Kerry Thibodeaux, M.D. (Apmc) v. American Lifecare, Inc.

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 14-931

KERRY THIBODEAUX, M.D. (APMC)

VERSUS

AMERICAN LIFECARE, INC.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
TWENTY-SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ST. LANDRY, NO. 13-C-3212-C
HONORABLE ALONZO HARRIS, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

BILLY HOWARD EZELL
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Billy Howard Ezell, and Phyllis M. Keaty,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

John S. Bradford
William B. Monk
Stockwell, Sievert, Viccellio, Clements & Shaddock, L.L.P.
One Lakeshore Plaza, 4thy Floor
Lake Charles, LA 70601
(337) 436-9491
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Kerry Thibodeaux, M.D. (APMC)

Patrick C. Morrow
James P. Ryan
Morrow, Morrow, Ryan & Bassett
324 West Landry Street
Opelousas, LA 70570-5120
(337) 948-4483
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Kerry Thibodeaux, M.D. (APMC)

Errol J. King
Craig L. Caesar
John B. Davis
Andrew C. Kolb
M. Levy Leatherman
Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C.
450 Laurel Street, 20th Floor
Baton Rouge, LA 70801
(225) 381-7000
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
American Lifecare, Inc.

Thomas A. Filo
Somer G. Brown
Cox, Cox, Filo, Camel & Wilson, L.L.C.
723 Broad Street
Lake Charles, LA 70601
(337) 436-6611
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Kerry Thibodeaux, M.D. (APMC)

Michael R. D. Adams
Winston G. Decuir, Jr.
Decuir, Clark & Adams, LLP
732 North Boulevard
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
(225) 346-8716
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
American Lifecare, Inc.

Stephen B. Murray
Stephen B. Murray, Jr.
Arthur M. Murray
Nicole A. Ieyoub-Murray
Murray Law Firm
650 Poydras St., Suite 2150
New Orleans, LA 70130
(504) 525-8100
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Kerry Thibodeaux, M.D. (APMC)

EZELL, Judge.

Dr. Kerry Thibodeaux filed the current suit against American Lifecare, Inc.

(hereinafter referred to as ALC) for statutory penalties under La.R.S 40:2203.1(G).

Dr. Thibodeaux sought to have the suit certified for management as a class

pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art 591, et seq. ALC appeals the decision of the trial

court below certifying a class in the matter. For the following reasons, we hereby

affirm the decision of the trial court.

Dr. Thibodeaux filed his Class Action Petition for Damages and for

Injunctive Relief on July 12, 2013, alleging that ALC breached its statutory duties

pursuant to La.R.S 40:2203.1 when it did not properly notify health care providers

in the State of Louisiana of discounts applied to medical bills by Private Healthcare

Systems, Inc. (PHCS) pursuant to the ALC Preferred Provider Organization (PPO)

Agreements as required by La.R.S 40:2203.1.1 Dr. Thibodeaux sought statutory

damages pursuant to La.R.S. 40:2203.1(G), which mandates that damages be

awarded against a group purchaser that violates La.R.S. 40:2203.1(B). After a

two-day trial on the matter of certification, the trial court ruled that all of the

elements required for class certification had been met, ordered class certification,

defined the class, appointed Dr. Thibodeaux as class representative, and ordered

that Dr. Thibodeaux‟s counsel be appointed as class counsel. From that decision,

ALC appeals.

ALC asserts four assignments of error on appeal. It first claims that the trial

court erred in failing to perform a rigorous analysis of the facts before it, as

evidenced by language in the written reasons for judgment being copied or similar

to language from an earlier, separate case. ALC further alleges that the trial court

1
PHCS acquired ALC in 2004, though the two entities remained separate companies.

erred in certifying the class where Dr. Thibodeaux allegedly failed to show

violations of La.R.S 40:2203.1 could be proven without the production of faulty

patient benefit cards; that the trial court erred in certifying the class where Dr.

Thibodeaux was not an adequate or typical class representative; and that the trial

court erred in certifying the class in the face of individual issues pertaining to

differing PPO agreements with individual doctors, some of which contained

arbitration and assignment clauses which could preclude inclusion in the class.

ALC‟s first assignment of error alleges that the trial court failed to perform a

rigorous analysis of the facts and law in this case because language in the trial

court‟s written reasons was similar to language in written reasons from a similar

case. “Appeal is the exercise of the right of a party to have a judgment of a trial

court revised, modified, set aside, or reversed by an appellate court.” La.Code

Civ.P. art. 2082 (emphasis added). “ „Appeals are taken from the judgment, not

the written reasons for judgment.‟ ” Wooley v. Lucksinger, 09-571, 09-584, 09-585,

09-586, p. 77 (La. 4/1/11), 61 So.3d 507, 572 (quoting Greater New Orleans

Expressway Comm’n v. Olivier, 02-2795, p. 3 (La. 11/18/03), 860 So.2d 22, 24.

