July 9, 2020 - 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/2020">Court Actions</a></li>

</ol>

</div>
                         </div>

<div id="mainbodycontent" class="col col-md-12 mainbodycontent" style="margin-top:-10px;">                    
 <table cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:justify;" 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 #024</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><div class="nrbody"><style>.nrbody h1{ display:block; font-size:1em; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; } .nrbody p { text-align:justify; } .nrdate { font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; } </style> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>The Opinions handed down on the <span class="nrdate">9th day of July, 2020</span> are as follows:</p><h1>BY Crichton, J.:</h1><p><a href="/Opinions/2020/19-1496.C.OPN.pdf">2019-C-01496 MATTHEW A. DEPHILLIPS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED VS. HOSPITAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 1 OF TANGIPAHOA PARISH, DOING BUSINESS AS NORTH OAKS MEDICAL CENTER/NORTH OAKS HEALTH SYSTEM C/W EARNEST WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED VS. HOSPITAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 1 OF TANGIPAHOA PARISH D/B/A NORTH OAKS HEALTH SYSTEM AND NORTH OAKS MEDICAL CENTER, AND LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE &amp; INDEMNITY COMPANY D/B/A BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF LOUISIANA</a> (Parish of Tangipahoa)<br />This matter arises from alleged violations of the Health Care Consumer Billing and Disclosure Protection Act, La. R.S. 22:1871, et seq. (&ldquo;Balance Billing Act&rdquo; or &ldquo;Act&rdquo;). We granted this writ to resolve the question of whether a patient&rsquo;s claims against a contracted healthcare provider for an alleged violation of La. R.S. 22:1874(A)(1) are delictual in nature. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the court of appeal, finding plaintiff&rsquo;s claims are delictual in nature and subject to a one-year prescriptive period. <br />AFFIRMED. REMANDED.</p><p>Retired Judge James Boddie, Jr., appointed Justice ad hoc, sitting for Justice Clark.</p><p>Johnson, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons.<br />Hughes, J., dissents and assigns reasons.<br />Genovese, J., dissents and assigns reasons.<br />Crain, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h1>BY Boddie, J.:</h1><p><a href="/Opinions/2020/18-1012.KH.OPN.pdf">2018-KH-01012 STATE OF LOUISIANA VS. DERRICK L. HARRIS</a> (Parish of Vermilion)<br />We granted this writ to consider whether relator Derrick Harris, who is serving a life sentence imposed pursuant to the Habitual Offender law, may litigate a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing on post-conviction review. Given the fundamental right involved, after a review of the record, we hold relator&rsquo;s ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing claim is cognizable on collateral review. Thus, we grant relator&rsquo;s writ, in part, and remand the matter to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to consider his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing.</p><p>Retired Judge James Boddie, Jr., appointed Justice ad hoc, sitting for Justice Clark.</p><p>Johnson, C.J., concurs for the reasons assigned by Crichton, J.<br />Weimer, J., concurs and assigns reasons.<br />Crichton, J., concurs with the result and assigns reasons.<br />Genovese, J., concurs with the result for the reasons assigned by Johnson, C.J. and Crichton, J.<br />Crain, J., dissents and assigns reasons.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h1>PER CURIAM:</h1><p><a href="/Opinions/2020/19-1273.KK.OPN.pdf">2019-KK-01273 STATE OF LOUISIANA VS. JASON M. MICHAEL</a> (Parish of Ascension)<br />We find that the district court did not err in denying defendant&rsquo;s motion to suppress the BAC evidence and that Birchfield does not require the BAC results to be suppressed in this case. The matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.<br />AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.</p><p>Retired Judge James Boddie, Jr., appointed Justice ad hoc, sitting for Justice Clark.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="/Opinions/2020/19-0073.KH.OPN.pdf">2019-KH-00073 STATE OF LOUISIANA VS. ROBERT E. RICARD, JR.</a> (Parish of Tangipahoa)<br />While it is conceivable that the sentencing range in the molestation jury instruction (to which counsel did not object) had an effect on the outcome of the proceeding, defendant must show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel&rsquo;s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. It is not enough to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding. Counsel&rsquo;s errors must be so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial in which the result is reliable. Defendant, who presents only a conceivable possibility, has failed to carry his post-conviction burden of establishing a reasonable probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the verdict. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of relief on collateral review.<br />AFFIRMED.</p><p>Retired Judge James Boddie, Jr., appointed Justice ad hoc, sitting for Justice Clark.<br />Retired Justice Jeannettte Knoll appointed as Justice ad hoc sitting for Crain, J., recused in case number 2019-KH-00073 only.</p><p>Crichton, J., concurs for the reasons assigned by Knoll, J.<br />Knoll, J., concurs and assigns reasons.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> </div>
                </div>

</div>