In Re: Medical Review Panel Proceedings of Don Singleton

IN RE: MEDICAL REVIEW PANEL NO. 23-CA-190
PROCEEDINGS OF DON SINGLETON
FIFTH CIRCUIT

COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 793-446, DIVISION "N"
HONORABLE STEPHEN D. ENRIGHT, JR., JUDGE PRESIDING

February 28, 2024

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY
CHIEF JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy,
Jude G. Gravois, and John J. Molaison, Jr.

AFFIRMED
SMC
JGG
JJM

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT,
DON SINGLETON
Ann M. Johnson-Griffin

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE,
WARREN R. BOURGEOIS, III, M.D.
C. William Bradley, Jr.
Christoper R. Handy

CHEHARDY, C.J.

In this medical malpractice action, plaintiff, Don Singleton, appeals the trial

court’s September 21, 2021 judgment that sustained an exception of prescription

filed by defendant, Dr. Warren R. Bourgeois, III, dismissing Mr. Singleton’s

claims against Dr. Bourgeois with prejudice. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 6, 2019, Mr. Singleton filed a request for a medical review

panel against Dr. Warren R. Bourgeois, III, with the Louisiana Division of

Administration (“DOA”), LPCF File No. 2019-00147. In his request, Mr.

Singleton alleged that in or around May 2017, Dr. Bourgeois negligently

performed a cervical procedure on him whereby he removed degenerative discs

and implanted prosthetic devices, resulting in injury to Mr. Singleton. Mr.

Singleton also alleged in his request that he did not discover the alleged

malpractice by Dr. Bourgeois until February 10, 2018, when he experienced a

sudden onset of excruciating pain as he was “walking home from a Mardi Gras

function at his local church[.]”

Dr. Bourgeois responded to Mr. Singleton’s request by filing a Petition to

Institute Discovery Docket in the 24th Judicial District Court. Later, Dr. Bourgeois

filed a peremptory exception of prescription alleging that Mr. Singleton’s action

was untimely filed and, thus, prescribed. In support of his exception, Dr.

Bourgeois attached an affidavit wherein he attested that he did not perform a

cervical procedure on Mr. Singleton in May 2017, and that the only cervical

surgery or cervical procedure of any kind that he performed on Mr. Singleton

occurred on October 22, 2013. Attached to Dr. Bourgeois’ affidavit was his two-

page operative report from the 2013 cervical procedure. Dr. Bourgeois argued that

Mr. Singleton’s February 6, 2019 medical review panel request, filed more than

five years after the date of the cervical procedure that he performed on Mr.

23-CA-190 1

Singleton, was prescribed, as to both the one-year and three-year prescriptive

periods for medical malpractice actions provided in La. R.S. 9:5628. Additionally,

in the alternative, Dr. Bourgeois argued that, even if May 2017 was the correct date

of the procedure for which malpractice was alleged, Mr. Singleton presented “no

evidence to carry his burden of showing that his February 6, 2019 panel request

was timely,” given that it was filed more than one year after the date of the alleged

malpractice.

In response to Dr. Bourgeois’ exception of prescription, Mr. Singleton filed

with the trial court a motion and order for leave of court to file a First Amended

and Supplemental Petition for medical malpractice, in which he clarified that the

actual May 2017 procedure that Dr. Bourgeois allegedly negligently performed on

him was a lumbar procedure, not a cervical procedure. The trial court granted Mr.

Singleton’s motion and allowed the purported first amended and supplemental

petition to be filed into the trial court record prior to the hearing on Dr. Bourgeois’

peremptory exception of prescription. Mr. Singleton then filed a memorandum in

opposition to Dr. Bourgeois’ exception in which he argued that his amended and

supplemental petition, which corrected the “typographical error” in his original

request for a medical review panel that described the procedure performed by Dr.

Bourgeois as a cervical procedure rather than a lumbar procedure, rendered Dr.

Bourgeois’ exception of prescription moot.

