Were You Lying Then, Or Are You Lying Now?

COVID-19 stretched our legal system and raised questions not easily answered by existing law. One recent question surrounds a dispute between the Governor and the State Legislature regarding the constitutionality of the Governor’s proclamation of a public health emergency in response to COVID-19. Recently, in Governor John Bel Edwards v. Louisiana State Legislature, Louisiana House of Representatives, & Clay Schexnayder, in his official capacity as Speaker of the House of Representatives, 2020-CA-1407, the Louisiana Supreme Court was asked to gauge the validity of the legislature’s termination of Governor Edwards’ proclamation. However, the Court did not reach the constitutional questions and remanded the case.

The Governor filed suit to challenge the Legislature’s termination of his COVID-19 proclamation. He argued that the termination was null and void citing both constitutional and non-constitutional grounds. Because the trial court found the termination unconstitutional, it did not address the procedural and non-constitutional challenges raised.

On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in reaching the issue of constitutionality prior to determining whether the dispute could be resolved on non-constitutional grounds. Louisiana law dictates that courts should avoid decisions based upon constitutional grounds unless the constitutional issue is essential to resolution of the case. Although the issues to be addressed were important to the citizens of Louisiana, the Court stated “it is critical a case must reach this court in the proper procedural posture to warrant our review of a ruling on constitutionality.”

The case highlights the role of the Louisiana Supreme Court and reminds both attorneys and the public of how issues are addressed and decided. The Court was express that the issues presented in Edwards were novel and important and may ultimately be issues the high court will choose to address. However, the Court recognized that its powers of constitutional review are constrained by procedure. A civics lesson in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Virginia “Jenny” McLin is a partner at Keogh Cox who practices in the fields of corporate litigation, insurance defense and workers compensation defense. When she is not practicing law, Jenny can be found volunteering with the Junior League of Baton Rouge; cheering for the LSU Tigers with her husband Ryan; or shuffling her two kids to and from dance practice.

"I never worry about action, only inaction."

- Winston Churchill

The Louisiana Supreme Court's decision not to take up a case is sometimes just as important as a decision to grant Writs and issue a ruling. Recently, much attention has been given to the Court's decision not to grant a Writ filed by Louisiana State University.

On August 28, 2013, the Court denied a Writ brought by LSU in a case filed by local media outlets in the 19th JDC demanding access to information regarding LSU's presidential candidates. The media appears interested in the interview process and why only one of the 35 candidates was formally interviewed. The media outlets argue that the information concerning the candidates is "public record" under Louisiana law.

Prior to the Writ filing, the state District Court had ruled that the information was public record and ordered LSU to produce the requested documents. LSU did not comply with this order. On August 14, 2013, LSU was held in contempt of court and fined $500 per day. LSU filed a Writ to the Louisiana Supreme Court. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the Writ, stating that LSU had a "sufficient remedy" through a suspensive appeal. The Court offered no further explanation of its ruling.

Attorneys on both sides have publically offered differing opinions as to the significance of the Court's Writ denial. The attorney for the media outlets stated to Nola.com that LSU now must comply with the district court's order and produce the requested information. However, the attorney for LSU argues that the Court's Writ denial is functionally a "stay" of the District Court's order because the Supreme Court specifically expressed that LSU could file a suspensive appeal. LSU has expressed an intention to appeal the entire case to the Louisiana First Circuit.

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.