facts surrounding this accident.

B. Jacob M. Boudreaux, 8216 Jefferson Island Road, New Iberia, Louisiana 70560

C. Colin Findlay obo Cameron Corporation, 5300 West Sam Houston Parkway N.

Houston, Texas 77008, regarding Company safety and work procedures.


D. Denis O. Boudreaux, D.B.A., Boudreaux Economic Consulting, Inc., 307 Suffolk

Avenue, Lafayette, LA 70508

E. Doctor Cornelius E. Gorman II, Certified Rehabilitation Counselor, Certified Life

Care Planner, Conservant Healthcare, 1100 Andre Street, Suite 302, New Iberia,

LA 70563

F. Shelly N. Savant, MD, CLCP, Conservant Healthcare, 1100 Andre Street, Suite

302, New Iberia, LA 70563

G. Robert E. Borison, Total Safety Services, Inc., 215 East Second Street, Unit 1, Pass

Christian, MS 39571

H. All medical providers, including Dr. Darrel Henderson, Dr. Robbie LeBlanc, Dr.

James Domingue, and James Blackburn.

Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the Will Call list, and pledges to inform defendants of

any decisions related to same.


[still under consideration]


The following is a list of witnesses that the Intervenor, Kenneth W. DeJean, will call at the

trial of this matter:

1. Brayton Bayard

10914 Gondron St.

St. Martinville, LA 70582

(337) 522-3246

2. Michael L. Barras, Attorney

Oates & Marino

100 E. Vermilion St., Suite 400

Lafayette, LA 70501

(337) 233-1100



The following is a list of witnesses that the Intervenor, American Interstate Insurance

Company, will call at the trial of this matter:

1. Haley Bethke, or other authorized representative of American Interstate

Insurance Company

Field Case Manager

American Interstate Insurance Company

2301 Hwy 190 West, Deridder, LA 70634

6. MAY CALL WITNESSES:


Plaintiff, BRAYTON BAYARD, may call the following witnesses:

A. Brayton Bayard – Plaintiff regarding the facts surrounding this accident;\

B. Jacob M. Boudreaux, 8216 Jefferson Island Road, New Iberia, Louisiana 70560

C. Colin Findlay obo Cameron Corporation, 5300 West Sam Houston Parkway N.

Houston, Texas 77008, regarding Company safety and work procedures.

D. Denis O. Boudreaux, D.B.A., Boudreaux Economic Consulting, Inc., 307 Suffolk

Avenue, Lafayette, LA 70508

E. Doctor Cornelius E. Gorman II, Certified Rehabilitation Counselor, Certified Life

Care Planner, Conservant Healthcare, 1100 Andre Street, Suite 302, New Iberia,

LA 70563

F. Shelly N. Savant, MD, CLCP, Conservant Healthcare, 1100 Andre Street, Suite

302, New Iberia, LA 70563

G. Robert E. Borison, Total Safety Services, Inc., 215 East Second Street, Unit 1, Pass

Christian, MS 39571

H. A representative of insurance company to testify regarding the policy of insurance

issued to Defendant, CAMERON INC.;

I. Any expert witnesses called by any party;


J. Any and all of health care providers or representatives thereof on behalf of Plaintiff,

BRAYTON BAYARD, both before and after the subject accident, including but

not limited to:

a. Acadian Ambulance Service

b. Lafayette General Medical Center

c. Our Lady of Lourdes Regional Medical Center

d. Plastic Surgery Associates

e. Laborde Therapy Center

f. Louisiana Orthopaedic Specialists

g. James H. Blackburn, M.D.

h. Park Place Surgical Hospital

i. James N. Domingue, M.D.

j. Lourdes Imaging Center

k. Envision Imaging of Acadiana

l. Acadiana Orthopedic Group

m. Surgery Center Inc.

n. Anesthesiology & Pain Consultants, LLC

G. A duly qualified representative of employer/former employers of Plaintiff,

BRAYTON BAYARD;

H. Any witness necessary for the introduction and/or authentication of any exhibit;

and

I. Any other witness listed by any other party.


Cameron may call the following witnesses at trial:


A. Jacob M. Boudreaux

8216 Jefferson Island Road

New Iberia, Louisiana 70560

B. Ravis J. Belaire, Jr.

7880 Main Highway

Saint Martinville, Louisiana 70582

C. Jacques Lasseigne

1179-B Alexander Highway

Saint Martinville, Louisiana 70582

D. Jason Lopez

211 Titan Drive

Lafayette, Louisiana 70508

E. Junius “Buzz” Joseph Moore, Jr.

6421 Theresa Comeaux Road

Erath, Louisiana 70533

F. Colin Findlay

Schlumberger

5300 West Sam Houston Parkway N.

Houston, Texas 77008

G. Jason Percle

5315 Curtis Lane


H. Brett Berard

Berard Transportation, Inc.

