Soileau & Associates, LLC, et al v. Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company

Filing 229

ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 207 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Judge Wendy B Vitter on 10/26/2020. (Reference: All Cases)(jeg)

Case 2:18-cv-00710-WBV-DMD Document 229 Filed 10/26/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SOILEAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 18-710-WBV-DMD
c/w 18-7613

LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE
& INDEMNITY COMPANY

SECTION: D (3)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion For Reconsideration, filed by plaintiffs, Soileau &
Associates, LLC, Isaac H. Soileau, Jr. and Karen S. Kovach, individually and on
behalf of K.S., a minor child.1 Plaintiffs seek reconsideration and/or clarification of
the Court’s April 23, 2020 Order and Reasons, granting Louisiana Health Service &
Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana’s (“Blue Cross’”)
Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiffs’ Proposed Experts.2 Blue Cross opposes the
Motion,3 and Plaintiffs have filed a Reply.4
After considering the briefs submitted by the parties and the applicable law,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion For Reconsideration5 is DENIED.
Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertions, the Court’s April 23, 2020 Order and Reasons was
narrowly written to prohibit Plaintiffs from offering any expert opinions or reports
from Dr. Daniel N. Davidow, Dr. David M. Greer, Dr. Manal Durgin, Dr. Milton

R. Doc. 207.
R. Doc. 206.
3 R. Doc. 209.
4 R. Doc. 214.
5 R. Doc. 207.
1
2

Case 2:18-cv-00710-WBV-DMD Document 229 Filed 10/26/20 Page 2 of 2

Anderson, Dr. Betty Muller and Dr. Ronald Federici as “medical expert[s]” concerning
“the course of treatment, diagnoses and medical necessity for treatment of K.S.”
because such evidence is not part of the administrative record and does not fit within
the Fifth Circuit’s narrow exception for supplemental expert evidence allowed in an
ERISA case brought pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B).6 The Court’s prior Order
does not exclude from the administrative record reports and records from these
treating physicians that are already part of the administrative record, nor does it
prohibit Plaintiffs from introducing supplemental evidence from these physicians
that is not part of the administrative record, but falls squarely within one of the
limited exceptions recognized by the Fifth Circuit in Crosby v. Louisiana Health
Service and Indem. Co., 647 F.3d 258, 263 (5th Cir. 2011).
New Orleans, Louisiana, October 26, 2020.

______________________________________
WENDY B. VITTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

R. Doc. 206 at pp. 11-12 (citing Ariana M. v. Humana Health Plan of Texas, Inc., 884 F.3d 246, 256
(5th Cir. 2018) (citing Vega v. Nat’l Life Ins. Servs., Inc., 188 F.3d 287, 299-300 (5th Cir. 1999))).
6

2