SAID v. FEDERATED RURAL ELECTRIC INSURANCE EXCHANGE (2021)

Application for rehearing denied.

I would grant rehearing for the reasons I voted to grant and docket plaintiff's writ application on original review. Said v. Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Exch., 2021-00078 (La. 4/20/21), 313 So. 3d 1241, 1243 (Crichton, J., would grant and assigns reasons). Specifically, I believe the question of whether the district court erred in refusing to qualify plaintiff's treating physicians as experts requires further study, particularly in light of the deference owed to district courts in matters of admission of expert testimony. See Blair v. Coney, 2019-00795 (La. 4/3/20), ––– So.3d ––––, 2020 WL 1675992, reh'g denied, 2019-00795 (La. 7/9/20), 298 So. 3d 168.

More importantly, I believe the per curiam erred by making findings of fact without the benefit of reviewing the full record. Defendants’ writ application highlights the risk of this action by noting where testimony of plaintiff's local treating physicians contradicts the per curiam's conclusion that “the local physicians were prohibited from telling the jury of this subsequent discovery and the resulting change in their initial diagnosis.” Said v. Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Exch., 2021-00078 (La. 4/20/21), 313 So. 3d 1241, 1242. In my opinion, the per curiam's conclusory review of facts and law cannot justify the extreme action of reversing a jury's findings.

Weimer, C.J., would grant and docket. Crichton, J., would grant rehearing and assigns reasons.