SALVAIL v. NEW ORLEANS MISSION INC ABC (2026)

This appeal arises from the trial court's September 16, 2025 judgment, granting appellees, New Orleans Mission, Inc. (“New Orleans Mission”) and Mission Properties Foundation, Inc.’s (“Mission Properties Foundation”) (collectively, “defendants”) motion for summary judgment and dismissing appellant, Michele Salvail's (“Ms. Salvail”) claims with prejudice. For the reasons that follow, we reverse September 16, 2025 judgment and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 8, 2017, Ms. Salvail filed a petition for damages, naming New Orleans Mission, Mission Properties Foundation, and ABC Insurance company as defendants. Ms. Salvail alleged that Mission Properties Foundation is the owner of the homeless shelter, New Orleans Mission. Ms. Salvail alleged that on August 9, 2016, she sought shelter at New Orleans Mission and was directed to a bunk bed. Ms. Salvail asserted that when she climbed to the top bunk, the ladder to the bunk bed abruptly detached from the railing and she fell backwards onto her back. Ms. Salvail further alleged that she sustained serious injuries to her neck and back and had to undergo multiple surgeries since the accident.

On November 22, 2024, defendants moved for summary judgment. Defendants asserted that Ms. Salvail was unable to meet her evidentiary burden against them to succeed in a negligence claim. Ms. Salvail opposed the motion. The trial court held a hearing on defendants’ motion for summary judgment on August 14, 2025.

Thereafter, on September 16, 2025, the trial court signed a judgment that struck Ms. Salvail's uncertified medical records and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing Ms. Salvail's action with prejudice. Ms. Salvail filed a motion for new trial. On November 24, 2025, the trial court denied the motion for new trial. Ms. Salvail filed a motion for devolutive appeal on January 13, 2026. This appeal follows.

DISCUSSION

Ms. Salvail asserted six assignments of error, to which we narrow our discussion to whether the trial court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment.¹ Ms. Salvail argues that genuine issues of material fact exist because 1) Dr. David L. Smith's (“Dr. Smith”) affidavit fails to address her neck injury; 2) her testimony contradicts Dr. Smith's attestation that he believed that Ms. Salvail's fracture pre-dated her accident; and 3) Dr. Smith disagreed with the MRI report. Ms. Salvail further argues that the trial court failed to apply the “eggshell plaintiff doctrine”.

Standard of Review

An appellate court reviews the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment de novo, using the same criteria as a trial court. Kazan v. Red Lion Hotels Corp., 2021-01820, p. 2 (La. 6/29/22), 346 So.3d 267, 269. La. C.C.P. art. 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.”

The burden of proof rests with the mover to demonstrate entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, in accordance with La. C.C.P. art. 966(D)(1), which provides:

[i]f the mover will not bear the burden of proof at trial on the issue that is before the court on the motion for summary judgment, the mover's burden on the motion does not require him to negate all essential elements of the adverse party's claim, action, or defense, but rather to point out to the court the absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to the adverse party's claim, action, or defense.

“The granting of summary judgment is contingent upon the pleadings, depositions, answers to discovery, admissions on file and affidavits demonstrating that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Majoue v. Fish, 2023-0549, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/8/24), 385 So.3d 321, 325. Genuine issues are ones in which reasonable fact finders could disagree. Id. “[I]f reasonable persons could only reach one conclusion, there is no need for trial on that issue, and summary judgment is appropriate.” Id. “A fact is material when its existence or nonexistence may be essential to the plaintiff's cause of action under the applicable theory of recovery; a fact is material if it potentially insures or precludes recovery, affects a litigant's ultimate success, or determines the outcome of the legal dispute.” Id.

Negligence Principles

Ms. Salvail alleged negligence. Pursuant to La. C.C. art. 2315 (A), “[e]very act whatever of man that causes damage to another obliges him by whose fault it happened to repair it.” Under the duty/risk analysis, a plaintiff must prove all of the following five elements:

1. The defendant had a duty to conform his conduct to a specific standard (the duty element);

2. The defendant's conduct failed to conform to the appropriate standard (the breach element);

3. The defendant's substandard conduct was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff's injuries (the cause-in-fact element);

4. The defendant's substandard conduct was a legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries (the scope of duty element); and

5. Proof of actual damages (the damages element).

Harris v. Boh Bros. Constr. Co., LLC, 2020-0248, p. 20 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/26/21), 322 So.3d 397, 412 (quoting Roberts v. Benoit, 605 So.2d 1032, 1041 (La. 1991).

Defendants’ Support for Summary Judgment

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was premised on the assertion that the plaintiff cannot prove the cause-in-fact element of her claim. Because Ms. Salvail would bear the burden of proof at trial on this matter, defendants, as the movers for summary judgment, had to point out the absence of factual support for one or more elements of Ms. Salvail's claim. See La. C.C.P. art. 966(D)(1).

In support of their motion for summary judgment, defendants attached Ms. Salvail's petition for damages, the affidavit of Dr. Smith, and certified Tulane Medical Center records for Ms. Salvail. Dr. Smith attested that he reviewed Ms. Salvail's petition for damages and Tulane Medical Center records inclusive of imaging. Dr. Smith attested that it was his expert opinion that the MRI taken on August 10, 2016, showed a subacute fracture due to the limited amount of edema surrounding the fracture. Dr. Smith further attested that based on the imaging, it is more probable than not that the fracture is subacute rather than acute, and it was not caused by the fall on August 9, 2016.

Ms. Salvail's Opposition

Ms. Salvail filed an opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In support of her opposition, she attached excerpts of her deposition and uncertified medical records.² In her deposition, Ms. Salvail testified that prior to the August 2016 fall, she could not remember any other neck or back injuries she ever suffered. She further testified that she had a healthy and strong back and neck before the injury. Ms. Salvail testified that the ladder came unhooked as she tried to climb to the top bunk, that the bed rail she grabbed to steady herself came off, and that she fell backward.

Causation

The plaintiff in a personal injury suit bears the burden of proving a causal relationship between the injury sustained and the accident that caused the injury. Adams v. Entergy New Orleans, Inc., 2025-0444, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/10/26), 438 So.3d 451, 457 (quoting Maranto v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 94-2603, p. 3 (La. 2/20/95), 650 So.2d 757, 759). “As it relates to expert testimony, ‘[w]hen a conclusion regarding medical causation is not one within common knowledge, expert medical testimony is required in a tort action.’ ” Adams v. Entergy New Orleans, Inc., 2025-0444, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/10/26), 438 So.3d 451, 457 (quoting Johnson v. E.I. DuPont deNemours & Co., 2008-628 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/13/09), 7 So.3d 734, 740).

Here, defendants pointed out that Ms. Salvail had not identified an expert to support her claims. Defendants also provided the affidavit of Dr. Smith opining that the August 9, 2016, accident was not the cause of Ms. Salvail's fracture due to the limited amount of edema surrounding the fracture. Defendants also asserted that Ms. Salvail lacked expert testimony to support her negligence claim and failed to take any steps to challenge Dr. Smith's opinion through deposition or a Daubert hearing.

As previously stated, however, Ms. Salvail alleged both neck and back injuries in her petition for damages. Although defendants produced competent expert testimony regarding the alleged back fracture, they presented no expert testimony or other summary judgment evidence addressing causation of Ms. Salvail's alleged neck injury.

Because defendants sought dismissal of Ms. Salvail's entire action, they were required to point out the absence of factual support for an essential element of all injuries for which damages were sought. While Dr. Smith's affidavit addressed the alleged back fracture, defendants presented no evidence regarding whether the August 9, 2016 accident caused or contributed to Ms. Salvail's alleged neck injury.

Accordingly, defendants failed to satisfy their initial burden on summary judgment, and the burden never shifted to Ms. Salvail to produce factual support sufficient to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. See La. C.C.P. art. 966(D)(1). Therefore, we find that the trial court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the September 16, 2026 judgment dismissing Ms. Salvail's claims. This matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ms. Salvail's assignments of error are:1. The trial court erred in grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment2. The trial court erred in ignoring her deposition testimony.3. The trial court erred in basing its ruling on an affidavit where the attesting doctor admitted he never reviewed her deposition testimony that conflicted with his opinion.4. The trial court erred in basing its ruling on an affidavit where the attesting doctor purported to provide the age of Ms. Salvail's back fracture, but the treating radiologist was unable to do so.5. The trial court erred in basing its ruling on an affidavit where the attesting doctor that reviewed Ms. Salvail's medical records omitted any opinion regarding her neck injury that required surgery.6. The trial court erred in ignoring the “eggshell plaintiff doctrine.”

2.   Pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 966(A)(4)(a), the only certified medical records may be filed or referenced in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment. The district court struck Ms. Salvail's uncertified medical records.

JUDGE SANDRA CABRINA JENKINS