Crystal Domangue v. Houston Specialty Insurance Company, Gulf Inland Contractors, Inc. and Armand Vincent

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

CRYSTAL DOMANGUE NO. 2025 CW 0951
VERSUS PAGE 1 OF 2

HOUSTON SPECIALTY INSURANCE

COMPANY, GULF INLAND

CONTRACTORS, INC., AND JANUARY 29, 2026
ARMAND VINCENT

In Re: Crystal Domangue, applying for supervisory writs, 23rd
Judicial District Court, Parish of Assumption, No.
38951.

BEFORE: McCLENDON, C.J.,THERIOT, MILLER, GREENE AND STROMBERG,
JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The trial court’s May 28, 2025 judgment which
granted the “Motion for Order for an Additional Medical Examination
with a Neuropsychologist” filed by defendants, Houston Specialty
Insurance Co., Gulf Inland Contractors, Inc., and Armand Vincent,
is vacated. La. Code Civ. P. art. 1464 allows the court to order
a party to submit to an additional medical opinion regarding an
examination by a vocational rehabilitation expert or a non-
physician licensed clinical psychologist, for good cause and
provided the party has given notice of intention to use such an
expert. See Bethly v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., 2021-1204 (La. App. Ist
Cir. 10/21/21), 2021 WL 4902381 (unpublished), writ dismissed as
moot, 2021-01746 (La. 2/26/22), 333 So.3d 1251. No evidence was
admitted at the hearing, and accordingly, we find defendants failed
to establish good cause for the examination as required by la.
Code Civ. P. art. 1464 and failed to show that plaintiff had given
notice of her intent to use a neuropsychologist. See Odom v.
Flores, 2018-1669 (La. App. ist Cir. 2/8/19), 2019 WL 519879
(unpublished).

PMc
SMM
HG

Theriot, J., agrees with vacating the trial court’s judgment
which granted the “Motion for Order for an Additional Medical
Examination with a Neuropsychologist” filed by defendants, Houston
Specialty Insurance Co., Gulf Inland Contractors, Inc., and Armand
Vincent. The trial court’s judgment granted a motion for an
additional medical examination by a “neurologist”, while the
substance of the motion requested an examination with a
neuropsychologist. No one requested nor was any evidence admitted
to support plaintiff being subjected to an additional medical
examination by a neurologist. Therefore, the trial court’s May 28,
2025 judgment which granted an additional medical examination with
a neurologist should be vacated.

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2025 CW 0951

PAGE 2 OF 2

JANUARY 29, 2026

Stromberg, J., dissents and would deny the writ.

yf COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

A TY CLERK OF COURT
) FOR THE COURT