6204 Daspit Road


I. Records Custodian

Lafayette General Medical Center

1214 Coolidge Street


J. Records Custodian

Robby D. LeBlanc, M.D.

Louisiana Orthopaedic Specialists

108 Rue Llouis XIV


K. Robby D. LeBlanc, M.D.

Louisiana Orthopaedic Specialists

108 Rue Louis XIV


Expert – Orthopaedic Surgery


L. Records Custodian

Envision Imaging Acadiana

856 Kaliste Saloom Road


M. Records Custodian

Darrell L. Henderson, M.D.

Plastic Surgery Associates

1101 South College Road, Suite No. 400


N. Darrell L. Henderson, M.D.

Plastic Surgery Associates

1101 South College Road

Suite No. 400


Expert – Hand Surgery

O. Bao C. Nguyen, M.D.



Expert – Radiology

P. Denny J. Dartez, M.D.



Expert – Radiology

Q. Records Custodian

Metal Shark, L.L.C.

6816 E. Admiral Doyle Road

Jeanerette, Louisiana 70544

R. Dennis R. Howard

95 West View Way, No. 278

Highlands, North Carolina 28741

Expert – Safety

S. Michael S. Frenzel

Jennifer Palmer & Company

8315 Kelwood Avenue

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70806

Expert – Vocational Evaluation and Rehabilitation


T. F. Charles Frey IV, Ph.D.

Jefferson Neurobehavioral Group

Commerce Center

655 Perkins Road

Suite No. 500

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808

Expert – Neuropsychologist

U. Eric R. George, M.D.

Hand Center of Louisiana

4228 Houma Boulevard

Suite No. 600B

Metairie, Louisiana 70006

Expert – Orthopaedic Surgery

V. Dan M. Cliffe, C.P.A.

5210 Pitt Street

New Orleans, Louisiana 70115

Expert – Economics

W. Kenneth J. Boudreaux, Ph.D.

1424 Bordeaux Street

New Orleans, Louisiana 70115

Expert – Economics


The following is a list of witnesses that the Intervenor, Kenneth W. DeJean, may call at the

trial of this matter:

Christa Simpson

Bookkeeper

Law Offices of Kenneth W. DeJean

P.O. Box 4325

Lafayette, LA 70502

(337) 235-5294


American Interstate Insurance Company reserves the right to call any witness listed by any

other party.

7. EXHIBITS:

Plantiff, BRAYTON BAYARD

Plaintiff, BRAYTON BAYARD, may introduce the following exhibits:


A. A certified copy of the policy of insurance issued by insurance company to

Defendant, CAMERON INC.;

B. Cameron safety manual in force at the time of the accident;

C. Cameron purchase order No. 4510020477 dated December 7, 2011

D. Berard Transportation, Inc. invoice No. 11-3308 dated December 5, 2011

E. Cameron job safety analysis for job No. PH0541B03 dated July 27, 2011

F. Cameron job safety analysis for job No. PH0541D03 dated July 28, 2011

G. Cameron job safety analysis for job No. PH541D03 (two crane lift) dated August

2, 2011

H. Cameron job safety analysis for job No. PH541D03 (one crane lift) dated August

2, 2011

I. Cameron job safety analysis for job No. PH541D03 (moving of vessel) dated

August 2, 2011

J. Cameron overhead crane lifting plan dated August 2, 2011

K. Cameron job safety analysis for job No. PH0541D03 dated August 4, 2011

L. Cameron job safety analysis for job No. PH0553B03 dated August 8, 2011

M. Plaintiff’s medical recapitulation

N. Certified copies of any and all of medical records from both before and after the

subject accident on behalf of Plaintiff, BRAYTON BAYARD, including, but not

limited to those records from:

a. Acadian Ambulance Service

b. Lafayette General Medical Center

c. Our Lady of Lourdes Regional Medical Center

d. Plastic Surgery Associates

e. Laborde Therapy Center


f. Louisiana Orthopaedic Specialists

g. James H. Blackburn, M.D.

h. Park Place Surgical Hospital

i. James N. Domingue, M.D.

j. Lourdes Imaging Center

k. Envision Imaging of Acadiana

l. Acadiana Orthopedic Group

m. Surgery Center Inc.

