April 5, 2013 - Opinions - Louisiana Supreme Court

<div>
                         <div class="content">
                             <div class="bcrumb">
                                 <ol class="row breadcrumb offprint">
                                     <li><a href="/">Home</a></li>
                                             <li><a href="CourtActions/2013">Court Actions</a></li>

<li class="active">
April 5, 2013 
                                             </li>

</ol>

</div>
                         </div>

<div id="mainbodycontent" class="col col-md-12 mainbodycontent" style="margin-top:-10px;">                    
<table cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="90%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td valign="top" width="63%">FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE</td><td valign="top" width="37%"><div align="right">NEWS RELEASE #019</div></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td valign="top">FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA</td><td valign="top">&nbsp;</td></tr></tbody></table><p>&nbsp;</p><p style="text-align:justify;">The Opinions handed down on the&nbsp;<span style="text-decoration:underline;"><strong>5th day of April, 2013</strong></span>, are as follows:</p><p style="text-align:justify;">&nbsp;</p><p style="text-align:justify;"><span style="text-decoration:underline;"><strong>BY KNOLL, J.:<br /></strong></span></p><p style="text-align:justify;"><a href="/opinions/2013/12C1238.opn.pdf">2012-C -1238 PAUL F. BROUSSARD AND ANDREA V. BROUSSARD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF HIS MINOR CHILD, ARYN PAIGE BROUSSARD v. STATE OF LOUISIANA, THROUGH THE OFFICE OF STATE BUILDINGS, UNDER THE DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION</a>&nbsp;(Parish of E. Baton Rouge)</p><p style="text-align:justify;">Judge Jefferson D. Hughes III was assigned as Justice pro tempore sitting for Kimball, C.J. for oral argument. He now sits as an elected Associate Justice at the time this opinion is rendered.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">For the foregoing reasons, we hereby render judgment reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The District Court's judgment entered in conformity with the jury's verdict is hereby reinstated in its entirety.<br />REVERSED AND RENDERED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT REINSTATED IN ITS ENTIRETY.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">VICTORY, J., dissents and assigns reasons.<br />GUIDRY, J., dissents and assigns reasons.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">&nbsp;</p><p style="text-align:justify;">&nbsp;</p><p style="text-align:justify;"><span style="text-decoration:underline;"><strong>PER CURIAM:<br /></strong></span></p><p style="text-align:justify;"><a href="/opinions/2013/11OB2325.opn.pdf">2011-OB-2325 IN RE: JESS WOOD</a></p><p style="text-align:justify;">After hearing oral argument, reviewing the evidence, and considering the law, we conclude that, at this time, petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proving that he possesses the requisite fitness to be admitted to the Louisiana State Bar Association. See Supreme Court Rule XVII, &sect; 5. Accordingly, it is ordered that the application for admission be and hereby is denied. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XVII, &sect; 9(D)(13), petitioner may re-apply for admission upon a showing that he has complied with any and all recommendations made to him by the Lawyers Assistance Program.<br />ADMISSION DENIED.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">&nbsp;</p><p style="text-align:justify;"><a href="/opinions/2013/12OB1095.opn.pdf">2012-OB-1095 IN RE: KIRK PATRICK ROBERTSON, JR.</a></p><p style="text-align:justify;">After hearing oral argument, reviewing the evidence, and considering the law, we conclude that, at this time, petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proving that he possesses the requisite fitness to be admitted to the Louisiana State Bar Association. See Supreme Court Rule XVII, &sect; 5. The record of this matter reflects that petitioner submitted to a LAP evaluation in July 2011, following which he was diagnosed as suffering from cannabis abuse. The evaluator recommended an intensive outpatient treatment program; however, petitioner has not completed the program in accordance with LAP&rsquo;s recommendation. Accordingly, it is ordered that the application for admission be and hereby is denied. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XVII, &sect; 9(D)(13), petitioner may re-apply for admission upon a showing that he has complied with any and all recommendations made to him by the Lawyers Assistance Program.&nbsp;<br />ADMISSION DENIED.</p><p align="justify" style="font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:medium;margin-bottom:0px;text-align:justify;">&nbsp;</p><p style="text-align:justify;"><a href="/opinions/2013/12C1763.opn.pdf">2012-C -1763 JOHN BENJAMIN, SR., ET AL. v. WILLIAM ZEICHNER, M.D.</a>&nbsp;(Parish of Natchitoches)</p><p style="text-align:justify;">Judge Jefferson D. Hughes III was assigned as Justice pro tempore sitting for Kimball, C.J. for oral argument, and sits as an elected Justice at the time this opinion is rendered.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">For the above reasons, we find the court of appeal erred in its interpretation and application of La. R.S. 9:2794(D)(1). Applying the words of the statute as written, we find that Dr. Shamblin did not meet the mandatory requirements for an expert witness pursuant to La. R.S. 9:2794(D)(1). Dr. Shamblin was not licensed to practice medicine at the time he was to be qualified as an expert, and plaintiffs failed to prove Tulane Medical School was accredited by the LCME when Dr. Shamblin graduated in 1958. Thus, the trial court correctly excluded him as a witness. Finding no expert evidence that defendant breached the standard of care, the trial court properly granted a directed verdict in favor of Dr. Zeichner.<br />REVERSED. RULINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT REINSTATED.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">JOHNSON, C.J., concurs in part, dissents in part and assigns reasons.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">&nbsp;</p>
                </div>

</div>