Summary Judgment Dismissing Unwitnessed Workers’ Comp Accident Affirmed: No Corroborating Evidence

Can a nonresident corporation, who is not a party to a pending action, be compelled to respond to discovery in Louisiana? The Louisiana Fifth Circuit says YES. See Molaison v Cust-O-Fab Specialty Services, LLC, a case where Keogh Cox successfully handled the appeal.

The Molaison case involved an industrial accident claim where catastrophic injuries were alleged. In this context, the appellate court found that a non-resident company has sufficient presence in Louisiana to subject it to the court’s subpoena power. However, the trial court must first assess the scope of discovery to ensure it is calculated to lead to discoverable evidence and is not too onerous.

In Molaison, the owner of an industrial plant who employed the plaintiff claimed that its nonresident status prevented the parties from requiring it to respond to discovery by deposition or otherwise. The plant owner cited a Louisiana Supreme Court case that held personal jurisdiction, without more, did not subject a nonparty, out-of-state defendant to submit to discovery in this state.

But, in this case, the nonparty maintained a facility in Louisiana and employed the plaintiff. As a consequence, the Molaison court found that the Louisiana “discovery rules control” and “the trial court did not err in finding that (the company) was subject to the subpoena power of a Louisiana court.”

The contractor established it issued the subpoena to obtain evidence from the chemical plant owner that was relevant to the allocation of fault under Louisiana’s pure comparative fault tort system. Therefore, the appeal court reasoned that the nonresident plant owner was subject to the subpoena, “even if (the company) is not obligated to pay in tort by operation of workers compensation immunity.”

Of note, the court also held that the review of a discovery order that finds a nonresident company subject to the subpoena power is a final appealable judgment, as opposed to an interlocutory order subject the discretionary review on supervisory writ.

Case Reference: Molaison v Cust-O-Fab Specialty Services, LLC, 21-585 (La. App 5 Cir. 6/1/22); 343 So. 3d 866.

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.

The Louisiana plaintiffs’ bar recently sought to tilt the scales of justice through Senate Bill 185, a bill seeking to complicate a defendant’s efforts to obtain an Independent Medical Examination ("IME"). An IME is an examination of the plaintiff by a physician or medical examiner hired by the defense. IMEs are important in the defense of a case and often act as a catalyst for settlement or to reduce the value of a claim.Bill 185 was introduced by Senator Jay Luneau (D) and passed with a unanimous 35 – 0 vote in the Senate. The bill proposed amendments to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1464 to impose the following conditions upon IMEs:

• All parties would be barred from referring to an IME as “independent” in the presence of a jury.
• A plaintiff could not be ordered to submit to multiple examinations by multiple physicians within the same field of specialty, regardless of the number of defendants.
• The party to be examined would have the right to have a person of his or her choosing present during the exam, including the plaintiff’s attorney.
• The party to be examined would have the right not only to have the entire examination videotaped, but the ability to force the party requesting the examination to pay for all associated costs.

Were these conditions enforced, many physicians might have chosen not to provide IMEs at all when the process would involve: a potentially adversarial plaintiff’s attorney; a patient room packed with video equipment; and, the spectacle of it all captured on tape. Further, the bill would have stifled the ability to defend injury claims.We may never know what effect these changes might have brought. On May 16, 2017, the House Civil Law and Procedure Committee, involuntarily deferred on a 4-4 vote. This action effectively killed the bill and saved the IME as currently understood. By: John Grinton, a Keogh Cox associate whose practice areas include commercial and construction litigation. When he is not practicing law, John spends most of his time with his wife, Kellye, and their two dogs.