Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Leet v. Hospital Service District No. 1 of East Baton Rouge Parish

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit

February 28, 2019


          Appealed from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana Docket Number C639818 Honorable R. Michael Caldwell, Judge Presiding

          J. Lee Hoffos, Jr. Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant, Donald W. McKnight Victoria Leet, Individually and on Lake Charles, LA Behalf of All Others Similarly and Situated Derrick G. Earles Lafayette, LA and Scott R. Bickford Lawrence J. Centola, III New Orleans, LA and Andrew J. D' Aquilla St. Francisville, LA Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant, Victoria Leet, Individually and Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated

          David R. Kelly Thomas R. Temple, Jr. Joseph J. Cefalu, III Baton Rouge, LA Counsel for Defendants/Appellees Hospital Service District No. 1 of East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana d/ b/ a Lane Regional Medical Center

          Allison N. Pham Charles A. O' Brien Baton Rouge, LA and Jonathan M. Herman Dallas, TX Counsel for Defendant, Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company d/ b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana


          WHIPPLE, C.J.

         In this appeal involving alleged violations of the Health Care Consumer Billing and Disclosure Protection Act, LSA-R.S. 22:1871 et seg. (hereinafter referred to as "the Balance Billing Act"), plaintiff challenges the trial court's judgment that granted the defendant hospital's motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiffs claims against it. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.


         On May 29, 2014, Victoria Leet was injured in an automobile accident and received treatment at Hospital Service District No. 1 of East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana d/b/a Lane Regional Medical Center (referred to herein as "Lane Regional"). At the time of the accident, Leet was insured under the comprehensive medical benefit plan of her husband's employer, Louisiana Machinery Company, LLC. Through a contract between Louisiana Machinery and Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana ("Blue Cross"), Louisiana Machinery's self-funded plan was administered by Blue Cross, and Louisiana Machinery purchased access to the Blue Cross contracted healthcare provider network, which allows its insureds to seek treatment from network providers at the contracted reimbursement rate. Thus, as a covered beneficiary of a plan participant, Leet was able to obtain treatment from specific providers within the Blue Cross preferred provider network for a reduced rate, with her only responsibility being the applicable copay, deductible, or coinsurance. Lane Regional is a contracted health care provider with Blue Cross. Pursuant to its provider agreement with Blue Cross, Lane Regional contractually agreed to accept these reduced rates as payment in full for services provided to Blue Cross insureds.

         At the time of treatment, Leet presented her Blue Cross insurance card to Lane Regional. However, on June 24, 2014, prior to submitting a claim for its services to Blue Cross, Lane Regional, through its accounts receivable contractor, asserted a lien, by sending medical lien letters to Leet and her attorney, for the full, undiscounted amount of $8, 789.35 against any tort recovery Leet may receive from a third party as a result of the automobile accident. By check dated August 21, 2014, U.S. Agencies Casualty Insurance Company ("US Agencies"), the third-party automobile liability insurer, issued a payment to Lane Regional for $8, 789.35, the full amount of the lien.

         Meanwhile, on July 15, 2014, several weeks after asserting the lien, Lane Regional filed an insurance claim with Blue Cross, seeking reimbursement for the services provided to Leet. Thereafter, on September 16, 2014, after initially "pend/denying" the claim while awaiting additional information, Blue Cross paid Lane Regional for the claim at the reduced, contracted reimbursement rate of $1, 477.74. Despite efforts by Leet's attorney to have Lane Regional reimburse Leet the full amount of any payment over the reduced, contracted rate for the services provided, Lane Regional retained the full, undiscounted payment from USAgencies. With regard to the payment of the reduced, contracted rate from Blue Cross, Lane Regional, after first attempting to return the $1, 477.74 payment to Blue Cross, issued a refund to Leet on December 1, 2014, in the amount of $1, 477.74, as reimbursement of the overpayment on her account.

         Thereafter, on December 10, 2014, Leet filed a petition styled "Class Action Petition for Payment of a Thing Not Due, for Damages, for Declaratory Relief, and for Injunctive Relief in the Twentieth Judicial District Court. Through original and amending petitions, Leet named as defendants Lane Regional; Alegis Revenue Group, LLC, [1] Lane Regional's accounts receivable contractor; and Blue Cross.

         Regarding the claims against Lane Regional, Leet, individually and on behalf of the class, alleged that Lane Regional, in filing a lien and collecting the full, undiscounted rate for services provided to Leet, violated LSA-R.S. 22:1874 of the Balance Billing Act and that, as a result of these allegedly illegal billing practices by Lane Regional, she and those similarly situated were entitled to repayment of all overpayments, damages for mental anguish and emotional distress, loss of profits or use, out-of-pocket expenses, and all other damages allowed by law, as well as attorney's fees, costs, and expenses. Leet, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, also sought declaratory judgment, declaring that the practices of Lane Regional were in violation of law and in breach of contract and that all actions at law asserted by Lane Regional be deemed unenforceable and cancelled, and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, enjoining Lane Regional from refusing to accept a patient's health insurance when a patient has been involved in a liability accident and from maintaining actions at law in violation of LSA-R.S. 22:1874.

         Subsequently, on December 15, 2014, five days after Leet filed suit, but before service was perfected on Lane Regional, Lane Regional issued a second payment to Leet in the amount of $7, 211.61, representing the remaining sums it had retained over the contractually reduced reimbursement rate less Leet's $100.00 copayment.

         After transfer of the suit from the Twentieth Judicial District Court to the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, removal of the suit to federal court, and a remand back to the state district court, Lane Regional filed a motion for summary judgment on February 23, 2018, contending that it was entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law, dismissing plaintiffs claims against it. Specifically, Lane Regional contended that: (1) as a public entity, it was entitled to immunity pursuant to LSA-R.S. 9:2798.1; (2) it did not violate the Balance Billing Act, nor was plaintiff entitled to general damages for its alleged violation of the Act; (3) plaintiffs claims were moot because she received full redress from Lane Regional; and (4) Lane Regional did not breach any "contract" or "quasi-contract" for which plaintiff would have a claim against it, nor did plaintiff sustain any compensable damages for any alleged breach.

         Following a hearing on the motion, the trial court found that Leet's claims were moot because Lane Regional had reimbursed her "all amounts that could conceivably be due to her" and, thus, pretermitted ruling on Lane Regional's remaining arguments in support of its motion. Because Leet was the only identified class representative, the trial court, by judgment dated April 18, 2018, granted Lane Regional's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Leet's claims against it with prejudice. From this judgment, Leet appeals.


         A motion for summary judgment is a procedural device used to avoid a full-scale trial when there is no genuine issue of material fact. Jones v. Anderson, 2016-1361 (La.App. 1st Cir. 6/29/17), 224 So.3d 413, 417. After an opportunity for adequate discovery, a motion for summary judgment shall be granted if the motion, memorandum, and supporting documents show there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. LSA-C.C.P. art. 966(A)(3). The only documents that may be filed in support of or in opposition to the motion are pleadings, memoranda, affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, certified medical records, written stipulations, and admissions.[2] LSA-C.C.P. art. 966(A)(4).

         The burden of proof rests on the mover. Nevertheless, if 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 burden is then on the adverse party to produce factual support sufficient to ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.