Author: Catherine S. Giering

Court Addresses the Reach of the Louisiana Health Emergency Powers Act’s Immunity Provision for Claims Against Health Care Providers

07.13.2023

The Louisiana Health Emergency Powers Act (LHEPA), La. R.S. 29:760 et seq, was enacted in 2003 to allow the government to use extraordinary powers in order to respond to potential or actual public health emergencies. Historically, claims against medical providers have been governed by a negligence standard, which requires a plaintiff to prove the provider failed to act with reasonable care. However, La. R.S. 29:771(2)(c), which was enacted as part of the LHEPA, provides what has been described as a limited or quasi-immunity for health care providers:

During a state of public health emergency, any health care providers shall not be civilly liable for causing the death of, or injury to, any person or damage to any property except in the event of gross negligence or willful misconduct.

This provision imposes a heightened standard of gross negligence or willful misconduct for claims against health care providers and their employees. “Gross negligence” has been defined as “the entire absence of care and the utter disregard of the dictates of prudence, amounting to complete neglect of the rights of others.”* Therefore, absent a showing of gross negligence or willful misconduct, the provision provides immunity from civil liability for all claims against all health care providers.

The reach and application of this heightened standard of gross negligence under the LHEPA has been the subject of recent rulings from Louisiana courts. In Lejeune v. Steck, which was decided before COVID-19 in connection with a public health emergency declared following Hurricane Katrina, the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the LHEPA’s heightened standard applied to all medical providers in the state while the state was in a public health emergency.^

In Lejeune, a doctor left a sponge in a patient during a surgery. The plaintiff argued that a general negligence standard should apply because the surgery occurred outside the Hurricane Katrina emergency area. However, the Court found that the plaintiff must prove gross negligence or willful misconduct because the LHEPA “does not provide for a limited set of health care providers, nor does it limit its application to only those medical personnel rendering emergency assistance voluntarily due to the emergency in the area.” Thus, the Court ruled the LHEPA was broad reaching and covered all health care providers in all areas of Louisiana during the public health emergency.

More recently, Governor Edwards invoked the LHEPA on March 11, 2020 in response to COVID-19. In line with the all-inclusive application seen in Lejeune, the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that the LHEPA applied to all claims against health care providers that arose during the public health emergency declared for COVID-19.

In Lathon v. Leslie Lakes Ret. Ctr., the Second Circuit applied the LHEPA to a premises liability claim.^^ The plaintiff slipped and fell in a puddle at Leslie Lakes Retirement Center. The accident occurred during the declared public health emergency. The retirement center filed a motion for summary judgment and argued that because it qualified as a health care provider, the gross negligence standard set forth in the LHEPA should apply to the plaintiff’s claim.

The court agreed and found that the statute dictated that immunity applied in favor of any healthcare provider for any personal injury or property damage claim as long as it arose during a public health emergency. In so holding, the Court stated that the purpose of the LHEPA was to alleviate the liability burden on healthcare providers during public health emergencies. Therefore, the Court found its ruling aligned with the purpose of the act. The Lathon decision is significant because it applied the LHEPA’s statutory immunity to personal injury claims against healthcare providers outside of a medical malpractice setting.

At least one justice on the Louisiana Supreme Court voiced a desire to address the constitutionality of this statutory immunity provision. However, the Court ultimately declined to review the Second Circuit’s ruling. Therefore, under Lathon, it appears the statutory immunity granted under the LHEPA applies to any claim brought against any healthcare provider for acts that occur during a public health emergency. While it remains to be seen how courts will address this issue in the future, these decisions show the reach and application of the LHEPA continue to evolve.

References:
*Ambrose v. New Orleans Police Dep’t Ambulance Serv., 93-3099 (La. 7/5/94), 639 So. 2d 216.

^Lejeune v. Steck, 13-1017 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/21/14), 138 So. 3d 1280, writ denied sub nom. Daigle v. Steck, 2014-1408 (La. 10/3/14), 149 So. 3d 800.

^^Lathon v. Leslie Lakes Ret. Ctr., 54,479 (La.App. 2 Cir. 9/21/22); 348 So.3d 888, writ denied, 2022-01566 (La. 12/20/22); 352 So.3d 80.

