Brent Arceneaux v. GEICO Choice Insurance Company, Deven Thompson, and Progressive Security Insurance Company ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • STATE OF LOUISIANA
    COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
    BRENT ARCENEAUX NO. 2022 CW 1045
    VERSUS
    GHICO CHOICE INSURANCE
    COMPANY, DEVEN THOMPSON, AND
    PROGRESSIVE SECURITY DECEMBER 29, 2022
    INSURANCE COMPANY
    In Re: Brent Arceneaux, applying for supervisory writs, 19th
    Judicial District Court, Parisn of East Baton Rouge,
    No. 707664.
    BEFORE: McDONALD, McCLENDON, HOLDRIDGE, LANIER AND HESTER, JJ.
    WRIT GRANTED IN PART WITH ORDER AND DENIED IN PART. The
    portions of the August 23, 2022 order of the trial court
    granting the motion for protective order filed by defendant,
    Deven Thompson, and imposing a sanction on plaintiff, Brent
    Arceneaux, and his counsel are reversed. We find that defendant
    failed to show good cause for a protective order under La. Code
    Civ, P. art. 1426. See Augustine v. Safeco Insurance Company of
    Oregon, 2021-01753(La. 10/1/22), 
    2022 WL 12360946
    ,*3, --- So.3d
    ---, There is no healthcare provider-patient privilege against
    the disclosure of a patient’s blood alcohol level when an action
    for damages for injury has been brought against the patient.
    La. Code Evid. art. 510(B)(2)(i}. Further, sanction by the trial
    court was not warranted under La. R.S. 13:3715.1(K) where there
    was no evidence suggesting plaintiff intentionally failed to
    provide the proper notice to defendant. Defendant’s motion for
    protective order is denied. The writ is denied as to that
    portion of the order quashing the subpoena and records
    deposition directed to Our Lady of the Lake Regicnal Medical
    Center by plaintiff as the notice requirements of La. R.S.
    13:3715.1(B) (1) were not strictly followed. The matter is
    remanded to the trial court with instructions to allow plaintiff
    to seek the records by complying with the formalities prescribed
    in La. R.S. 13:3715.1.
    JMM
    PMc
    WIL
    CHH
    Holdridge, J., dissents and would deny the writ. The trial
    court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion to
    quash and issuing sanction for the plaintiff's flagrant
    violation of La. R.S. 13:3715.1.
    COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
    asm)
    DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
    FOR THE COURT
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2022CW1045

Filed Date: 12/29/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/30/2022