John W. Tew, II v. United Services Automobile Association, Timothy Andries, and GEICO General Insurance Company

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

JOHN W. TEW, II NO. 2020 CW 1307

VERSUS

UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE
ASSOCIATION, TIMOTHY ANDRIES
AND GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY

CONSOLIDATED WITH

JOHN W. TEW, II

VERSUS

GOAUTO INSURANCE COMPANY AND MARCH 15, 2021
EARL V. HUTTON

In Re: John W. Tew, II, applying for supervisory writs, 19th
Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge,
No. 656812 c/ w 657425.

BEFORE: McDONALD, HOLDRIDGE, AND PENZATO, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. The writ is granted
in part, and the portion of the trial court' s December 11, 2020
order that granted the motion to compel an examination
by a
vocational rehabilitation filed
expert
by United Services
Automobile Association ( USAA) is reversed. The minute
entry
reflects that mover, USAA, failed to introduce evidence during
the hearing on the motion. When a party raises a motion that
must be proven, it is that burden to
party' s present evidence
establishing the claims made therein. Evidence not properly and
officially offered and introduced cannot be considered, even if
it is physically placed in the record. See La. Code Civ. P. art.
1464; Landis Construction Co. v. State, 2015- 1167 ( La. App. 1st
Cir. 2/ 29/ 16), 199 So. 3d 1, 2- 3.
There was no evidence properly
admitted upon which the trial court could rely to find that USAA
satisfied its burden of proof per La. Code Civ. P. art. 1464.
The writ is denied as to the portion of the order
granting
USAA'
Robert
s motion to compel an additional medical examination by Dr.
Everett. It appears the plaintiff has already submitted
to the ordered examination, thus, rendering the issue moot. See
In re E. W., 2009- 1589 ( La. 1st Cir.
App. 5/ 7/ 10), 38 So. 3d 1033,
1036- 37 ( It is well settled that courts will not decide
abstract, hypothetical, or moot controversies. When an issue is
moot, any judicial pronouncement on the matter would be an

impermissible advisory opinion.).

JMM
GH
AHP

CO OF APP FIR T CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CL R OF COURT
FOR THE COURT