Thomas Gibson, Jr. and Barbara Gibson, Individually and on Behalf of Their Father, Thomas Gibson (D) Versus Jefferson Parish Hospital Service District No 2 D/B/A East Jefferson General Hospital & Ochsner Clinic Foundation

THOMAS GIBSON, JR. AND BARBARA NO. 23-CA-580
GIBSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF THEIR FATHER, THOMAS GIBSON (D) FIFTH CIRCUIT

VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL

JEFFERSON PARISH HOSPITAL SERVICE STATE OF LOUISIANA
DISTRICT NO 2 D/B/A EAST JEFFERSON
GENERAL HOSPITAL & OCHSNER CLINIC
FOUNDATION

ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 789-884, DIVISION "E"
HONORABLE FRANK A. BRINDISI, JUDGE PRESIDING

May 29, 2024

JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker,
Stephen J. Windhorst, and John J. Molaison, Jr.

AFFIRMED
JJM
SJW

DISSENTS WITH REASONS
FHW

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,
OCHSNER CLINIC FOUNDATION
William K. Wright, IV
Don S. McKinney

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE,
THOMAS GIBSON, JR. AND BARBARA GIBSON
Anh Q. Cao
Amy E. Schapansky

MOLAISON, J.

In this medical malpractice matter, the appellant, Ochsner Clinic

Foundation, seeks review of the trial court’s denial of its motion to tax costs. For

the reasons that follow, we affirm.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

For a complete discussion of the underlying facts of this case, we refer to the

companion appeal, 23-CA-538. In summary, on December 19, 2012, Claire Betty

Gibson (“Mrs. Gibson”)1, individually and on behalf of her deceased husband,

Thomas J. Gibson, Sr. (“Mr. Gibson”), filed a request with the Commissioner of

Administration, under the provisions of La. R.S. 40:1231.1, et seq. (“the Louisiana

Medical Malpractice Act” or “LMMA”), for the formation of a medical review

panel to review allegations of malpractice against Ochsner Medical Center,

Ochsner Extended Care Hospital, and East Jefferson General Hospital “EJGH”2

regarding their care and treatment of Mr. Gibson. On July 19, 2018, the medical

review panel issued its opinion, finding that none of the named defendants

breached the standard of care in their treatment of Mr. Gibson. On November 28,

2018, within 90 days of their receipt of the opinion, Mr. and Mrs. Gibson’s

children, Thomas and Barbara, (plaintiffs/appellees), filed a pro se petition for

damages in the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court against Ochsner and EJGH

in which they made a survival claim and individual wrongful death claims for the

death of their father. In May of 2023, Ochsner filed a motion for summary

judgment and a motion for partial summary judgment,3 which the trial court

granted on June 29, 2023, dismissing plaintiffs’ claims against Ochsner with

prejudice.

1
Mrs. Gibson passed away in December of 2013.
2
Other parties named in the requested review were Louisiana Extended Care Hospital of Kenner, and St.
Theresa Specialty Hospital, LLC; however, it does not appear that these parties were named in the plaintiffs’
subsequent medical malpractice lawsuit.
3
The plaintiffs separately appealed the granting of Ochsner’s summary judgment motions in the companion
appeal, 23-CA-538.

23-CA-580 1

On July 21, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion for new trial only as to the trial

court’s judgment granting Ochsner’s motion for summary judgment. On the same

day, Ochsner filed a motion to tax costs. Both motions were set for a contradictory

hearing on August 31, 2023. The record reflects that the appellees did not file a

written opposition to Ochsner’s motion.4

On August 31, 2023, after denying plaintiffs’ motion for new trial, the trial

court ordered all parties to pay their own costs. As a result of this ruling, the court

rendered judgment denying Ochsner’s motion to tax as moot. This timely appeal

followed.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

The trial court incorrectly denied Ochsner’s unopposed Motion to Tax Costs.

Specifically, Ochsner contends it is entitled to (1) plaintiffs’ security bond under

La. R.S. 40:1299.47(I)(2)(c); and (2) to litigation costs and expert fees pursuant to

La. C.C.P. art. 1920, La. R.S. 13:4533, and La. R.S. 13:3666. Ochsner asserts that

upon the trial court’s granting of its motion for summary judgment and motion for

partial summary judgment it was entitled to these costs in the amount of

$19,899.75, plus the amount expended to file and serve its motion to tax costs.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Security bond

We first address the issue of the forfeiture of the mandatory security bond

posted by the plaintiffs when the entire medical malpractice suit is concluded,

4
Ochsner asserts because appellees did not file an opposition, the motion was unopposed. As counsel for
appellees correctly asserts, an absence of an opposition memorandum does not automatically establish that
a motion is unopposed or that appellant is entitled to all, or any of, the relief requested in its motion to tax
costs. Under La. Rules of District Court, Rule 9.9(e), [a] party who does not furnish a memorandum
opposing a motion to the trial judge and all other parties to the action at least eight calendars days before a
scheduled hearing may forfeit the privilege of oral argument. Thus, had the trial court not found that the
motion to tax costs was moot, then the trial court, at its discretion, could have allowed appellees to orally
argue against the motion, as counsel for appellees asserted they planned to do.

