You’ve Been Served – Now What? Understanding “Louisiana’s Pre-trial Procedure”

A motion for summary judgment is a procedural device a party can use to avoid a full-scale trial when there is no genuine issue of material fact. La. C.C.P. art. 966 is the statute that governs motions for summary judgment in Louisiana. The statute was amended in 2015 to establish some new procedural rules for filing summary judgment motions. Before the statue was amended, the deadline for opposing a motion for summary judgment was set in the District Court Rules, and courts frequently allowed oppositions to motions for summary judgment to be filed after the statutory delay.

In 2015, the Legislature amended the statute to state that “absent the consent of the parties and the court, an opposition shall be filed” within the new fifteen-day deadline established by the article. In Auricchio v. Harriston, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled the amendments to the statute removed the discretionary language that previously allowed a court to allow a party additional time to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court ruled the amendments to art. 966 made the opposition deadline mandatory, and late-filed oppositions should not be considered in connection with a ruling on a motion for summary judgment.

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently revisited this issue in Mahe v. LCMC Health Holdings LLC. The Court considered whether a trial court may grant a continuance of a hearing on a motion for summary judgment when a party fails to file its opposition within the fifteen-day deadline set in La. C.C.P. art. 966(B)(2).

In Mahe, a party requested a continuance of the hearing after the fifteen-day deadline passed. While subsection 966(C)(2) provides that a continuance of the hearing is permitted “for good cause shown,” the Court held that the requested continuance could not serve to circumvent the mandatory deadline for filing an opposition, as described in the Auricchio case. Accordingly, the order granting the continuance was reversed, and the trial court was instructed to rule on the motion for summary judgment without consideration of the untimely filed opposition. In so holding, the Court reinforced the mandatory deadlines set in La. C.C.P. art. 966 and provided additional guidance on the procedural rules for filing and opposing motions for summary judgment.

Thousands of people are currently dealing with the devastating flooding in Baton Rouge and surrounding areas. Here are a few pieces of information that may assist you as you begin to recover from this event:

1. Do your best to document your property damage claim as best you can. Take as many pictures of the damage as possible, whether of your house, commercial building, personal contents or inventory. These photos will be your proof of damage for whatever damage claim you are able to make, whether through your insurance company or otherwise.
2. Similarly, try and compile whatever pictures you can of your house or business, and its contents, from before the flood. To the extent, there is a dispute of whether a specific item was damaged or not, or even existed in the home or building before the flood, these pictures will be invaluable.
3. As soon as possible, attempt to itemize all of the contents in your home. A handwritten list is fine. Go through each room and attempt to list out every one of your possessions. Try and identify the make or model of each item, what you paid for it, and how old it is. Some insurance companies will require this specific information before you will be paid for each item. Of course, it is unlikely that you will have purchase documents for each item in your possession. Although this type of documentation is not required to prove your claim, it is obviously helpful for the insurance company to process it.
4. Keep records of what you spend to live elsewhere, including food and toiletries. If you rent a hotel room or are required to rent a house, make sure to keep records of what you pay.
5. Likewise, keep good records of any expenses you incur to repair your home or business. An organized and well-documented insurance or property damage claim is always better received and more quickly processed than one that is not.
6. With respect to insurance claims, and to the extent the policy provides coverage for your specific loss, an insurance company has an obligation, by law, to pay all undisputed amounts to you within a certain period of time. In other words, your insurance company has to at least pay you for everything that is undisputed. If there is a legitimate dispute over something, the insurance company can withhold payment for those items but must pay you for the items for which there is no disagreement. If the insurance company does withhold payment without a legitimate reason or fails to pay you within a certain amount of time, it may be responsible for certain statutory penalties and costs. You will need to discuss this with an attorney if you feel your insurance company is not treating you fairly.
7. To this point, because the insurance company must pay all undisputed amounts if there remain any disputed items, do not sign anything until the claim is fully resolved. You are not required to sign anything to receive any undisputed money under your policy.
8. If you have flood insurance, depending on the policy language, you may be eligible to receive immediate, emergency payments. Ask your insurance company what your policy provides, but do not assume what you are told is correct. Ask for a copy of your policy and read it for yourself.
9. To date, President Obama has made available federal disaster aid to residents of the parishes of East Baton Rouge, Livingston, Tangipahoa, and St. Helena. If you do not have flood insurance, you should immediately register with FEMA. You can also call FEMA at 800-621-3362. More information about the available federal assistance, including those for some businesses, can be found here.
10. The Louisiana State Bar Association and the Baton Rouge Bar Association will be providing free legal services to assist anyone with any legal issues arising from this disaster. For now, you can call the LSBA at 504-566-1600 or 800-421-5722 or the BRBA at 225-344-4803. More information will be disseminated as efforts are further coordinated.