Dr. Bourgeois’ exception of prescription came for a hearing on June 12,

2019.1 Based on the evidence admitted at the hearing, the trial court sustained Dr.

1
At the hearing, Dr. Bourgeois introduced as evidence Mr. Singleton’s February 6, 2019 medical
review panel request, the DOA’s February 18, 2019 acknowledgement of that request, his own April 4,
2019 affidavit regarding the date of the cervical procedure that he performed on Mr. Singleton, and his
October 22, 2013 two-page dictated operative report for that procedure. Despite the argument of Mr.
Singleton’s counsel, that “[t]here are medical records. I have not attached any but the medical records do
exist evidence in that [Mr. Singleton] was not even aware that the May 2017 surgery was faulty until the
event occurred in [February] 2018,” Mr. Singleton did not introduce any evidence at the hearing on the
exception. Instead, Mr. Singleton relied on his purported First Amended and Supplemental Petition to
establish that the procedure for which he was requesting a medical review panel was in fact a lumbar
procedure, rather than a cervical procedure, and that the May 2017 date alleged was the correct date of
that procedure. Neither party called any witnesses to testify at the hearing.

23-CA-190 2

Bourgeois’ exception and dismissed Mr. Singleton’s lawsuit with prejudice.

Plaintiff appealed (hereafter Singleton I).2 On appeal, this Court amended the trial

court’s June 12, 2019 judgment, affirmed the judgment as amended, and remanded

the matter to give Mr. Singleton 20 days to amend his medical malpractice

complaint, specifically to remove the allegedly incorrect dates of surgery and/or

discovery of the alleged malpractice. See In re Singleton, 19-578 (La. App. 5 Cir.

9/2/20), 303 So.3d 362.3

Following remand, on or about September 16, 2020, Mr. Singleton sent a

First Supplemental and Amending Complaint to the DOA, wherein he requested

that his original complaint be amended to allege malpractice as to a lumbar

procedure performed by Dr. Bourgeois in May 2017, and to replace all references

to “cervical” and “neck” with “lumbar” and “back.” As a result, the DOA assigned

Mr. Singleton’s supplemental and amending complaint a new file number, LPCF

File No. 2020-01086.4

On June 21, 2021, in response to Mr. Singleton’s new supplemental and

amending complaint, Dr. Bourgeois filed a second or re-urged peremptory

exception of prescription, which came for a hearing on July 28, 2021. At the

hearing on the exception, Dr. Bourgeois introduced evidence showing that the

alleged May 2017 lumbar surgery actually occurred on May 10, 2016, as

evidenced by his two-page operative report for a lumbar procedure (decompressive

laminectemies with medial facetectomies and foraminolomies and diskectomies at

2
The June 12, 2019 judgment sustaining Dr. Bourgeois’ exception of prescription also ordered that
the medical malpractice complaint that Mr. Singleton filed with the DOA, captioned Don Singleton v.
Warren Bourgeois, LPCF File No. 2019-00147, be dismissed with prejudice and that the pending medical
review panel proceeding in the matter be dissolved. On June 19, 2019, the Patient’s Compensation Fund
notified all parties, via certified mail/return receipt requested, that the medical review panel had been
dissolved. Subsequently, on June 21, 2019, Mr. Singleton filed a motion for new trial, which was
subsequently denied on July 31, 2019.
3
In Singleton I, this Court did not address dissolution of the medical review panel in LPCF File
No. 2019-00147.
4
Mr. Singleton’s supplemental and amending complaint, LPCF File No. 2020-01086, received by
the DOA on September 18, 2020, was noted as filed on September 16, 2020.

23-CA-190 3

L4-5 and L5-S1, and posterior and bilateral posterolateral fusions) that he

performed on Mr. Singleton. Additionally, Dr. Bourgeois introduced medical

records from the WBMH Emergency Department, evidencing that Mr. Singleton

first experienced excruciating pain when he presented to the ER on November 21,

2017, at which time he complained of “acute, constant, 8/10 ‘stabbing’ bilateral

lower back pain radiating to his bilateral hips and lateral aspect of his bilateral

thighs. …” [Emphasis added.] Dr. Bourgeois argued that, based on the only

extrinsic evidence presented, both Mr. Singleton’s February 2019 and September

2020 medical malpractice complaints were prescribed as they were filed more than

one year after November 21, 2017, the actual date of delayed discovery.