23-CA-580 2

according to La. R.S. 40:1231.8(I)(2)(c) [formerly cited as La. R.S

40:1299.47(I)(2)(c)]5:

(c) In a medical malpractice suit filed by the claimant in which
a unanimous opinion was rendered in favor of the defendant health
care provider as provided in the expert opinion stated in Paragraph
(G)(2) of this Section, the claimant who proceeds to file such a suit
shall be required to post a cash or surety bond, approved by the court,
in the amount of all costs of the medical review panel. Upon the
conclusion of the medical malpractice suit, the court shall order that
the cash or surety bond be forfeited to the defendant health care
provider for reimbursement of the costs of the medical review panel,
unless a final judgment is rendered finding the defendant liable to the
claimant for any damages. If a final judgment is rendered finding the
defendant liable to the claimant for any damages, the court shall order
that the defendant health care provider reimburse the claimant an
amount equal to the cost of obtaining the cash or surety bond posted
by the claimant.

[Emphasis added.] The record in the companion case, 23-CA-538, shows that the

plaintiffs filed their bond on September 17, 2020.6 The bond was made payable,

indivisibly, to both Ochsner and EJGH. Although EJGH has filed several

exceptions in this matter, the record further reflects that it remains a party to the

medical malpractice lawsuit.

The statute's plain wording provides for the forfeiture of the bond “[u]pon

the conclusion of the medical malpractice suit.” It does not offer a pro-rata

forfeiture of the bond before the conclusion of the entire lawsuit. For this reason,

we find that Ochsner’s motion for the forfeiture of the bond was premature.

Motion to tax costs

In its motion to tax costs, Ochsner requested the court assess the plaintiffs

$10,214.35 for litigation expenses, Ochsner’s expert fees incurred in the amount of

$6,393.40, and the costs of filing and serving the motion.7

5
In its brief to this court, Ochsner cites La. R.S. 40:1299.47. This statute was redesignated as La. R.S.
40:1231.8 by H.C.R. No. 84 of the 2015 Regular Session, effective August 1, 2023.
6
The bond contains the stipulation that the plaintiffs’ attorney served as a personal surety for the bond.
7
A breakdown of Ochsner’s expenses was attached as Exhibit 3 to its motion to tax costs, but was not
formally introduced into evidence during the August 31, 2023 proceedings, nor was it proffered. Evidence
not properly and officially offered and introduced cannot be considered, even if it is physically placed in
the record. Denoux v. Vessel Mgmt. Services, Inc., 07-2143 (La. 5/21/08), 983 So.2d 84, 88. Exhibits
attached to memoranda do not constitute evidence and cannot be considered as such on appeal. Id.

23-CA-580 3

Generally, the party cast in judgment pays costs, except as otherwise

provided by law; however, the court may render judgment for costs, or any part

thereof, against any party as it may consider equitable. La. C.C.P. art. 1920. More

specifically, the court may even assess costs against the party prevailing on the

merits. Saunders v. Hollis, 44,490 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/19/09), 17 So.3d 482, 485-86,

writ denied, 09-2221 (La.12/18/09), 23 So.3d 945. The trial court has great

discretion in awarding costs, and its assessment will not be disturbed on appeal

absent an abuse of discretion. Rauch-Milliken Intern., Inc. v. Halprin, 09-723 (La.

App. 5 Cir. 12/29/09), 30 So.3d 879, 882; La. C.C.P. art. 1920.

The ruling at issue regarding Ochsner’s motion to tax costs was made at the

end of the trial court’s ruling on plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial concerning the

trial court’s judgment granting Ochsner’s motion for summary judgment, in which

the following discussion occurred:

THE COURT:

I'm going to deny the plaintiffs 'Motion for New Trial
and I'm going to order that all parties pay their own costs.

MR. WRIGHT (COUNSEL FOR OCHSNER):

Thank you, Judge. Does that moot or deny our Motion to
Tax Costs, which was also set for hearing?