“[W]ritten reasons are not binding or appealable; only the judgment itself has

judicial effect and is subject to appeal.” Guidry v. Gulf Coast Coil Tubing, 09-621,

p. 13 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/9/09), 24 So.3d 1019, 1027. “The written reasons for

judgment are merely an explication of the Trial Court‟s determinations. They do

not alter, amend, or affect the final judgment being appealed . . . .” State in the

Interest of Mason, 356 So.2d 530, 532 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1977). As this assignment

of error does not address the judgment itself, but rather takes issue with the trial

court‟s written reasons for judgment, this assignment requires no action by this

court.

2

ALC‟s next three assignments of error contain claims that the trial court

erred in certifying a class in this suit. As noted in Gunderson v. F.A. Richard &

Associates, Inc., 07-331, pp. 8-9 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/27/08), 977 So.2d 1128, 1136-

37, writs denied, 08-1063, 08-1069, 08-1072 (La. 9/19/08), 992 So.2d 953

(alterations in original):

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 591 reads, in pertinent part:

A. One or more members of a class may sue or be
sued as representative parties on behalf of all, only if:

(1)The class is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable.

(2) There are questions of law or fact common to
the class.

(3) The claims or defenses of the representative
parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class.

(4) The representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class.

(5) The class is or may be defined objectively in
terms of ascertainable criteria, such that the court may
determine the constituency of the class for purposes of
the conclusiveness of any judgment that may be rendered
in the case.

B. An action may be maintained as a class action
only if all of the prerequisites of Paragraph A of this
Article are satisfied, and in addition:

....

(2) The party opposing the class has acted or
refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class,
thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or
corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class
as a whole; or

(3) The court finds that the questions of law or fact
common to members of the class predominate over any
questions affecting only individual members, and that a
class action is superior to other available methods for the

3

fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The
matters pertinent to these findings include:

(a) The interest of the members of the class in
individually controlling the prosecution or defense of
separate actions;

(b) The extent and nature of any litigation
concerning the controversy already commenced by or
against members of the class;

(c) The desirability or undesirability of
concentrating the litigation in the particular forum;

(d) The difficulties likely to be encountered in the
management of a class action;

(e) The practical ability of individual class
members to pursue their claims without class certification;

(f) The extent to which the relief plausibly
demanded on behalf of or against the class, including the
vindication of such public policies or legal rights as may
be implicated, justifies the costs and burdens of class
litigation;

In order for class certification to be proper, “the burden is on
the plaintiffs to establish that the statutory criteria for a class
certification are met.” Duhe v. Texaco, Inc., 99-2002, p. 11 (La.App. 3
Cir 2/7/01), 779 So.2d 1070, 1078, writ denied, 01-637 (La.4/27/01),
791 So.2d 637; see also Clark v. Trus Joist MacMillian, 02-676, 02-
512 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/27/02), 836 So.2d 454, 459, writ denied, 03-
275 (La.4/21/03), 841 So.2d 793 (“Plaintiffs must establish by
preponderance of the evidence that each of the elements for class
certification has been met.”). However, “[t]he district court has wide
discretion in deciding whether to certify a class and the decision will
not be overturned absent a finding of manifest error or abuse of
discretion.” Roberson v. Town of Pollock, 05-332, p. 9 (La.App. 3 Cir.
11/9/05), 915 So.2d 426, 432, writ denied, 06-213 (La.4/24/06), 926
So.2d 550. Further, “[t]he court should err on the side of maintaining
the class action since the judge may always modify or amend the class
at any time prior to a decision on the merits.” Clark, 836 So.2d at 459-
60 (citing La.Code Civ.P. art. 592 A(3)(c) ). Thus, unless the trial
court abused its wide discretion in certifying the class in the instant
case, the class certification must stand.

“ „Implicit in this deferential standard is recognition of the essentially factual

basis of the certification inquiry and of the district court‟s inherent power to

4

manage and control pending litigation.‟ ” Brooks v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 08-

2035, p. 11 (La. 5/22/09), 13 So.3d 546, 554 (quoting Gene and Gene L.L.C. v.

BioPay L.L.C., 541 F.3d 318, 325 (5th Cir. 2008)). Accordingly, this is the

standard of review we must use in our analysis of ALC‟s next three assignments of

error.

ALC first claims that the trial court erred in certifying the class when it

alleges Dr. Thibodeaux failed to show any violations of La.R.S 40:2203.1, as no

insurance benefit cards were produced as evidence of any violation. We disagree.

In making its decision, the trial court considered volumes of evidence and

the testimony of several witness, both live and by deposition. While there was no

actual patient benefit card produced directly showing that a discount was applied in

the absence of the appropriate ALC logo, there was testimony before the trial court

that provided an explanation as to why, i.e., such a card would never exist in the

first place. Tonya Fisette and Debra Courville, both corporate representatives of

ALC, testified that a PHCS payor client would never put the ALC logo on their

cards because the contracts those payors had were with PHCS alone, not ALC. Ms.

Fisette agreed that there would be no need to look for PHCS cards containing an

ALC logo because they would never be expected to be seen.

