Meg Vincent, Wife of and Keith Vincent, Individually and on Behalf of the Minor Children, Emma Vincent, Camille Vincent, Harrison Vincent and Hudson Vincent Versus National General Insurance Company, Dr. Fredrick Dantagnan on Behalf of the Minor Jacqueline Dantagnan and Hudson Insurance Company

MEG VINCENT, WIFE OF AND KEITH NO. 21-C-232
VINCENT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF THE MINOR CHILDREN, EMMA VINCENT, FIFTH CIRCUIT
CAMILLE VINCENT, HARRISON VINCENT
AND HUDSON VINCENT COURT OF APPEAL

VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA

NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, DR. FREDRICK DANTAGNAN ON
BEHALF OF THE MINOR JACQUELINE
DANTAGNAN AND HUDSON INSURANCE
COMPANY

September 21, 2021

Nancy F. Vega
Chief Deputy Clerk

IN RE MEG VINCENT, WIFE OF AND KEITH VINCENT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE
MINOR CHILDREN, EMMA VINCENT, CAMILLE VINCENT, HARRISON VINCENT AND HUDSON
VINCENT

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE
MICHAEL P. MENTZ, DIVISION "F", NUMBER 782-360

Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker,
Jude G. Gravois, Marc E. Johnson, Robert A. Chaisson, and Hans J. Liljeberg

WRIT GRANTED;JUDGMENT VACATED; REMANDED

Relators-plaintiffs, Meg Vincent, et al., seek review of the trial court’s
March 26, 2021 ruling that granted the motions in limine filed by respondents-
defendants, National General Insurance Company and Hudson Specialty Insurance
Company. In their motions, defendants sought a ruling “prohibiting plaintiff from
introducing any evidence at trial as to the billed amount of the medical specials”
and “evidence relating to full medical charges printed on invoices,” alleging that
“the plaintiff, through a funding company, paid tens of thousands of dollars less
than the billed amount in satisfaction of the medical bills.” In connection with
their motions in limine, defendants attached voluminous documents including
deposition transcripts and medical records to support their position that plaintiff
either did not incur any medical bills or is not responsible to pay any amount over
that which defendants allege the treating physicians were already paid by a third-
party financing company, Medport.

At the hearing on the motions in limine, all counsel referenced various
depositions and documents, attached to their memorandums in support of or in

21-C-232

opposition to the motions in limine, as well as an alleged contract between
Medport and the treating physicians. In considering the arguments, the trial judge
referenced “[p]otential ethical issues” surrounding the invoicing or collection of
the medical bills for plaintiff Meg Vincent’s medical treatment. The trial judge
stated that “the whole arrangement in capital letters STINKS” and further found
that plaintiff through some agreement “assigned her rights away.”

When a motion must be proven, it is the moving party’s burden to present
evidence establishing the claims made therein. DePhillips v. Tech. Ins. Co., Inc.,
19-329 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/2/19), 2019 WL 4866777, citing Scheuermann v.
Cadillac of Metairie, Inc., 11-1149 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/31/12), 97 So.3d 423, 426
and La. C.C.P. art. 963. Upon review of the documentation attached to this writ
application, we find that defendants failed to properly offer, file, and introduce any
evidence in support of their motions in limine. Evidence not properly and
officially offered and introduced cannot be considered, even if it was physically
placed in the record. Denoux v. Vessel Mgmt. Services, Inc., 07-2143 (La. 5/21/08),
983 So.2d 84, 88. Documents attached to memoranda do not constitute evidence
and cannot be considered. Id. Appellate courts are courts of record and may not
review evidence that is not in the appellate record or receive new evidence. Id. at
88-89. Moreover, it is error for the trial court to consider evidence not properly
introduced in rendering its judgment. Barnes v. Jacob, 13-596 (La. App. 5 Cir.
12/12/13), 131 So. 3d 363, 364; Sheffie v. Wal-Mart Louisiana, LLC, 11-1038 (La.
App. 5 Cir. 5/31/12), 92 So.3d 625, 626.