THE COURT:

That’s moot. I just – that’s moot.

MR. WRIGHT:

Okay. Just want to confirm. Thank you, Judge. [Emphasis

added.]

A party must make a timely objection and state the specific ground for the

objection to preserve an issue for review. Failure to contemporaneously object

23-CA-580 4

constitutes a waiver of the right to complain on appeal. Further, the reasons for the

objection must be brought to the trial court's attention, allowing the trial court to

make the proper ruling and prevent or cure any error. Willis v. Noble Drilling (US),

Inc., 11-598 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/13/12), 105 So.3d 828, 835-36.

Here, Ochsner did not object to the trial court’s ruling that each party was to

bear their costs. Rather, Ochsner inquired as to whether this ruling rendered its

motion to tax costs as denied or moot. When the trial court stated the motion to tax

costs was “moot”8 (not denied), instead of objecting to the denial of its motion to

tax costs as moot, Ochsner acquiesced with the trial court’s ruling. As such,

Ochsner waived its right to assert that the trial court abused its discretion in

ordering each party to bear its own costs and denying its motion to tax costs as

moot. Additionally, Ochsner did not (1) attempt to offer, file, introduce, and admit

its exhibits (or testimony, if any) into evidence; (2) attempt to proffer the same

under La C.C.P. art. 1636; or (3) object to a lack of an evidentiary hearing.

Moreover, on appeal, appellant only contends that the trial court’s “summary

denial” of its motion to tax costs was an abuse of discretion because the motion

was “unopposed.” Ochsner did not and has not argued that the trial court abused

its discretion in failing to conduct a contradictory hearing on its motion.9

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

AFFIRMED

8
It is well settled that our courts will not decide abstract, hypothetical or moot controversies, or render
advisory opinions regarding such controversies. Cat's Meow, Inc. v. City of New Orleans Through Dept of
Finance, 98-601 (La. 10/20/98), 720 So.2d 1186. Accordingly, an issue is “moot’ when a judgment or
decree on that issue has been “deprived of practical significance” or “made abstract or purely academic.”
Id. at 1193. Here, the trial court denied the motion to tax costs as moot because it ruled that the parties
were to bear their own costs.
9
On appeal, appellant only requests this court to find that the return of the bond to Ochsner was mandatory
and that the trial court should have granted its motion to tax costs because it was unopposed, and requests
this court to remand this matter to the trial court with instructions to award appellant the amounts for the
bond and costs as alleged in the unopposed motion.

23-CA-580 5

THOMAS GIBSON, JR. AND BARBARA NO. 23-CA-580
GIBSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF THEIR FATHER, THOMAS FIFTH CIRCUIT
GIBSON (D)
COURT OF APPEAL
VERSUS
STATE OF LOUISIANA
JEFFERSON PARISH HOSPITAL
SERVICE DISTRICT NO 2 D/B/A EAST
JEFFERSON GENERAL HOSPITAL &
OCHSNER CLINIC FOUNDATION

WICKER, J., DISSENTS WITH REASONS

I have considered the majority’s decision to affirm the denial of Ochsner

Clinic Foundation’s (“Ochsner”) motion to tax costs, and I respectfully dissent. In

my opinion, the trial court failed to hold a contradictory hearing, as required by La.

C.C.P. art. 963, and therefore, this Court should remand the matter to the trial court

for that purpose.

On June 29, 2023, the trial court granted Ochsner’s motion for partial

summary judgment and its motion for summary judgment, dismissing Ochsner

from this lawsuit with prejudice. The court signed a written judgment to this effect

on July 11, 2023.

On July 21, 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion for new trial seeking

reconsideration of the court’s ruling granting Ochsner’s motion for summary

judgment. On that same date, Ochsner filed a motion to tax costs, asking the trial

court to tax plaintiffs with the costs of the medical review panel, pursuant to La.

R.S. 40:1231.8(I)(2)(c), as well as the court costs and expert witness fees incurred

by Ochsner, pursuant to La. R.S. 13:3666, La. R.S. 13:4533, and La. C.C.P. art.

1920. In support of its motion, Ochsner attached several documents pertaining to

its costs.

23-CA-580 1

While Ochsner filed a memorandum in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for

new trial on August 23, 2023, plaintiffs filed no opposition to Ochsner’s motion to

tax costs.