n. Anesthesiology & Pain Consultants, LLC

O. Copies of checks and/or cancelled checks and documentation evidencing any

payment(s) made under any medical payments coverage issued to Plaintiff,

BRAYTON BAYARD;

P. Any and all reports and documentation generated by any expert witnesses;

Q. Transcripts of any and all depositions taken in the instant matter including any and

all exhibits attached thereto and/or any and all statements taken;

R. Any and all pleadings and discovery filed and/or exchanged between parties in the

instant matter including any and all exhibits attached thereto;

S. Copies of any and all estimates of the vehicles involved in the accident;

T. Photographs of the vehicles involved in the accident;

U. Any and all Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents and Request for

Admissions propounded by all parties and their responses to same with

attachments;

V. Any and all employment/personnel records of Plaintiff, BRAYTON BAYARD;

W. Any and all demonstrative aids, including any enlargements of any listed exhibit,

charts, graphs, diagrams, or other aids;


X. Any exhibit needed for impeachment purposes; and

Y. Any other exhibit listed by any other party.


Cameron may introduce into evidence or otherwise use the following exhibits at trial:

A. Cameron purchase order No. 4510020477 dated December 7, 2011

B. Berard Transportation, Inc. invoice No. 11-3308 dated December 5, 2011

C. Cameron job safety analysis for job No. PH0541B03 dated July 27, 2011

D. Cameron job safety analysis for job No. PH0541D03 dated July 28, 2011

E. Cameron job safety analysis for job No. PH541D03 (two crane lift) dated August

2, 2011

F. Cameron job safety analysis for job No. PH541D03 (one crane lift) dated August

2, 2011

G. Cameron job safety analysis for job No. PH541D03 (moving of vessel) dated

August 2, 2011

H. Cameron overhead crane lifting plan dated August 2, 2011

I. Cameron job safety analysis for job No. PH0541D03 dated August 4, 2011

J. Cameron job safety analysis for job No. PH0553B03 dated August 8, 2011

K. Employment application to Berard Transportation, Inc.

L. Brayton Bayard resumè

M. Berard Transportation, Inc. job safety analysis

N. Berard Transportation, Inc. employee time sheet for Brayton Bayard

O. Occupational Safety Training, Inc. certificate issued to Brayton Bayard for rigging

safety

P. Occupational Safety Training, Inc. “rigger practical” form for Brayton Bayard

Q. Berard Transportation, Inc. employee safety manual

R. Photographs of ratchet binder

S. Exemplar of ratchet binder

T. Photographs of alleged incident


U. Medical records of Lafayette General Medical Center

V. Medical records of Robby D. LeBlanc, M.D.

W. Medical records of Envision Imaging Acadiana

X. Medical records of Lourdes Imaging Network

Y. Medical records of Darrell L. Henderson, M.D.

Z. Employment records of Metal Shark, L.L.C.

AA. Income tax records of plaintiff

BB. Earnings records of plaintiff


The following is a list of exhibits that the Intervenor, Kenneth W. DeJean, will introduce

at the trial of this matter:

1. Retainer Contract, dated April 29, 2015, signed by Brayton Bayard and Kenneth

W. DeJean;

2. Joint Representation Acknowledgment signed by Brayton Bayard, Michael L.

Barras and Kenneth W. DeJean.

3. A copy of the recorder Retainer Contract between Brayton Bayard and Kenneth W.

DeJean, recorded in the Conveyance Records of the Lafayette Parish Clerk of Court

on January 20, 2016 (File No. 2016-00002198).

4. A copy of the recorder Retainer Contract, recorded in the Mortgage Records of the

St. Martin Parish Clerk of Court on January 21, 2016 (Instrument No. 494662).

5. An itemized listing of the expenses incurred by attorney Kenneth W. DeJean during

his representation of the plaintiff, Brayton Bayard.

6. Case Expense Agreement signed by Brayton Bayard and Kenneth W. DeJean on

April 30, 2015;

7. Attorney/Client Line Agreement and Disclosure of IberiaBank, signed by Brayton

Bayard on April 29, 2015 (Loan No. 4517116301).

8. An updated loan balance summary from IberiaBank for Loan No. 4517116301 that

will be current as of the time of trial.

9. Letter from Brayton Bayard to Barbara Bluffin of IberiaBank, dated April 29, 2015,

requesting to borrow money from IberiaBank from time to time under a Client Line


of Credit issued in the name of Kenneth W. DeJean to pay personal living expenses,

medical expenses and/or litigation expenses during the pendency of his claim.