In response, counsel for Mr. Singleton orally argued that even though Mr.

Singleton complained of back pain when he presented to the WBMH Emergency

Department on November 21, 2017, he did not learn at that time that the pain he

was experiencing was a result of the hardware Dr. Bourgeois placed in his back

during the May 2016 surgery that had come loose. Counsel for Mr. Singleton

further orally argued that in February 2018, Mr. Singleton was again in pain and

presented to the emergency room, was prescribed medication, and advised to

follow up with his orthopedic surgeon. Before Mr. Singleton could make the

recommended appointment with his surgeon, however, he again presented to the

emergency room complaining of back pain and while there, was seen by Dr.

Bourgeois, who ordered an MRI. Counsel for Mr. Singleton argued that it was not

until the MRI results were reviewed, and Dr. Bourgeois referred Mr. Singleton to

Dr. Andrew Todd, an orthopedic specialist, who advised Mr. Singleton that the

hardware in his back had come loose requiring additional surgery, that Mr.

Singleton discovered that Dr. Bourgeois had committed malpractice. Counsel for

Mr. Singleton, however, did not introduce any evidence at the hearing to

substantiate his oral arguments in favor of a February 2018 delayed discovery date.

23-CA-190 4

At the close of the hearing, the trial court took the matter under advisement,

and on September 21, 2021, based on the evidence actually admitted at the July 28,

2021 hearing, issued judgment sustaining Dr. Bourgeois’ exception of prescription,

with written reasons, stating in part:

Defendant admitted evidence that on November 21, 2017
plaintiff reported to the ER with back pain that was
severe and radiating into both of his legs. Based on this,
this Court finds that November 21, 2017 is the date of
delayed discovery of alleged malpractice and thus a
malpractice claim would have to be filed within one year
of this November 21, 2017 date. As such both the
original and supplemental claims (filed by Don Singleton
on February 6, 2019, LPCF No. 2019-00147, and on
September 16, 2020, LPCF No. 2020-01086) are
prescribed.

On October 20, 2021, Mr. Singleton timely filed an appeal of the trial

court’s September 21, 2021 judgment. On December 10, 2021, the trial court

issued a notice of estimated costs of appeal, specifying that Mr. Singleton had 20

days to pay those costs. On December 29, 2021, rather than paying the costs, Mr.

Singleton filed a supplemental and amending motion and notice of intent to file an

appeal and for an extension of time to pay court costs. In his motion, Mr.

Singleton moved the court to designate into the appellate record the lower court

filings starting from July 28, 2021, to date, and in accordance with La. C.C.P. art.

2125, and moved the court to grant an extension of time to determine new court

costs and to fix a new return date. Allegedly unaware that Mr. Singleton had filed

his December 29, 2021 motion, on January 3, 2022, Dr. Bourgeois filed a motion

to dismiss the appeal as abandoned. Mr. Singleton opposed Dr. Bourgeois’ motion

to dismiss. On February 23, 2022, the parties’ respective motions came for a

hearing. That same day, but prior to the actual hearing, Mr. Singleton filed the

estimated court costs. On March 3, 2022, the trial court issued judgment denying

Mr. Singleton’s motion and granting Dr. Bourgeois’ motion to dismiss the appeal.

Mr. Singleton timely appealed that ruling. On March 1, 2023, following the

23-CA-190 5

reasons this Court previously set forth in Reed v. ColumbiaHCA Info. Serv., Inc.,

99-1315 (La. App. 5 Cir/ 2/8/ 17), 761 So.2d 625, 628-29, we reversed the trial

court’s judgment and remanded the matter finding that, because appeals are

favored, and because the record showed that Mr. Singleton had paid the estimated

appeal costs before the scheduled contradictory hearing, the motion to dismiss was

moot under those circumstances. In re Singleton, 22-285 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/1/22),

