Did I pass? - A Terrifying Question Gets More Terrifying

Plaintiff Brady Hardisty and a coworker attempted to use chains attached to a tractor to pull a Caterpillar bulldozer from the mud. A chain snapped and struck plaintiff in the head and face. Hardisty sued Caterpillar under allegations that its product was unreasonably dangerous. Caterpillar filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing Hardisty was not engaged in a “reasonably anticipated use” of its product. Both the trial court and the appellate court identified “material issues of fact” in denying Caterpillar’s motion. The Supreme Court reversed, and entered summary judgment for Caterpillar.^

Caterpillar cited its Operation Manual that warned against the use of chains and gave a safer alternative. Hardisty asserted that material issues of fact existed as to whether Caterpillar “knew or should have known” that users were not following product warnings. Hardisty offered opinions from its expert witness that: (1) Caterpillar knew of the danger because it warned against the use of chains and (2) experience showed that the use of chains was a common practice in the industry.

The Hardisty court reasoned that the expert’s own “experience” was insufficient to refute Caterpillar’s evidence that it received no report of prior similar accidents. However, the Court cited to earlier case law for the proposition that even actual knowledge would not defeat the motion, stating:

The jurisprudence has recognized that knowledge of the potential and actual intentional abuse of a product does not create a question of fact on the question of reasonably anticipated use when the manufacturer expressly warned against the danger of such misuse.

In a recent case handled by Keogh Cox, the federal Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants, citing Hardisty for the proposition that a manufacturer may reasonably expect that its users will follow “clear and direct” product warnings. See Friels v. Louisiana State Administrative Office of Rick Management, et al.

References:

^Hardisty v. Walker, 25-00239 (La. 6/3/25), 410 So,3d 774.

Louisiana State Administrative Office of Rick Management, et al., No. 24-30688, 8/15/25. Opinion not designated for publication. 5^th Cir. R. 47.5.

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.

Witness For The Prosecution was a 1957 film about the testimony of a German-born wife whose husband was on trial for murdering a rich woman. Based upon an Agatha Christie novel, the film gave a quote which has been parroted by attorneys ever since.

Sir Wilfrid: And when you said that he had accidentally cut his wrist, again, you lied?　

Helm: Yes!

Sir Wilfrid: And now today you've told us a new story entirely! The question is, Frau Helm, were you lying then, [or] are you lying now?　

Whether in court, deposition or on the big screen, the impeachment of witness creates drama-the kind of drama opposing attorneys try to avoid.

In O'Dwyer v. Our Lady of the Lake, -- So. 3d ---, 2013 WL 2131763 (La. 5/17/13), the Louisiana Supreme Court was asked to decide whether audio recordings of a defense witness must be disclosed before the deposition of the witness. The O'Dwyer plaintiff was a nursing student who alleged that she had been targeted for termination from the nursing program through "harassment, bullying, stalking, and intimidation."

O'Dwyer's attorney sought to depose the nursing program director. The defendant sought production of audiotaped conversations between the program director and another student before the deposition was allowed, and successfully obtained a written order that the audiotapes be produced. The First Circuit denied the plaintiffs' writ, but writs were granted by the Louisiana Supreme Court.

The O'Dwyer Court looked to prior jurisprudence. In Wolford v. JoEllen Smith Psychiatric Hospital, 96-2460 (La. 5/20/97), 693 So. 2d 1164), the Supreme Court held that a defendant was not required to produce surveillance of the plaintiff until after the plaintiff's deposition. The Court highlighted the "important function in the search for truth" served by surveillance. After all, the value of the surveillance could be minimized were a plaintiff able to view the evidence and tailor his or her testimony to match. Therefore, the evidence was viewed as potential impeachment evidence and could be withheld prior to deposition.

In Bell v. Treasure Chest Casino, L.L.C., 06-1538 (La. 2/22/07), 950 So. 2d 654, the Court refused to extend Wolford to the production of video which captured the accident itself. Video of the accident upon which the plaintiff sued was direct evidence and not primarily impeachment evidence. Therefore, it had to be produced prior to the plaintiff's deposition.

In O'Dwyer, the Court concluded that the audiotapes were made for impeachment and therefore need not be produced until after the nursing director's deposition. Justice Weimer, in dissent, challenged the characterization of the audiotapes as exclusively impeachment evidence. He cited to the language of the writ application which described the tapes as "unique evidence that may be used for direct or impeachment evidence at trial."

O'Dwyer indicates that a court may look to the primary function of the evidence in deciding its discoverability. The fact that the audiotapes may serve as direct evidence did not require their production when their primary function was impeachment.