Accordingly, we grant this writ, vacate the trial court’s March 26, 2021
judgment on defendants’ motions in limine, and remand this matter for further
proceedings.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 21st day of September, 2021.

FHW
JGG
RAC
HJL

2

MEG VINCENT, WIFE OF AND KEITH NO. 21-C-232
VINCENT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF THE MINOR CHILDREN, EMMA FIFTH CIRCUIT
VINCENT, CAMILLE VINCENT, HARRISON
VINCENT AND HUDSON VINCENT COURT OF APPEAL

VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA

NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, DR. FREDRICK DANTAGNAN
ON BEHALF OF THE MINOR JACQUELINE
DANTAGNAN AND HUDSON INSURANCE
COMPANY

JOHNSON, J., DISSENTS WITH REASONS

I, respectfully, dissent from the majority disposition in this matter for the
following reasons.
Evidentiary rulings are reviewable subject to the provisions of La. C.C.P.

art. 1636, which permits a party to preserve evidence which was ruled

inadmissible in the trial court. Lockwood v. Lockwood, 17-644 (La. App. 5 Cir.

9/19/18); 256 So.3d 406. It is incumbent upon the party who contends his

evidence was improperly excluded to make a proffer, and if he fails to do so, he

cannot contend such exclusion was erroneous. Id. See also, S. Marsh Collection,

LLC v. State Traditions, LLC, 17-459 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/1/17), n. 1, writ denied,

17-2013 (La. 2/2/18); 233 So.3d 617. (See also, Cooper v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.,

06-1655 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/20/07); 961 So.2d 1286, 1287, where the appellate

court found that it could not properly review the excluded evidence because the

plaintiffs made no attempt to introduce or proffer the complained-of evidence.)

In this matter, the trial court granted motions in limine filed by Respondents,

National General Insurance Company and Hudson Specialty Insurance Company.

The rulings excluded the introduction of Mrs. Vincent’s medical invoices in the

full amounts and the affidavit of Kenneth Fust, and they limited the evidence to

the introduction of medical expenses “actually paid to her healthcare providers by

third party funding/factoring companies.” However, neither party introduced

21-C-232

evidence during the motion in limine portion of the hearing nor did they proffer

any evidence. Because Mrs. Vincent failed to proffer the medical invoices

containing the full amounts or Kenneth Fust’s affidavit, according to the above-

mentioned jurisprudence, she cannot now complain that such exclusions were in

error.

Additionally, if the merits of the writ application were considered, it would

be shown that the trial court was presented with a purely legal issue that could

have determined the motion in limine: whether the collateral source rule prohibits

Mrs. Vincent from presenting evidence of the full amounts of her medical bills at

trial? The trial court (and this Court) could have directly addressed that issue

without considering any evidence. Thus, I find that DePhillips v. Tech. Ins. Co.,

Inc., 19-329 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/2/19); 2019 WL 4866777, and Denoux v. Vessel

Mgmt. Services, Inc., 07-2143 (La. 5/21/08); 983 So.2d 84, 88, are inapplicable to

the motion in limine-at-issue.

For the foregoing reasons, I dissent.

MEJ

2

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

NANCY F. VEGA
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
HANS J. LILJEBERG
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN
TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS
DAY 09/21/2021 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF
THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

21-C-232
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Michael P. Mentz (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Vanessa Motta (Relator)
Leigh Ann Tschirn Schell (Respondent)

MAILED
Peter M. Donovan (Respondent) Edwin C. Laizer (Respondent)
Attorney at Law Christopher A. D'Amour (Respondent)
4640 Rye Street Kyle L. Potts (Respondent)
Suite 100 Attorney at Law
Metairie, LA 70006 701 Poydras Street
Suite 4500
New Orleans, LA 70139