10. IberiaBank Client Line of Credit Application submitted and signed by Brayton

Bayard on April 29, 2015.

11. Receipt No. 06038 from Iberia Bank for the initial advance under the

Attorney/Client Line of Credit in the amount of $10,475.47.

12. Attorney / Client Line Activator dated January 12, 2016 in the amount of $2,457.04,

signed by Brayton Bayard and Kenneth W. DeJean (Activator No. 1003).

13. Attorney / Client Line Activator dated August 5, 2015 in the amount of $8,756.11,


14. Attorney / Client Line Activator dated May 18, 2015 in the amount of $4,259.46,



The following is a list of exhibits that the Intervenor, American Interstate Insurance

Company, will introduce at the trial of this matter:

1. Medical and Indemnity payment history of American Interstate Insurance

Company. An updated payment history showing payments through the February

26, 2018 trial date will be introduced. Counsel have been provided with a payment

history through December 27, 2018.

2. American Interstate Insurance Company reserves the right to introduce any exhibit

listed by any other party.

8. OBJECTIONS TO WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LISTS:


Plaintiff objects to all exhibits and witness testimony which would be in violation of this

Court’s forthcoming ruling on the Motion in Limine.


A. Cameron objects to the following witnesses and exhibits:

B. Objects to plaintiff listing of Cornelius E. Gorman II due to lack of timely notice

and lack of narrative report or a timely report;


C. Object to Robert E. Borison due to lack of timely notice and lack of narrative report

or a timely report;

D. Object to listing of health care providers due to failure to properly identify

witnesses by name;

E. Object to plaintiff’s medical recapitulation on the grounds of hearsay, replication

of evidence and recapitulation is argument, not evidence;

F. Object to copies of medical records on the grounds they are hearsay;

G. Object to checks of medical payments on the grounds that they have not been

produced, not timely identified and are irrelevant;

H. Object to narrative expert reports on the grounds they are hearsay and are a

replication of evidence;

I. Object to deposition transcripts and exhibits attached thereto on the grounds they

are hearsay and witness has not been shown to be unavailable;

J. Object to any and all pleadings and discovery on the grounds description is vague

and is hearsay;

K. Object to estimates of the vehicles involved in accident on the grounds description

is vague and is irrelevant and is hearsay;

L. Object to any and all interrogatories and requests for production of documents on

the grounds description is vague and is irrelevant and is hearsay; and

M. Object to any and all personnel records of plaintiff on the grounds description is

vague and is hearsay.

9. COUNSEL AFFIRMATIONS:

Counsel for all parties affirm the following:


A. That he or she is aware that exhibits are to be published to the jury by way of

CDROM or the Visual Presenter unless consent of this Court is obtained upon a

showing of impracticality or prejudice.

B. That he or she is familiar with the Visual Presenter and its operation or note the

date he or she has scheduled with this Court’s Courtroom Deputy for training.

C That good faith settlement negotiations have been engaged in within one week prior

to the pretrial conference.

D The need, if any, for handicap provisions that are provided by the Court

Respectfully submitted,

BROUSSARD & DAVID, LLC

/s/ Jerome H. Moroux

JEROME H. MOROUX (#32666)

557 Jefferson Street

P.O. Box 3524

Lafayette, Louisiana 70502-3524

PH: 337-233-2323

FX: 337-233-2353

EMAIL: [email protected]

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

BRAYTON BAYARD


DEUTSCH KERRIGAN, LLP

/s/ Howard L. Murphy

HOWARD L. MURPHY

755 Magazine Street

New Orleans, LA 70130

PH: 504-581-5141

FX: 504-566-4039


COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

CAMERON INC.


LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN

/s/ Kenneth W. DeJean

KENNETH W. DEJEAN (#4817)

417 West University Avenue

P.O. Box 4325

Lafayette, LA 70502

PH: 337-235-5294

FX: 337-235-1095


COUNSEL FOR INTERVENOR

KENNETH W. DEJEAN


LEBAS LAW OFFICES APLC

/s/ Todd A. Delcambre

TODD A. DELCAMBRE

2 Flagg Place, Suite 1

Lafayette, LA 70508

PH: 337-236-5500

FX: 337-236-5590


COUNSEL FOR INTERVENOR AMERICAN INTERSTATE INSURANCE

COMPANY


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, counsel for Plaintiff, do hereby certify that I have this day filed the

above and foregoing document using the Court’s ECF electronic filing system.

Lafayette, Louisiana, this 11th day of January, 2018.

/s/ Jerome H. Moroux

JEROME H. MOROUX
