Supreme Court Abrogates Louisiana’s “Professional Rescuer’s Doctrine”

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. This is called an Additional Medical Opinion (AMO); this was previously referenced as an Independent Medical Examination (IME). Earlier this year, the Louisiana Supreme Court, outlined the “good cause” requirement of the statute—an essential element required to proceed with an AMO. But, what remained as a question was the scope of an AMO and which party had the burden to deal with requested restrictions on the physician’s medical exam. This question was answered: In Augustine v. Safeco Insurance Company of Oregon, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that after “good cause” has been shown for the examination, the party seeking to limit the scope of the AMO bears the burden to justify the restrictions.

In Augustine, a sequel to Hicks v. USAA General Indemnity Company, Et al, the Court held that if the party to be examined for the AMO, usually the plaintiff, wants to place limits upon the examination, that party then has the burden of proof to justify the need for any restrictions or limitations with competent evidence. This ruling appears to show a trend in which the Court is confirming a defendant’s ability to obtain an AMO to support its defenses to a personal injury claim. Augustine follows another Supreme Court decision from March of 2022, in which the Court held that a party establishes “good cause” for an AMO if that party shows a “reasonable nexus” between the requested examination and the condition in controversy. See Hicks v. USAA General Indemnity Company, Et al. The Hicks decision eased the hurdles that defendants faced when seeking to compel AMOs pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1464. For more information on the Hicks decision, see our prior blog here. Supreme Court Clarifies “Good Cause” for Additional Medical Opinion (“AMO”) (keoghcox.com)

In Augustine, the defendants requested an AMO. The plaintiff agreed to the examination, but the parties were unable to agree on “certain restrictions” the plaintiff sought to impose on the scope of the examination. The defendants ultimately filed a Motion to Compel regarding this issue. The District Court limited the examination to only those tests that the plaintiff’s treating physicians had performed. The District Court also noted that it did not want the AMO to turn into a “fishing expedition.” The Court of Appeal denied the defendant’s request for review of the Trial Court’s decision. The defendants then sought relief from the Supreme Court, which vacated the Trial Court’s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court set forth the burden of proof each party has in the context of a Motion to Compel an AMO. As outlined in Hicks, the party requesting the AMO initially has the burden to establish “good cause” for the AMO. Importantly, the Augustine court found that once “good cause” has been found, “the court should presume that the examination will be conducted in a reasonable manner.” Because it is presumed the examination will be conducted reasonably, if a party opposing the AMO wants to place restrictions on the examination, the burden now shifts to that party to establish “special circumstances” that justify the restrictions they request. To meet this burden, the opposing party must produce “competent evidence” to establish (1) the need for the restriction and (2) that harm that will result if the restrictions are not imposed. The type of evidence that may support AMO restrictions under Augustine likely will vary depending on the unique facts of each case. However, Hicks and its “sequel,” Augustine, provide clarification and guidance to parties seeking to compel or limit an AMO under article 1464.

Case References:

Augustine v. Safeco Insurance Company of Oregon, 2021-01753 (La. 10/1/22), __ So.3d __.

Hicks v. USAA General Indemnity Company, Et al., 2021-00840 (La. 3/25/22), 339 So.3d 1106.

Written by Chad A. Sullivan and George A. Wright

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.

The longstanding rule that the analysis for "piercing the corporate veil" of an LLC is substantially the same as the analysis for piercing the veil of corporations has been called into question by the recent Louisiana Supreme Court decision in Ogea v. Travis Merritt and Merrit Construction, LLC, 2013-1085, --- So.3d ---. In Ogea, the Court addressed "the extent of the limitation of liability afforded to a member of an LLC" and the statutory basis for exceptions to this limited liability.

Typical of a veil piercing case, the Ogea Court began its discussion by citing familiar Louisiana cases on the topic: Riggins v. Dixie Shoring Co., Inc., 590 So.2d 1164 (La. 1991) and the more recent Charming Charlie, Inc. v. Perkins Rowe Associates, L.L.C., 11-2254 (La. App. 1 Cir. 7/10/12), 97 So.3d 595. However, the similarities stopped there.

The Court noted that traditional veil piercing doctrine was not invoked by the lower courts or the plaintiff. Instead, the Court's analysis turned on the interpretation of an infrequently cited statute within Title 12 that addresses the limitation of liability for LLC members. La. R.S. 12:1320(A) states that the liability of members and managers of an LLC "shall at all times be determined solely and exclusively by the provisions of this Chapter." Subsection (B) provides that members and managers are generally not liable for the debts, obligations, or liabilities of the LLC. Subsection (D) prescribes the exceptions to this limitation of liability, to include fraud, breach of professional duty, and any other negligent or wrongful act by the member or manager.

Addressing this statute as a matter of first impression, the Ogea Court applied the statute to the facts of the case. Merritt Construction, LLC was hired to build a home for plaintiff, Mary Ogea. As part of the process, Ms. Ogea requested that she have a friend prepare the site for the foundation. Travis Merritt, the sole member of Merritt Construction, LLC, informed Ms. Ogea that having someone else prepare the site would waive the warranty. Mr. Merritt subsequently operated the bulldozer to prepare the site for a subcontractor to pour the concrete slab. A dispute arose when a concrete contractor informed Ms. Ogea of problems with the home's foundation. Under these facts, the Court concluded Mr. Merritt was not personally liable under the exclusive exceptions to limited liability found in La. R.S. 12:1320(D).

The first exception, fraud, was rejected because no evidence in the record supported a finding that Mr. Merritt committed fraud.

Turning to the next exception, the Court also rejected the argument that plaintiff breached a professional duty as the sole member of the construction company. The professions recognized in Louisiana's corporate laws do not include individuals who perform construction work. Thus, Mr. Merritt could not breach a "professional duty" as contemplated by the statute. The Court also noted that the contract at issue only recognized Merritt Construction, LLC as a licensed contractor and did not reference any contractor's license held by Mr. Merritt personally.

Finally, the Court addressed the final exception to limited liability: "negligent or wrongful act." Plaintiff asserted that the term "negligence" in the statute only required proof of a tort by the individual. The Court quickly rejected this argument, noting that such an interpretation would improperly expand the liability of LLC members.

Rather, the Court set forth four factors to assist in the analysis under the last "negligence" exception: 1) whether a member's conduct could be fairly characterized as a traditionally recognized tort; 2) whether a member's conduct could be fairly characterized as a crime, for which a natural person, not a juridical person, could be held culpable; 3) whether the conduct at issue was required by, or was in furtherance of, a contract between the claimant and the LLC; and 4) whether the conduct at issue was done outside the member's capacity as a member.

It appears from the Ogea Court's focus that the prior analysis for "piercing the veil" of an LLC has perhaps been set aside and replaced with a new analysis which considers the exceptions to limited liability listed in La. R.S. 12:1320. However, the Court failed to expressly state that the prior analysis is improper and therefore no longer applicable. For now, it appears that the rules for piercing the veil of an LLC have changed but the true impact of Ogea remains to be seen.