Robert Scioneaux Versus Ochsner Clinic Foundation D/B/A Ochsner Medical Center, LLC, Ochsner Medical Complez - River Parishes

ROBERT SCIONEAUX NO. 25-C-332

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

OCHSNER CLINIC FOUNDATION D/B/A COURT OF APPEAL
OCHSNER MEDICAL CENTER, LLC,
OCHSNER MEDICAL COMPLEZ - RIVER STATE OF LOUISIANA
PARISHES, ET AL.

August 28, 2025

Linda Tran
First Deputy Clerk

IN RE OCHSNER MEDICAL CENTER LLC D/B/A OCHSNER MEDICAL COMPLEX - RIVER PARISHES

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE FORTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF ST JOHN THE BAPTIST, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE
VERCELL FIFFIE, DIVISION "A", NUMBER 79,088

Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois,
Marc E. Johnson, and Scott U. Schlegel

WRIT GRANTED

Relator, Ochsner Medical Center LLC d/b/a Ochsner Medical Complex –
River Parishes (“Ochsner”), seeks review of the 40th Judicial District Court’s May
30, 2025 ruling granting Plaintiff, Robert Scioneaux’s, Motion to Continue the
hearing on Relator’s Motion for Summary Judgment. In June 2020, Plaintiff fell
when he attempted to leave the waiting area of Relator’s facility to attend his
physical therapy appointment. The parties dispute whether La. R.S. 9:2724, which
requires plaintiffs to prove the offending medical practitioner committed gross
negligence when the incident occurred during the state of emergency caused by the
COVID-19 epidemic, applies in this case.

The hearing on Relator’s Motion for Summary Judgment was originally set
for May 2, 2025. Relator states it agreed to continue the matter until May 30, 2025
as a professional courtesy. Plaintiff’s original Opposition Memorandum, filed on
April 23, 2025, did not identify any new expert witness and did not contain the
affidavit of an expert witness. On May 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Supplemental
Opposition, included a report from an independent expert – but no signed and
notarized affidavit, or other form of sworn testimony, was included. On May 29th,
the day before the hearing, Plaintiff filed another motion to continue. The district
court heard arguments on the motion to continue the following day. Relator argued
that whatever was included in the Supplemental Motion was untimely, because the
affidavit was filed the day before, and counsel for the Plaintiff admitted as much.
The district court granted the motion to continue over Relator’s objection.

In his writ application, Relator alleges the district court abused its discretion
in granting Plaintiff another continuance in order to allow him to supplement his
Opposition with a sworn affidavit from his expert witness. Relator asks this Court
to order the district court to conduct the hearing. Plaintiff contends in his
Opposition to Relator’s writ application that the district court granted the
continuance to allow both sides to resolve its respective evidentiary issues.

La. C.C.P. art. 966 provides, in pertinent part:

A.
[***]
(4)(a) The only documents that may be filed or referenced in support
of or in opposition to the motion are pleadings, memoranda,
affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, certified medical
records, certified copies of public documents or public records,
certified copies of insurance policies, authentic acts, private acts duly
acknowledged, promissory notes and assignments thereof, written
stipulations, and admissions. The court may permit documents to be
filed in any electronically stored format authorized by court rules or
approved by the clerk of the court.
[***]
B. Unless extended by the court and agreed to by all of the parties, a
motion for summary judgment shall be filed, opposed, or replied to in
accordance with the following provisions:

(1) Except for any document provided for under Subsubparagraph
(A)(4)(b) of this Article, a motion for summary judgment and all
documents in support of the motion shall be filed and served on all
parties in accordance with Article 1313(A)(4) not less than sixty-
five days prior to the trial.

(2) Except for any document provided for under Subsubparagraph
(A)(4)(b) of this Article, any opposition to the motion and all
documents in support of the opposition shall be filed and served in
accordance with Article 1313(A)(4) not less than fifteen days prior
to the hearing on the motion.
[***]

(5) The court shall not reconsider or revise the granting of a motion
for partial summary judgment on motion of a party who failed to
meet the deadlines imposed by this Paragraph, nor shall the court
consider any documents filed after those deadlines.

C. (1) Unless otherwise agreed to by all of the parties and the court:
[***]
(2) For good cause shown, the court may order a continuance of the
hearing.

Upon review, we find the district court abused its discretion in granting the
motion for continuance to allow Plaintiff's expert’s affidavit to be filed in
compliance with the fifteen-day limit contained in Article 966. See Newsome v.
Homer Mem’l Med. Ctr., 10-564, p. 3 (La. 4/9/10), 32 So.3d 800, 802-03. “[I]f the

hearing is continued for some other reason unrelated to good cause, then this does
not allow a party additional time to file its opposition to the motion for summary
judgment.” Bankers Ins. Co. v. EMIII Holdings, LLC, 24-386, p. 20 (La. App. 4
Cir. 12/16/24), 407 So.3d 681, 695.

Accordingly, the writ is granted, the lower court ruling is reversed, and the
matter is remanded. The district court is ordered to hear Relator’s motion for
summary judgment, and consider only the pleadings and any other competent
evidence filed in the record under La. C.C.P. art. 966(A)(4)(a) and (b) as of May
30, 2025.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 28th day of August, 2025.

MEJ
JGG
SUS

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. TRAN
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 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 08/28/2025 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:

25-C-332
E-NOTIFIED
40th District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Vercell Fiffie (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Joshua J. Spencer (Relator) John B. Cazale, V (Relator)
Tomy J. Acosta (Respondent)
James A. Harry (Respondent)
Dean T. DeFrancesch (Respondent)

MAILED