Here, ALC is essentially demanding that Dr. Thibodeaux provide evidence

that would not be expected to exist according to ALC‟s own corporate

representatives. However, the trial court found that the testimony of Ms. Fisette

and Ms. Courville established that PHCS clients would not use the ALC logo on

their patient benefit cards, even while those payors took advantage of the

unannounced ALC discount rates. Therefore, the trial court had a reasonable

factual basis for its determination that violations of La.R.S 40:2203.1 existed and

5

could be proven. Accordingly, we cannot find manifest error, especially in light of

the notion that “[t]he court should err on the side of maintaining the class action.”

Clark, 836 So.2d at 459.

ALC next claims that Dr. Thibodeaux was not an adequate or typical class

representative because Opelousas General Hospital, where he performed much of

his work, gathered most of the patient benefit cards from which the alleged

violations of La.R.S 40:2203.1 arose, rather than Dr. Thibodeaux directly himself.

ALC further claims that Dr. Thibodeaux cannot be typical of the class as he did not

require patients to show benefit cards on every office visit, but rather, relied on

patients to inform his office only when there was a change in coverage. We

disagree.

“The requirement of „adequate representation‟ is satisfied when
the claims of the class representatives are typical or a cross section of
the claims of all of the members in the class.” Martello v. City of
Ferriday, 01-1240, p. 9 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/6/02), 813 So.2d 467, 476,
writs denied, 02-990, 02-1002, 02-1514 (La.6/7/02), 818 So.2d 770,
cert. denied, Town of Ferriday v. Martello, 537 U.S. 1072, 123 S.Ct.
673, 154 L.Ed.2d 566 (2002).

The test for determining the existence of adequate
representation under La. C.C.P. art. 591(A)(4) consists of
three elements: (1) the claims of the chosen class
representatives cannot be antagonistic or conflict with
those of other class members; (2) the chosen
representatives must have a sufficient interest in the
outcome to ensure vigorous advocacy; and (3) counsel
for the chosen representatives must be competent,
experienced, qualified, and generally able to conduct the
litigation vigorously.

Boyd v. Allied Signal, Inc., 03-1840, p. 26 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/30/04),
898 So.2d 450, 465, writ denied, 05-1919 (La.4/1/05), 897 So.2d 606.

Williams v. SIF Consultants of Louisiana, Inc., 12-419, p. 8 (La.App. 3 Cir.

11/7/12), 103 So.3d 1172, 1179, writ denied, 12-2637 (La. 3/15/13), 109 So.3d 381.

6

For his claim to be typical of the class represented in this suit, Dr.

Thibodeaux does not need to show that every physician‟s office in the state took in

patient cards in the same manner or that his office directly took in the cards

themselves. He need only show that ALC discounts were taken for his services by

payor clients who did not have the proper ALC logo on their cards, which is the

ultimate claim of this class action suit, and that the claim is typical of the

represented class. Based on all of the evidence presented, the trial court

determined that Dr. Thibodeaux would adequately represent the interests of the

class because he would sufficiently represent the broad spectrum of Louisiana

healthcare providers who would be class members. We can find nothing in the

record before this court that shows the claims of Dr. Thibodeaux to be antagonistic

to or in conflict with those of other class members because of the manner in which

the allegedly insufficient cards were presented to him for billing. We can find no

manifest error in the trial court‟s finding of adequacy and typicality .

Finally, ALC claims that the trial court erred in certifying the class when

individual class members would have different contracts with ALC, some

including assignment and arbitration provisions that could prevent some individual

doctors from joining the class. However, this court dealt with similar provisions in

Gunderson, 977 So.2d 1128. There, this court noted:

the instant case involves a class definition that includes no limiting
language regarding arbitration clauses . . . , yet the absence of such
limitations in no way detracts from the effect of such clauses upon the
rights of whichever claimants may have agreed to them, assuming that
the clauses are in other respects valid. Within this context, the impact
of allowing the class definition to remain in its current form is
relatively innocuous. The defendants may still move to have claims
which are subject to such clauses stayed pending arbitration or
resolution in an alternate forum, leaving the class action proceedings
to continue uninterrupted as to those claims not subject to such
clauses. Thus, particularly in light of the great discretion afforded to

7

the trial court in making class certification decisions, we see no reason
now to alter the class definition.

Id. at 1142-43.

We find this matter to be similar to Gunderson in that ALC can still assert

the arbitration and assignment provisions as defenses against individual claims that

may be subject to those terms, despite the class certification. Although potential

claimants who had agreed to the contracts containing those provisions were

included in the class definition, those provisions may nevertheless still be given

full effect by the trial court in its inherent power to manage and control the pending

litigation or to “modify or amend the class at any time prior to a decision on the

merits.” Clark, 836 So.2d at 459-60. The trial court found that the individual

issues presented by these contract provisions were not insurmountable to class

certification. We can find no manifest error in the trial court‟s determination.

For the above reasons, we find no manifest error in the trial court‟s factual

findings and no abuse of its discretion in the certification of the class for this suit.

The judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed. Costs of this appeal are hereby

assessed against ALC.

AFFIRMED.

8