CECILE THIBODEAUX v. ROBERT LECKY AMANDA LACOMB MAXIE TRAHAN STUART BEGNAUD ACADIA REHABILITATION HOSPITAL REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF JENNINGS ET AL (2025)

In this medical malpractice case, Plaintiff, Cecile S. Thibodeaux, appeals the judgment of the trial court denying her motion to continue, granting Defendants’ motions for summary judgement, and dismissing them from the case. For the reasons expressed below, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

I.

ISSUES

On appeal, Ms. Thibodeaux asserts the following assignments of error:

(1) The trial court abused its discretion by failing to dismiss the motions for summary judgment as premature for lack of adequate discovery for [Appellant] to have a fair opportunity to present her case;

(2) The trial court abused its discretion by failing to continue the hearing of the motions for summary judgment for lack of adequate discovery for [Appellant] to have a fair opportunity to present her case;

(3) The trial court abused its discretion by failing to continue the trial for lack of adequate discovery for [Appellant] to have a fair opportunity to present her case.

II.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 11, 2019, Ms. Thibodeaux, an elderly woman, rolled over her right leg when she forgot to put her car in park. She was taken to Jennings American Legion Hospital (JALH), and after assessing her injuries, she was referred to Lake Charles Memorial Hospital. There she was treated by Dr. Robert Lecky. After the lacerations were cleansed, Ms. Thibodeaux received stitches and staples and was sent home. The following day, Ms. Thibodeaux's wounds began leaking blood and fluid, so she returned to JALH. There she was kept for observation under the care of Dr. Amanda LaComb. During that time, she received a consultation from a surgeon, Dr. Maxie Trahan, who recommended bandaging and monitoring the wound site along with the continuation of IV antibiotic therapy.

Ms. Thibodeaux was later discharged and immediately admitted to Acadia Rehabilitation Hospital (Acadia) for physical therapy and wound care under Dr. Stuart Begnaud. She remained at Acadia for twenty-eight days before being discharged. Ms. Thibodeaux was then referred to Dr. Trahan who determined that her injury would require specialty care including, burn, plastic surgery, and orthopedic surgery. Ms. Thibodeaux was then seen by plastic surgeon, Dr. Tracee Short, at Baton Rouge General Hospital. Dr. Short performed four surgeries on Ms. Thibodeaux.

On April 29, 2020, Ms. Thibodeaux filed a medical malpractice complaint naming Acadia, Dr. Lecky, Dr. LaComb, Dr. Trahan, Dr. Begnaud, and Matthew Vincent, N.P., as defendants. The medical review panel met October 5, 2022, and unanimously concluded that Defendants had not breached the duty of care.

On January 17, 2023, Ms. Thibodeaux filed the instant lawsuit naming Dr. Lecky, Dr. LaComb, Dr. Trahan, Dr. Begnaud, and Acadia, along with their insurers, National Guardian Risk Retention Group, Inc., and LAMMICO, as defendants. On August 8, 2023, at the request of Ms. Thibodeaux, the case was scheduled for trial. The assigned trial date was October 21, 2024. Ms. Thibodeaux retained Dr. Darrell Henderson as her expert in the matter in October 2020, prior to the medical review panel. His deposition took place on July 26, 2024.

On August 8, 2024, Defendants, Acadia, Dr. Lecky, Dr. Trahan, and Dr. Begnaud, along with their insurer, LAMMICO, filed motions for summary judgment asserting that Ms. Thibodeaux would not be able to prove her case at trial because her expert, Dr. Henderson, was not qualified. These defendants also filed Daubert motions to exclude the testimony of Dr. Henderson. The motions were scheduled for hearing on September 10, 2024.

Ms. Thibodeaux did not file an opposition to the motions for summary judgment. Instead, Ms. Thibodeaux filed Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment, Motion to Continue the Trial and Motion for Sanctions on September 6, 2024, four days before the hearing.

The hearing took place on September 10, 2024. At this time Ms. Thibodeaux stipulated that Dr. Henderson would not be called, thus mooting the Daubert motions. The trial court then heard Ms. Thibodeaux's motion to continue before denying the motion. The trial court granted the motions for summary judgment and a judgement was signed dismissing those defendants with prejudice on September 24, 2024.

On September 23, 2024, Dr. LaComb filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Henderson. On September 30, 2024, she filed a motion to waive and/or extend the deadline to file a motion for summary judgment and filed her motion for summary judgment the same day. On October 15, 2024, a hearing was held on Dr. LaComb's motions. Ms. Thibodeaux lodged an objection to the granting of the summary judgment due to the time delay of filing the motion but recognized it would be prudent for judicial efficiency to rule on the motion so that all appeals of the granting of the motions for summary judgment could be heard together. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claims against Dr. LaComb and her insurer, National Guardian Risk Retention Group, on November 12, 2024. Ms. Thibodeaux now appeals both judgments.

III.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

At issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in failing to grant Ms. Thibodeaux's Motion to Dismiss Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment, Motion to Continue Hearing of the Motions for Summary Judgment and Motion to Continue the Trial. A trial court's ruling granting or denying a continuance for time to allow additional discovery on a motion for summary judgment is reviewed by this court for an abuse of discretion. Colson v. Colfax Treating Co., LLC, 17-913, 17-912 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/18/18), 246 So.3d 15.

IV.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Although Ms. Thibodeaux asserts three different assignments of error, the only argument made in brief is that the trial court erred in failing to grant the motion to continue due to inadequate discovery. Ms. Thibodeaux argues that the motions for summary judgment were premature because adequate discovery had not been conducted and therefore, the trial court should have granted the motion to continue. Specifically, Ms. Thibodeaux complains that she was unable to take the deposition of Dr. Short, her treating physician, and did not complete a 1442 deposition of Acadia.

Defendants/Appellees argue that Ms. Thibodeaux's motion to continue was properly denied and should not have been considered because it was untimely filed. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 966(B)(2) provides that “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.” Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 966(C)(2) provides that a court may order a continuance of a hearing if there is “good cause shown.” Ms. Thibodeaux sought such continuance on the basis that adequate discovery had not been conducted. Ms. Thibodeaux did not, however, file an opposition in this case before the hearing. Instead, Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment, Motion to Continue the Trial and Motion for Sanctions were filed on September 6, 2024, four days before the hearing and well after the fifteen-day deadline.

The Louisiana Supreme Court addressed this scenario in Mahe v. LCMC Health Holdings LLC, 23-25 (La. 3/14/23), 357 So.3d 322. In Mahe, the plaintiff failed to timely file her opposition within the fifteen-day period and waited until one day before the hearing to seek a continuance. The supreme court held that the trial court erred in granting the continuance stating,

As we specifically stated in Auricchio v. Harriston, 2020-01167, p. 5 (La. 10/10/21), 332 So. 3d 660, 663, these time limits are mandatory. La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(B)(2) states that “the opposition shall be filed and served in accordance with Article 1313 not less than fifteen days prior to the hearing on the motion.” (emphasis supplied). A continuance under La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(C)(2) cannot serve as a pretext to circumvent the deadlines set forth in La. C.C.P. art. 966(B)(2).

The plaintiff argued the fact that her expert was out of town constituted “good cause” for a continuance, but she failed to move for a continuance prior to the expiration of the fifteen-day deadline. Under these circumstances, plaintiff's excuse does not constitute good cause.

Id. at 322–323 (footnotes omitted).

As in Mahe, Ms. Thibodeaux also failed to file her motion for continuance within the fifteen-day period. As such, her motion should have been denied as untimely. Despite recognizing the untimeliness of Ms. Thibodeaux's motion, the trial court did consider the motion before ruling on the matter.

“A motion to continue has been held to be the proper method for asserting that a motion for summary judgment is premature because the adverse party has not been able to conduct adequate discovery.” Laforge v. Golden Nugget Lake Charles, LLC, 20-110 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/4/20), 307 So. 3d 266, 270. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 966(A)(3) provides that “[a]fter an opportunity for adequate discovery, a motion for summary judgment shall be granted if the motion, memorandum, and supporting documents show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” However, the law does not require that there be adequate discovery, rather there must be the opportunity for adequate discovery. “There is no absolute right to delay action on a motion for summary judgment until discovery is completed.” Simoneaux v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 483 So.2d 908, 912 (La.1986). “The only requirement is that the parties be given a fair opportunity to present their claim. Unless plaintiff shows a probable injustice[,] a suit should not be delayed pending discovery when it appears at an early stage that there is no genuine issue of fact.” Id. at 913.

In support of her argument, Ms. Thibodeaux looks to Laforge, 307 So.3d 266, a case from this court addressing the issue. In Laforge, this court explained,

The fourth circuit has developed the following test for courts to consider when determining the merits of an adequate discovery argument and a pending motion for summary judgment:

(i) whether the party was ready to go to trial,

(ii) whether the party indicated what additional discovery was needed,

(iii) whether the party took any steps to conduct additional discovery during the period between the filing of the motion and the hearing on it, and

(iv) whether the discovery issue was raised in the trial court before the entry of the summary judgment.

Bass P'ship v. Fortmayer, 04-1438, p. 10 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/9/05), 899 So.2d 68, 75. See also, Roadrunner, 219 So.3d 1265; SBN, 267 So.3d 655. In addition to these four factors, courts have considered whether the ability to conduct discovery was hampered by circumstances beyond the opponent's control. Roadrunner, 219 So.3d 1265.

Id. at 271.

In that case, this court reversed the trial court's granting of the motion for summary judgment and found that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant the motion for continuance. Ms. Thibodeaux argues that we should find the same in this case. After considering the facts of each case, however, we disagree.

In ruling on the motion for continuance, the trial court stated,

“I've listened to the arguments. I've read the memorandums. You - - you filed a motion to continue this matter and you said it was because of prematurity, okay. There has been ample time for discovery in this matter. Now, whether it was done or not done, I find the fact that Dr. Short is a treating physician that you have access to, it's not some other - - it's not their expert, okay, so your motion to continue this matter is denied, okay.”

When incomplete discovery has been alleged, a trial court has discretion in determining whether to hear the motion for summary judgment or grant a continuance to allow further discovery. Laforge, 307 so.3d at 270. In Laforge, this court reasoned,

No trial date has been set herein, and as a result of the removal to federal court, the litigation was pending in the trial court for less than three months before Everi Games and IGT filed their motion for summary judgment. The Laforges did not immediately propound discovery to all defendants upon remand, but they did so upon receipt of the motion for summary judgment. Additionally, responses to that discovery reveal the potential for Everi Games to be liable to the Laforges for their claims. Furthermore, as noted above, the Laforges’ opposition to the motion for summary judgment urged the need for additional discovery and documented how their ability to conduct discovery had been hampered. Accordingly, we find the Laforges were unable to conduct adequate discovery before the hearing on Everi Games and IGT's motion for summary judgment and the trial court abused its discretion in not granting them a continuance to conduct additional discovery.

Id. at 271.

In the instant case, the motions for summary judgment were filed over eighteen months after Ms. Thibodeaux filed her petition and almost two years from the ruling of the medical review panel. Unlike the plaintiffs in Laforge, we agree with the trial court that Ms. Thibodeaux had ample opportunity to conduct adequate discovery. Also, unlike the plaintiffs in Laforge, Ms. Thibodeaux has not shown that her ability to conduct discovery was hampered. Ms. Thibodeaux points to the cancellation of the deposition of Dr. Short by defense counsel for her inability to depose Dr. Short, however, Dr. Short was Ms. Thibodeaux's treating physician. Defendants were not required to depose Dr. Short and were free to cancel a deposition they noticed. As her treating physician, Ms. Thibodeaux could have deposed or taken the affidavit of Dr. Short at any time during the pendency of this litigation, and she has failed to schedule a deposition with Dr. Short despite dates for same being available prior to the hearing.

Moreover, Defendants sought summary judgment on the basis that Ms. Thibodeaux would not be able to prove her case because she did not have qualified expert testimony to establish a breach in the standard of care. At the time of the hearing, Ms. Thibodeaux made no argument that she intended to call Dr. Short as an expert and therefore failed to show how continuing the hearing to allow for the deposition of Dr. Short would assist her in defeating the motion for summary judgment. Additionally, Ms. Thibodeaux also has not taken any active steps in scheduling a 1442 deposition with Acadia despite referring to the need to do so a year prior to the motions for summary judgment.

While Ms. Thibodeaux may believe that discovery in this case is incomplete, she has failed to show that she has not had the opportunity to conduct adequate discovery. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Ms. Thibodeaux had ample time for discovery and denying her motion to continue.

V.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to the plaintiff/appellant, Cecile S. Thibodeaux.

AFFIRMED.

SHARON DARVILLE WILSON JUDGE