Corey Williams v. Gulf Coast Occupational Medicine, Inc., ABC Insurance Company, Jane Doe, Drug Test, Inc. d/b/a Disa Inc., DEF Insurance Company, Psychemedics Corporation, and GHI Insurance Company

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
COREY WILLIAMS NO. 2022 CW 1224
VERSUS Page 1 of 2
GULF COAST OCCUPATIONAL
MEDICINE, INC., ABC
INSURANCE COMPANY, JANE DOE,
DRUG TEST, INC. D/B/A DISA
INC., DEF INSURANCE COMPANY, FEBRUARY 10, 2023
PSYCHEMEDICS CORPORATION,
AND GHI INSURANCE COMPANY
In Re: Gulf Coast Occupational Medicine, Inc., applying for
supervisory writs, 23rd Judicial District Court,
Parish of Ascension, No. 102898.
BEFORE: WELCH, PENZATO, AND LANIER, JJ.
WRIT GRANTED. The trial court's October 13, 2022 judgment
denying the motion for summary judgment filed by defendant, Gulf
Coast Occupational Medicine, Inc. ( " Gulf Coast") , is reversed.
Plaintiff, Corey Williams, alleges that Gulf Coast's employee,
Hannah Lee Townsend, negligently collected a hair sample from
Williams that contained another person's hair, and that his
sample tested positive for cocaine and cocaine metabolites due
to the presence of the other person's hair. Williams alleges he
suf f erect damages as a result of the false positive drug test
results. In a negligence action under La. Civ. Code art. 2315,
the plaintiff bears the burden of proving fault,I causation, and
damages by a preponderance of the evidence. Gas~ard v. Safeway
Ins. Co., 2014-1676 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 6/5/15), 174 So.3d 692,
694, writ denied, 2015-1588 ( La. 10/23/15), 184 So.3d 18. While
the question of causation is usually an issue for the
factfinder's determination, it is possible to determine this
issue on summary judgment if reasonable minds could not differ.
Id. In its motion for summary judgment, Gulf Coast asserted
that Williams will be unable to prove that any alleged breach of
the standard of care by Townsend during her collection of
Williams' hair sample caused the hair sample to test positive
for cocaine and cocaine metabolites. In support of its motion,
Gulf Coast submitted an affidavit by Carl M. Selavka, a forensic
scientist, who opined in an expert report attached to his
affidavit that " in order for another person's hair to have
contaminated the specimen collected from Mr. Williams and
thereby cause the Positive Cocaine result reported, HUNDREDS of
strands of this extraneous hair would have to be included in the
sample collected." Williams' expert, Dr. Gary Wimbish,
similarly opined that in order for a hair sample to test
positive for cocaine, the sample would have to contain a visible
amount of hair contaminated with cocaine. However, in his
deposition, which was attached to Gulf Coast~s motion for
summary judgment, Williams stated that he could not recall
whether someone else's hair was present on the paper Townsend
used to collect Williams' hair sample prior to her shaving
Williams' arms to collect his hair. Additionally, Dr. Wimbish
explained that he could not testify that it was someone else's
hair, and not Williams' own hair, that caused Williams' sample
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
2022 cw 1224
Page 2 of 2
to test positive for cocaine. Based on our de novo review of
this matter, we conclude that Williams failed to set forth
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he will be able to meet
his burden of proof at trial to show that any alleged negligence
by Gulf Coast caused his damages. Accordingly, the motion for
summary judgment filed by Gulf Coast is granted and Corey
Williams' claims against Gulf Coast Occupational Medicine, Inc.
are dismissed with prejudice.
JEW
AHP
WIL
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT