The case involved Linda Morgan's appeal of her conviction on twelve counts of health care fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1347 and one count of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371, arising from her role in a scheme to bill Medicare for durable medical equipment such as wheelchairs. At trial, the government presented evidence that Morgan signed Certificates of Medical Necessity listing herself as the treating physician for patients she had never examined, that she was not licensed in the relevant states, and that she had sold the prescriptions to a co-conspirator for substantial payments while her Medicare provider number had been deactivated. The district court admitted business records and other evidence over Morgan's objections, and the jury found her guilty. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Morgan knowingly participated in a scheme to defraud a health care benefit program and conspired with others to do so.
In McKenzie v. Webster Parish School Board, the Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed a writ application seeking further review of a lower court decision in a dispute involving Gerald McKenzie and the school board. The court denied the writ, declining to hear the case on the merits. Justice Dennis noted that he would have granted the writ, while Justice Victory was recused from the panel.
The case involves a lawsuit by Daniel Griffin Jr. and his wife against Danos and Curole Marine Contractors, Inc. and the Gray Insurance Company arising from events related to the company's marine operations. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application seeking review of a lower court decision. The opinion provides no additional reasoning or explanation for the denial beyond the statement that it was denied, with one justice noted as not participating.
The case was a civil lawsuit brought by Kathy C. Haydel individually and on behalf of her minor children against Hercules Transport, Inc., and several other companies involved in transportation and fertilizer businesses. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application. The denial was issued on the showing made by the applicants. One justice indicated he would have granted the writ while another was not on the panel.
The case involved Jackie West and Lana West as plaintiffs suing Louisiana Indemnity Company along with insurance agencies Welch Nichols Agency, Inc., Patterson Agency Inc., and American Agency Inc. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application filed in the matter. The opinion provides no further details on the underlying dispute or any reasoning for the denial.
The case involved a lawsuit by plaintiff Yuolanda Burris against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Richard Alred. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application, leaving the lower court's decision in place. The court's order provided no substantive reasoning or discussion of the underlying claims. One justice noted that he would have granted the writ to review the matter.
The case Vaughn v. Slaughter was a civil dispute between Albert Vaughn, doing business as Vaughn & Associates, and Madeleine Slaughter. The Supreme Court of Louisiana denied the writ application seeking review of a lower court decision. No reasoning for the denial was provided in the court's order. Justice Dennis indicated he would have granted the writ, while Justice Johnson did not participate.
The case Dolese v. Harvey was a civil dispute between Rodney and Evelyn Dolese and Robert and Theresa Harvey that reached the Louisiana Supreme Court on a writ application. The court denied the writ, leaving the lower court's decision undisturbed. Justices Dennis and Lemmon noted that they would have granted the writ for further review. Justice Johnson was recused and did not participate in the decision.
The case Gordon v. Waste Management of New Orleans (Residential) involved a dispute between an individual plaintiff and the defendant waste management company. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the application presented for its review. The brief opinion states only "Denied" and notes that one justice was not on the panel, without providing any further reasoning or details about the underlying claims.
The case Beis v. Bowers concerns a lawsuit filed by Joyce Beis against attorney W. Lloyd Bowers, his law firm Wiedemann & Fransen, and an insurance company. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the relator's application in this matter. The court allowed the relator to raise any defense on appeal in the event of an adverse judgment on the merits.
The case of Vaughan v. Hair involved a dispute between James A. Vaughan and defendants including Tom Hair, several insurance companies, and Chemical Control, Inc. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application for review. The brief opinion noted that one justice was not on the panel but provided no additional reasoning or analysis.
This case involved a dispute between William Raymond Smith and Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company. The Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed an application for supervisory writs but denied relief without further explanation. Justice Dennis noted that he would have granted the writ, while Justice Lemmon was not on the panel. The denial leaves the lower court's decision in place.
This case involved a lawsuit filed by Nita Beecher as tutrix for minor child Senekah Leigh Beecher and Mark E. Gassaway as tutor for minor child Kristin Lynn Gassaway against Thomas G. Keel, III and other defendants. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the application for writ of review. The brief opinion provided no further explanation or reasoning for the denial, noting only that one justice was not on the panel.
The case involved a multi-vehicle chain-reaction accident on an interstate overpass in rainy conditions, in which several drivers including Brown, Cranford, Noble, Ferrell, and Paudice were sued for negligence. A jury found Brown and Cranford not negligent, found Ferrell negligent but not a proximate cause, and apportioned fault percentages among the remaining parties. The Court of Appeal affirmed under manifest-error review. The Supreme Court held that Brown was negligent because hydroplaning did not excuse her duty to maintain control of her vehicle, that the jury's inconsistent interrogatory answers on Ferrell's negligence and causation were legal error requiring correction, and that the case must be remanded to the Court of Appeal for de novo review and reallocation of fault percentages among the negligent parties.
The case concerned Billy Gene Viviano's application for a medical review panel in connection with malpractice claims against psychologist Charles E. Moan and physician Dudley M. Stewart. Viviano had filed related lawsuits alleging professional negligence by the defendants. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the application for review. No reasoning or further explanation was provided in the court's order.
The case concerned the interdiction of Elinor Naberschnig Smith, a proceeding to determine legal guardianship or incapacity. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application seeking review. No substantive opinion or reasoning was issued beyond the denial itself, with one justice noting a preference to grant the writ.
The case concerned whether Louisiana's statutory definition of 'minor child' for survivors' benefits under the State Employees Retirement System unconstitutionally discriminated against illegitimate children of male members by requiring them to obtain a court order of filiation during the father's lifetime, while legitimate children and illegitimate children of female members faced no such requirement. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that the classification violated Article I, § 3 of the state constitution, which bars arbitrary discrimination based on birth. The court applied equal protection scrutiny and concluded that the lifetime filiation rule did not substantially advance the state's interest in preventing stale or fraudulent claims and instead imposed an undue burden on illegitimate children. The trial court's ruling declaring the statute unconstitutional was affirmed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings on the benefits claim.
The case concerned whether an employee injured by hazardous or toxic substances could recover exemplary or punitive damages from his employer under Louisiana Civil Code Article 2315.3, or whether the workers' compensation act's exclusivity provision barred such claims. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that the exclusivity rule does not bar punitive damages claims because they serve a different purpose than compensatory damages and were not contemplated when the workers' compensation statute was enacted. The court further ruled that Article 2315.3 permits punitive damages for injuries caused by the defendant's wanton or reckless disregard for public safety in the storage, handling, or transportation of hazardous substances, but only when the injury results from the hazardous or toxic nature of the substances themselves. The decision rested on the plain language of the statute, its purpose to punish and deter, and the distinction between punitive and compensatory remedies.
This case involved disciplinary proceedings against Louisiana attorney James F. Quaid stemming from his representation of a client seeking Social Security disability benefits. The Social Security Administration found that Quaid had charged excessive and unauthorized fees without required approval, directed release of withheld funds without authorization, and made misrepresentations about fees and escrow arrangements, resulting in his suspension from practice before the SSA. The Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed the record of those findings along with evidence of Quaid's prior disciplinary history and determined that his conduct violated professional rules governing fee petitions and representations to the SSA. The court revoked Quaid's license to practice law in Louisiana, ordered his name stricken from the roll of attorneys, and required proof of restitution efforts for any future readmission application, citing the aggravating weight of the prior sanctions.
This case involved a dispute over a 1985 real estate purchase agreement for property in Franklin, Louisiana, priced at $115,000, which included a clause allowing the seller to either demand specific performance or declare the buyer's $1,000 deposit forfeited if the buyer failed to perform. After the buyer defaulted, the seller sued for specific performance but later sold the property to a third party for $90,000 and amended her suit to seek court-determined damages, including the price difference. The trial court awarded $25,000 in damages, finding the seller had mitigated her losses and was released from the stipulated clause, but the court of appeal reduced the award to $1,000, and the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed that decision. The court held that the seller remained bound by the stipulated damages clause under Civil Code articles 1986 and 2012, which prevent judicial modification unless the amount is manifestly unreasonable and contrary to public policy, and that the duty to mitigate damages under article 2002 does not apply when damages have been stipulated in advance.