Hopefully, this information will provide you with a little bit of information about the property damage claim process.

In cases that involve physical injury, defendants often request an “Additional Medical Opinion [AMO]” from a physician of their choice as part of the defense of the case. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1464 allows a defendant to select a physician to perform a physical and/or mental examination of a plaintiff to challenge the plaintiff’s claimed physical and mental injuries. At times, a plaintiff may voluntarily agree to the examination. However, if an objection is lodged to the requested examination, a defendant must proceed with a Motion to Compel the Additional Medical Opinion. In the context of the motion, the defendant must establish the following for the AMO to be ordered pursuant to article 1464:

1. The mental or physical condition of a party is in controversy; and
2. “Good cause” exists for the AMO.

Because Louisiana courts routinely hold that a plaintiff puts his or her physical and mental condition in “controversy” by filing suit and requesting damages for physical and mental pain and suffering, the focus of a motion for an AMO is often on the “good cause” requirement. “Good cause” is not defined in La. CCP article 1464, and its meaning is not clear. Recently, however, the Louisiana Supreme Court provided guidance on the issue in the case of Hicks v USAA General Indemnity Company, et al., holding that a showing of “good cause” requires that a moving party establish a reasonable nexus between the requested examination and the condition in controversy.

In Hicks, the defendant moved for an AMO with an orthopedic surgeon after plaintiff filed suit, alleging personal injuries to his neck, back, and arm as a result of an accident. In the context of the Motion to Compel, it was argued the plaintiff put his physical condition in controversy by alleging injury. The defendant noted plaintiff treated with two physicians, one of whom did not believe plaintiff was a surgical candidate. The defendant also maintained “good cause” existed because a plaintiff “who asserts mental or physical injury… places that mental or physical injury clearly in controversy and provides the defendant with good cause for an examination to determine the existence and extent of such asserted injury.” In support of this argument, the defendant also highlighted inconsistent medical testimony concerning plaintiff’s physical conditions and treatment in support of “good cause.”

In opposing the motion, the plaintiff argued “good cause” was absent because two physicians already had offered opinions on plaintiff’s condition and treatment.

The trial court denied defendant’s Motion to Compel AMO on grounds that “good cause” did not exist. The trial court noted that two physicians already had been deposed and that a physician selected by the defendant could review plaintiff’s medical records and the depositions of the other doctors to offer an additional medical opinion at trial. The case proceeded to trial, where the defendant introduced testimony from a physician who relied upon the materials referenced in the court’s ruling to support his medical opinion. Not surprisingly, the plaintiff argued the opinion of the defendant-selected physician should be discredited because he never examined plaintiff.

After a trial judgment in favor of plaintiff, the defendant appealed. The appeal court also concluded “good cause” did not exist for the AMO, noting the absence of “definitive guidelines as to what constitutes good cause.” The appeal court also noted the fact that defendant had the ability to obtain the desired information by other means was relevant in deciding whether good cause was shown.

The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions. It started its analysis by noting the basic premise of our system of justice: that both sides to a dispute stand on equal footing in gathering evidence and preparing for trial. It noted the AMO allowed under La. CCP article 1464 actually limits the extensive discovery permitted under Louisiana law, as it balances considerations of “sanctity of the body and the right to privacy with considerations of fairness in the judicial quest for truth.” Article 1464 seeks to achieve balance by requiring more than “relevance” for an AMO, granting the right to courts to order an AMO only when a plaintiff’s condition is “in controversy” and “good cause” supports allowing the examination. The Supreme Court also noted that an AMO may be one party’s only opportunity to independently ascertain the existence and extent of the other party’s claimed injuries.

After balancing these competing interests, the Louisiana Supreme Court found “good cause” under article 1464 requires the moving party to establish a reasonable nexus between the requested examination and the condition in controversy. The decision as to whether the moving party has demonstrated both the “in controversy” and “good cause” requirements lies in the sound discretion of the trial court. At times, the pleadings alone may contain sufficient information to establish a reasonable nexus.

As part of its decision, the Louisiana Supreme Court noted that although meeting the statute’s requirements may entitle a defendant to an examination, a defendant is not entitled to any AMO it request; reasonable limitations may still be applied. It remains the trial court’s role to balance the competing interests and rights of the parties, considering both “sanctity of the body” and the implication of one party’s privacy rights against considerations of fairness for the moving party.

After employing its analysis, the Louisiana Supreme Court concluded the defendant in Hicks demonstrated “good cause” because plaintiff alleged severe injuries as a result of the accident, claimed damages, and inconsistent medical testimony concerning plaintiff’s physical condition existed. It remanded the case for a new trial.