Both plaintiffs’ motion for new trial and Ochsner’s motion to tax costs were

set for hearing on August 31, 2023, pursuant to show cause orders signed by the

trial court. On August 31, 2023, the parties appeared and the trial court stated,

“Let’s do the plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial.” The court did not mention the

motion to tax costs. After the parties presented oral argument in support of and in

opposition to the motion for new trial, the trial court, without mentioning the

motion to tax costs, denied the motion for new trial and the following exchange

occurred:

THE COURT: I’m going to deny the plaintiffs’ Motion for New
Trial and I’m going to order that all parties pay
their own costs.

COUNSEL FOR OCHSNER: Thank you, Judge. Does that moot or deny our
Motion to Tax Costs, which was also set for
hearing. [sic]

THE COURT: That’s moot. I just--that’s moot.

COUNSEL FOR OCHSNER: Okay. Just wanted to confirm. Thank you, Judge.
All right.

The trial court signed a written judgment on September 12, 2023, denying

the motion for new trial and the motion to tax costs. The minute entry for the

August 31, 2023 hearing provides that Ochsner’s motion to tax costs was “taken

up” and was moot. However, in my opinion, the minute entry is inaccurate.

The transcript reflects that the trial court never called, mentioned, or took up

the motion to tax costs. Rather, without calling the matter, hearing argument, or

providing the parties with an opportunity to introduce evidence in support of their

positions, the court ordered all parties to pay their own costs. In response to

23-CA-580 2

counsel for Ochsner’s inquiry about the motion to tax costs, the trial court declared

it was moot.

La. C.C.P. art. 963 provides, in pertinent part:

****

If the order applied for by written motion is one to which the mover is
not clearly entitled, or which requires supporting proof, the motion
shall be served on and tried contradictorily with the adverse party.

The rule to show cause is a contradictory motion.

(Emphasis added.)

Respectfully, in my opinion, the trial court erred by failing to conduct a

contradictory hearing in accordance with the specific provisions of La. C.C.P. art.

963.

The majority finds that Ochsner waived its right to appellate review of the

trial court’s decisions ordering each party to bear its own costs and denying its

motion to tax costs as moot, because Ochsner did not object at the hearing. It cites

Willis v. Noble Drilling (US), Inc., 11-598 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/13/12), 105 So.3d

828, 835, in support of its assertion that Ochsner’s failure to contemporaneously

object constitutes a waiver of the right to complain on appeal. In Willis, this Court

stated that the reasons for the objection must be brought to the trial court's attention

in order to allow the trial court the opportunity to make the proper ruling and

prevent or cure any error. Id. at 836. However, in the Willis case, unlike this case,

the issue arose during trial, not in a written motion setting forth the grounds upon

which it was based.

See Maldonado v. Kiewit Louisiana Co., 12-1868 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/30/14),

152 So.3d 909, 924, writ denied, 14-2246 (La. 1/16/15), 157 So.3d 1129, in which

the First Circuit found that while defendants failed to object at trial when evidence

was offered, the rulings were preserved for appeal where defendants had raised the

evidentiary issues in motions in limine prior to trial. See also La. C.C.P. art. 1635,

23-CA-580 3

which provides that formal exceptions to rulings are unnecessary when the party

makes known to the court the action he desires the court to take.

In my opinion, Ochsner did not waive its objection to the trial court’s

decision to order each party to pay its own costs. Ochsner filed a written motion to

tax costs, setting forth the grounds for the motion and the ruling it desired the trial

court to make. Although the motion was set for hearing on August 31, 2023, no

hearing on this issue occurred, no witnesses were called, and no evidence was

introduced. At the hearing, the trial court merely declared the motion to tax costs

“moot.” Thereafter, on September 12, 2023, the trial court signed a written, final

judgment denying Ochsner’s motion to tax costs.10

Because Ochsner filed a written motion to tax costs, but was denied a

hearing on this issue, I would vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand for a

contradictory hearing in accordance with La. C.C.P. art. 963.

For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

10
A judgment on costs rendered after a final judgment on the merits is a separate and appealable judgment.
Moonan v. Louisiana Med. Mut. Ins. Co., 16-407 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/21/16), 209 So. 3d 360, 362.

23-CA-580 4

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
MAY 29, 2024 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES NOT
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

23-CA-580
E-NOTIFIED
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE FRANK A. BRINDISI (DISTRICT JUDGE)
DON S. MCKINNEY (APPELLANT) WILLIAM K. WRIGHT, IV (APPELLANT) SARAH J. L. CHRISTAKIS (APPELLEE)
AMY E. SCHAPANSKY (APPELLEE) ANH Q. CAO (APPELLEE)

MAILED
CONRAD MEYER (APPELLEE)
ATTORNEY AT LAW
ONE GALLERIA BOULEVARD
SUITE 1100
METAIRIE, LA 70001