What ifs….. Indemnifying Premises Liability Exposure

11.24.2021

If you are a property owner, stop and think about the “what ifs” before you enter into a lease with a property manager or lessee. For example, what if an invitee of the property that you own is hurt while on and/or because of a condition on the property? Who is responsible?

A property owner may be able to transfer its potential liability to a property manager or lessee of the property if the lease contains an indemnification provision. However, not all indemnification provisions are enforceable, and these critical provisions are often litigated.

The Eastern District Court of Louisiana recently enforced an indemnification provision, granting  summary judgment to a landowner who sought indemnification from its property lessee in Avila v. Village Mart, LLC, Civ. A. No. 20-1850, 2021 WL 4439579 (E.D. La. 9/28/21). In the case, a shopping center leased retail space to a men’s store. Before the store opened, a painter was injured when he fell from a ladder. The owner of the shopping center argued that the lessee owed a defense. It argued indemnity applied because the plaintiffs’ claims arose out of the lessee’s buildout construction, over which the owner did not have any care, custody, or control.

In response, the lessee argued that the owner was not entitled to indemnification because the plaintiffs’ claims did not “arise out of or were connected with Tenant’s use, occupancy, management or control of the Leased Premises.” The lessee claimed that it was not using, occupying, managing, or controlling the leased space because the only permitted use of the space was to sell menswear, and the space was not being used for this purpose at the time of the accident.

Louisiana courts often apply a “but for” causation test to such “arising out of” language in indemnity provisions.  Avila, 2021 WL 4439579, at *5, citing Kan. City S. Ry. Co. v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., No. 06-03, 2010 WL 1293340, at *6 (W.D. La. Mar. 29, 2010), and Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc., 563 So.2d 258, 259-60 (La. 1990). The court observed the lessee’s arguments contradicted language in the lease that allowed the lessee to use and occupy the store before it opened to the public. The lease also explained that the lessee was responsible for certain construction work and identified specific dates to begin work and to open the store. Thus, the lease contemplated use and occupancy before the store was open to the public. The court found that the lessee’s possession of the space and its construction obligations under the lease established its use and occupancy of the space. The court stated:

Given the broad language in the indemnity agreement – ‘arising out of or connected with’ – [the plaintiffs’] injuries, resulting from his work as a subcontractor painting the premises leased by [the retail space lessee,] are connected to [its] use and occupancy of the premises. … Because [the retail space lessee] was in possession of the space, and had assumed responsibility for the buildout and for contractors and subcontractors working on the buildout, the Court finds that the plaintiffs’ liability theories fall within the scope of the indemnity provision in the lease.  Avila, 2021 WL 4439579, at *6.

The enforceability of indemnity provisions such as the one examined in Avila will continue to be litigated. In the meantime, Avila reminds us of the importance of sound indemnity language to anticipate the “what ifs.”

Simmons: No Bright-Line Rule as to Future Medical Specials?

06.25.2021

The difference between the amount charged and the amount paid for medical treatment can be substantial.  Knowing the dollar amount of the medical specials that a plaintiff will be allowed to seek at trial is often critical in case evaluation and resolution.  In this context, the Louisiana Supreme Court provided a “bright-line” rule in Bozeman v. State, 03-1016 (La. 7/2/04), 879 So. 2d 692, that a plaintiff can only seek the amount actually paid for medical treatment, when it is funded by Medicaid. Our state’s highest court then added, in Simmons v. Cornerstone Investments, LLC, 18-0735 (La. 5/8/19), 282 So.3d 199, that only the amount actually paid for medical specials may be sought, when it is funded by workers’ compensation insurance. The “written off” amount is considered a “phantom charge” that the plaintiff will never pay.  Some questions remain as to how courts will apply the holding and analysis of Simmons.

The rationale behind Simmons is that any discount in the amount of medical expenses given to the workers’ compensation carrier does not constitute a “collateral source” because the plaintiff did not give anything in exchange for the discount.  Roughly six months after Simmons, the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s denial of the defendants’ motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence of the plaintiff’s total past medical expenses.  Love v. Nelson, 2020-1050 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1/13/21), 2021 WL 118936, *1.  Relying solely upon Simmons, the appellate court stated, “[T]he amount of medical expenses charged above the amount actually incurred is not a collateral source … .  Accordingly, we find the trial court abused its discretion, and the motion in limine is granted and evidence of medical expenses not actually owed and paid by or on behalf of plaintiff … is excluded from evidence at the trial.”  Id. 