360 So.3d 70 (Singleton II). Consequently, Mr. Singleton’s appeal of the trial

court’s September 21, 2021 judgment granting Dr. Bourgeois’ exception of

prescription and dismissing Mr. Singleton’s medical malpractice claims with

prejudice was reinstated.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Singleton avers that the trial court

committed manifest error and abused its discretion when it granted Dr. Bourgeois’

peremptory exception of prescription on the evidence presented.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Standard of Review

Our jurisprudence reflects that the standard of review of a judgment

pertaining to an exception of prescription turns on whether evidence is introduced

at the hearing of the exception. La. C.C.P. art. 931 expressly allows evidence to be

introduced to support or controvert any of the objections pleaded on the trial of the

peremptory exception, when the grounds thereof do not appear from the petition.

If no evidence is submitted at the hearing, the exception “must be decided upon the

facts alleged in the petition with all of the allegations accepted as true.” Mitchell v.

Baton Rouge Orthopedic Clinic, L.L.C., 21-00061 (La. 10/10/21), 333 So.3d 368,

373. In that case, the reviewing court is simply assessing whether the trial court

was legally correct. In re Med. Rev. Panel of Gerard Lindquist, 18-444 (La. App.

23-CA-190 6

5 Cir. 5/23/19), 274 So.3d 750, 754, writ denied, 19-01034 (La. 10/1/19), 280

So.3d 165.

When evidence is introduced at the hearing on a peremptory exception of

prescription, the trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed under a manifest error-

clearly wrong standard of review. Lomont v. Bennett, 14-2483 (La. 6/20/15), 172

So.3d 620, 627; Carter v. Ochsner Clinic Foundation, 07-880 (La. App. 5 Cir.

3/11/08), 978 So.2d 562, 566, writ denied, 08-0936 (La. 8/29/08), 989 So.2d 99.5

Under the manifest error standard, if those factual findings are reasonable in light

of the record reviewed in its entirety, the court of appeal may not reverse even

though convinced that, had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed

the evidence differently. Id.; see also Burke v. Cohen, 19-544 (La. App. 5 Cir.

5/28/20), 296 So.3d 1231, 1236.

In the instant matter, documentary evidence was introduced by Dr.

Bourgeois at the hearing. Mr. Singleton submitted no controverting evidence, but

instead, relied upon the allegations set forth in his medical malpractice complaint

and the argument of his counsel. Accordingly, we apply the manifest error-clearly

wrong standard of review.

Prescription and Contra Non Valentum

The prescriptive period for medical malpractice actions is set forth in La. R.S.

9:5628(A), which states, in pertinent part:

No action for damages for injury or death against any
physician, … arising out of patient care shall be brought
unless filed within one year from the date of the alleged
act, omission, or neglect, or within one year from the date
of discovery of the alleged act, omission, or neglect;
however, even as to claims filed within one year from the
5
A caveat to this rule is that, even when evidence is introduced, when there is no dispute regarding
material facts, the reviewing court is to apply a de novo standard of review, and give no deference to the
trial court’s legal conclusions. Mitchell, 333 So.3d at 373. In the instant case, the record clearly
demonstrates that issues in this case are not purely legal. Factual determinations were required by the
trial court with respect to whether the date of discovery of the alleged malpractice was February 2018, as
Mr. Singleton alleged in his complaint, or at the earlier date of November 2017, as substantiated by the
documentary evidence introduced at the hearing by Dr. Bourgeois.

23-CA-190 7

date of such discovery, in all events such claims shall be
filed at the latest within a period of three years from the
date of the alleged act, omission, or neglect.

Thus, pursuant to La. R.S. 9:5628, the general rule is that a victim has one

year from the date of the alleged malpractice to bring his claim for damages.

However, La. R.S. 9:5628 also recognizes an exception to this general rule in cases

where the claimant contends that he was initially unaware of the malpractice and

that there has been a delay in his discovery of the malpractice.6 The language of

La. R.S. 9:5628 makes clear, however, that this contra non valentum type

exception to the general one-year prescriptive period is expressly made

inapplicable after three years from the act, omission, or neglect. Borel v. Young,

07-0419 (La. 11/27/07), 989 So.2d 42, 63, reh’g granted (La. 7/1/08). Under this

rule, commonly known as the “discovery rule,” the one-year prescriptive period

begins to run on the date the injured party “obtains actual or constructive

knowledge of facts indicating to a reasonable person that he or she is the victim of

a tort.” Campo v. Correa, 01-2707 (La. 6/21/02), 828 So.2d 502, 509. A

prescriptive period begins to run even if the injured party does not have actual

knowledge of facts that would entitle him to bring suit, as long as he has

constructive knowledge of such facts. Constructive knowledge is “whatever notice

is enough to excite attention and put the injured person on guard and call for

inquiry,” which is tantamount to notice of “everything to which a reasonable

inquiry may lead.” Id. at 510-11; Jenkins v. Starns, 11-1170 (La. 1/24/12), 85

So.3d 612, 617. Thus, a plaintiff is imputed with whatever knowledge a

reasonable inquiry or investigation would reveal. In re Medical Review Panel of

Heath, 21-01367 (La. 6/29/22), 345 So.3d 992, 996; In re Posess, 22-18 (La. App.

5 Cir. 9/28/22), 349 So.3d 1082, 1089. When a plaintiff has knowledge of facts

6
This exception is a codification of the jurisprudentially created fourth category of contra non
valentum, also known as the “discovery rule.” See In Re: Medical Review Panel of Gerard Lindquist, 18-
444 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/23/19), 274 So.3d 750, writ denied, 19-1034 (La. 10/1/19), 280 So.3d 165.

23-CA-190 8

strongly suggestive that the untoward condition or result may be the result of

improper treatment, and there is no effort by the health care provider to mislead or

cover up information which is available to the plaintiff through inquiry or

professional medical or legal advice, then the cause of action is reasonably

knowable to plaintiff. Carter, 892 So.2d at 1273. The law of prescription,

however, does not require that the plaintiff be informed by a medical practitioner

or an attorney of possible malpractice before the prescriptive period begins to run.

Mitchell, 333 So.3d at 381. Additionally, determinations as to whether contra non

valentum applies to suspend prescription generally proceed on an individual, case-

by-case basis. Mitchell, 333 So.3d at 374.

Burden of Proof

Ordinarily, the exceptor bears the burden of proof at trial of the peremptory

exception, including prescription. Woods v. Cousins, 12-100 (La. App. 5 Cir.

10/16/12), 102 So.3d 977, 979, writ denied, 12-2452 (La. 1/11/13), 107 So.3d 617.

Prescriptive statutes are strictly construed against prescription and in favor of the

obligation sought to enforced. Burke, 296 So.3d at 1236.

Mr. Singleton’s argument is that the factual allegations set forth in his

complaint, pled with particularity, support his assertion that he did not discover Dr.

Bourgeois’ malpractice until February 2018, while attending a Mardi Gras event at

his church, prompting him to seek emergency medical treatment. Thereafter, Dr.

Todd advised him that the hardware Dr. Bourgeois placed in his back during the

May 2016 surgery had come loose and that he would need additional surgery as a

result. Thus, according to Mr. Singleton, the burden on the exception of

prescription remained with Dr. Bourgeois, since his complaint made a prima facie

showing that it was filed timely. Further, Mr. Singleton argues that Dr. Bourgeois

failed to carry his burden of establishing an earlier discovery date because the

November 21, 2017 medical record from WBMH Emergency Department upon

23-CA-190 9

which he relies, showing that Mr. Singleton complained of back pain, is nothing

more than a report of severe and radiating back pain. No diagnosis was rendered

and no explanation was given to Mr. Singleton on that date as to the cause of his

back pain, and, thus, he contends it was insufficient to constitute Mr. Singleton’s

having constructive knowledge of a possible tort action.7

In response, Dr. Bourgeois contends that, as the mover, he properly carried

his burden of proving that Mr. Singleton’s complaint was prescribed by

introducing documentary evidence that Mr. Singleton’s “excruciating pain,” which

allegedly tipped him off during Mardi Gras of 2018 that there was a problem, had

actually occurred three months prior in November 2017, when Mr. Singleton

presented to the WBMH Emergency Department complaining of 8/10 “stabbing”

pain in his back radiating down both of his legs. Consequently, because both Mr.