Federal courts, relying upon Simmons, have held that the collateral source rule does not apply to third-party-funded past medical expenses.  See Collins v. Benton, Civ. A. No. 18-7465, 2021 WL 638116, *5, 8 (E.D. La. Feb. 17, 2021).  However, see Lee v. United Rentals, Inc., Civ. A. No. 18-977, 2021 WL 2184763, *3 (M.D. La. May 28, 2021), where the court granted the defendant’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of the plaintiff’s past medical expenses not paid by workers’ compensation.  Only the amounts paid by the employer/workers’ compensation carrier would be presented to the jury in support of the plaintiff’s past medical expenses.  The court then added:

“However, there are two matters left in contention: first, may the Plaintiff offer evidence of the amounts charged by Plaintiff’s providers in connection with his back injury which [the employer] refused to pay?  Second, may Plaintiff present evidence of the market rate for Plaintiff’s future medical needs or is he relegated to the amounts set out in the Workers’ Compensation Fee Schedule?  As to both items, Simmons is not controlling.”

In other words, the federal court in Lee found that Simmons applied only to past medical expenses, but it did not apply to future medical expenses (i.e., the plaintiff would be allowed to present the full amount of anticipated future medical charges to the jury).  As a federal court sitting in diversity, the Lee court applied the law of the state.  Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938).  The findings in Lee may be correct, but, until it is definitively resolved by legislative act or by the Louisiana Supreme Court, parties will likely continue to debate what impact the reasoning of Simmons will have as to future medical charges past the date of trial. If, as held in Lee, the reduced workers’ compensation rate is irrelevant to future medical specials, then plaintiffs will seek the full future medical charges. This blog does not address the potential impact of the “Civil Justice Reform Act of 2020” which can reduce a plaintiff’s ability seek full medical charges for cases arising after January 1, 2021 in some circumstances.

CORPORATE DEPOSITIONS: Recent Amendment to Federal Rules Mark a Positive Change

01.15.2021

Litigation is increasingly a “part of doing business.” In federal court, corporate depositions are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) (frequently referred to as a “30(b)(6) deposition”).  When a corporate representative is appointed to testify on behalf of a company, they are typically provided a deposition notice which identifies the subjects he or she will be asked to address in their testimony. However, the process is not always smooth when the parties disagree about what is fairly covered in the notice. A recent amendment to Rule 30 aims to improve the process.

Preparing for a 30(b)(6) deposition can be overwhelming and time-consuming.  Often, the imprecise identification of subjects in the notice leaves the corporation wondering what the noticing party really seeks to explore or even who is the best individual to testify to the topics identified.  The federal judiciary has observed that corporate representative(s) under the current practice are often unprepared to provide the necessary testimony and/or that the entity’s interpretation of the deposition topics does not match the intent of the noticing party.  The result is aborted or suspended depositions, extended litigation, increased costs, and the birth of theories that the deponent intentionally obstructed the deposition, which is usually not the case.

To address these issues, effective December 1, 2020, Rule 30(b)(6) now reads as follows (changes in bold):

Notice or Subpoena Directed to an Organization.  In its notice or subpoena, a party may name as the deponent a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, a governmental agency, or other entity and must describe with reasonable particularity the matters for examination.  The named organization must designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on its behalf; and it may set out the matters on which each person designated will testify.  Before or promptly after the notice or subpoena is served, the serving party and the organization must confer in good faith about the matters for examination.  A subpoena must advise a nonparty organization of its duty to confer with the serving party and to designate each person who will testify. …

The recent amendment directs the serving party and the named organization to confer before or promptly after the notice or subpoena is served about the matters for examination.  The intent is to “facilitate collaborative efforts” and to encourage “candid exchanges about the purposes of the deposition and the organization’s information structure [which] may clarify and focus the matters for examination and enable the organization to designate and to prepare an appropriate witness or witnesses, thereby avoiding later disagreements.”  (Committee Notes; Rule 30).  The Committee Notes even suggest that the notice of the deposition may be “refined as the parties confer.”  The Committee Notes further provide that the obligation is to “confer in good faith,” not to reach agreement, and remind that “it may be desirable to seek guidance from the court.” 

The recent changes to Rule 30 are subtle but may prove impactful. Because the new procedure is now in effect, we should know soon.