Singleton’s February 2019 and September 2020 complaints were filed more than

one year from November 2017, Dr. Bourgeois contends they were prescribed.

Dr. Bourgeois argues that, having satisfied his burden of proof as the mover,

the burden then shifted to Mr. Singleton to introduce documentary or testimonial

evidence to controvert the earlier November 2017 date of discovery, and to

substantiate the alleged February 2018 discovery date set forth in his complaint.

Mr. Singleton, however, did not offer and introduce any evidence to support the

assertions made in his complaint, either at the trial on the exception, or at the

subsequent hearing on the motion for new trial. Consequently, Dr. Bourgeois

argues that, based on the only evidence presented at the hearing, the trial court was

not manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong in sustaining his exception of

prescription.

7
Louisiana Revised Statute 13:3714 states that certified medical records shall be received in
evidence by such court as prima facie proof of its contents, provided that the party against whom the bills,
medical narrative, chart, or record is sought to be used may summon and examine those making the
original of the bills, medical narrative, chart, or record as witnesses under cross-examination. Mr.
Singleton did not challenge the authenticity or veracity of the November 2017 WBMH Emergency
Department medical record or otherwise object to its admissibility.

23-CA-190 10

We agree with Dr. Bourgeois’ arguments. Based on the documentary

evidence submitted by Dr. Bourgeois at the hearing, uncontroverted by Mr.

Singleton, the trial court made the factual finding that the discovery date of the

alleged malpractice was the date of Mr. Singleton’s emergency room visit on

November 21, 2017, and not the February 10, 2018 date alleged by Mr. Singleton

in his complaint, as that date was not substantiated by either documentary or

testimonial evidence. Other than the bare allegations contained in his complaint

and the unsubstantiated arguments presented by his counsel, Mr. Singleton offered

no documentary or testimonial evidence at the hearing either to support his claim

that he first learned in February 2018 that Dr. Bourgeois’ actions in performing the

May 2016 surgery were the cause of his “excruciating” back pain, or to controvert

that he actually had constructive notice of Dr. Bourgeois’ alleged negligence when

he presented for emergency medical treatment for his back pain in November

2017. Because Dr. Bourgeois introduced competent evidence to support the

assertion that Mr. Singleton’s cause of action had prescribed, and Mr. Singleton

did not introduce any evidence in support of his claim that the delayed date of

discovery of possible malpractice in February 2018 was reasonable in this matter,

we find no manifest error in the trial court’s finding that Mr. Singleton’s medical

malpractice claim had prescribed.8

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we find the trial court did not err in sustaining Dr.

Bourgeois’ peremptory exception of prescription. We therefore affirm the

judgment under review.

AFFIRMED

8
Having found that, based on the evidence presented by Dr. Bourgeois at the hearing on his
exception of prescription, Mr. Singleton’s medical malpractice complaint had prescribed, we pretermit
discussion of whether Mr. Singleton’s supplemental and amended medical malpractice complaint filed in
September 2020 (his original complaint having been dismissed by the PCF in June 2019, and never
procedurally “revived” by Mr. Singleton through a writ of mandamus), which reiterated a February 2018
delayed discovery date of Dr. Bourgeois’ purported malpractice, was prescribed on its face.

23-CA-190 11

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. WISEMAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL 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 JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY
FEBRUARY 28, 2024 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

23-CA-190
E-NOTIFIED
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE STEPHEN D. ENRIGHT, JR. (DISTRICT JUDGE)
ANN M. JOHNSON-GRIFFIN (APPELLANT) VELEKA ESKINDE (APPELLANT) C. WILLIAM BRADLEY, JR. (APPELLEE)
CHRISTOPER R. HANDY (APPELLEE)

MAILED