The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KATHLEEN BRISSET ROME * CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS * NO. 22-583
ACADEMY SPORTS AND OUTDOORS, * SECTION “P” (2)
INC., ET AL.
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion in Limine Regarding Certain Medical Records filed on behalf
of Plaintiff Kathleen Brisset Rome (“Plaintiff”). ECF No. 174. Defendant Academy, Ltd. d/b/a
Academy Sports + Outdoors (“Academy”) timely filed an Opposition Memorandum. ECF No.
179. Having considered the record, the submissions and arguments of counsel, and the applicable
law, Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine Regarding Certain Medical Records (ECF No. 174) is DENIED
for all the reasons stated herein.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this diversity personal injury suit against Academy to recover for injuries
allegedly sustained on April 9, 2021 when a canopy tent fell off of a shelf and struck Plaintiff on
the back of her neck and head while she was shopping at an Academy location in Metairie. ECF
Nos. 1-1, 10. Trial is set to commence on Monday, April 22, 2024.
Plaintiff seeks to exclude two medical records1 documenting a 2022 examination by Nurse
Practitioner Bradlee Bourgeois at Concentra Urgent Care that Plaintiff was obligated to undergo
pursuant to LA. ADMIN. CODE § 28:CXIII.303 and 49 C.F.R. § 391.141 in order to maintain her
Commercial Driver’s License and continue her work as a school bus driver for the St. Charles
Parish School Board (the “school board”). ECF Nos. 174, 179. Plaintiff argues the 2022
1 A “Medical Records Examination Form” and “Medical Examiner’s Certificate.”
examination forms were obtained in violation of Louisiana law and HIPAA and are thus
inadmissible because Nurse Bourgeois was unauthorized to release the medical records to the
school board, and the records were not obtained by the school board via a subpoena or court order.
In Opposition, Academy argues the school board was required by statute to obtain and
maintain Plaintiff’s physical examination records and to produce these in response to Academy’s
subpoena, which was accompanied by a signed HIPAA authorization. ECF No. 179. Academy
further contends Plaintiff expressly authorized Nurse Bourgeois, as a healthcare provider at
Concentra Urgent Care, to release the records to the school board and that Plaintiff signed
authorizations for the release of medical records by both Concentra and the school board during
the course of this litigation. Id. at 2. Additionally, Academy argues, Plaintiff was independently
obligated to produce the 2022 records in response to Academy’s discovery requests and failed to
do so despite the fact that Plaintiff voluntarily produced her 2021 examination records. Id. at 6.
II. APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
The grant or denial of a motion in limine is within the sound discretion of the trial court
and will be reversed only for abuse of discretion and a showing of prejudice.2 The Federal Rules
of Evidence, rather than state law, govern the admissibility of evidence in diversity cases.3
Plaintiff, however, cites no federal evidentiary rule in support of her motion; she does not argue
that the Concentra medical records are inadmissible hearsay, inauthentic, irrelevant, or even
privileged. Instead, citing LA. REV. STAT. § 13:3715(B)(1), Plaintiff argues that the records should
not be admitted because the medical professional who conducted the subject examination was not
authorized to release the records to the school board. ECF No. 174-1 at 2.
2 Thomas v. Ameritas Life Ins. Corp., 34 F.4th 395, 399 (5th Cir. 2022) (citing Hesling v. CSX Transp., Inc., 396 F.3d
632, 643 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal citation omitted)).
3 See Chevron Oronite Co., L.L.C. v. Jacobs Fields Servs. N. Am., Inc., 951 F.3d 219, 227 (5th Cir. 2020).
LA. REV. STAT. § 13:3715(B)(1) establishes the exclusive method by which medical records
of a patient who is a party to litigation may be disclosed by a healthcare provider in response to a
subpoena. This statute is plainly inapposite to Concentra’s release of Plaintiff’s medical records
to her employer as a part of Plaintiff’s statutory obligation to undergo and file evidence of an
annual physical examination in order to work as a bus driver.4 Plaintiff’s motion fails on this point
alone.5
Moreover, Plaintiff authorized Concentra to disclose the 2022 Physical Examination
Report to “St Charles Parish Public Schools”6 and offers no meaningful distinction between her
authorization to the release the records to the public school system versus the school board tasked
with governing it. Given Plaintiff’s statutory obligation to file a copy of her annual examination
with her local education agency,7 her argument that Nurse Bourgeois’ release of such medical
records to the school board was unauthorized falls flat.
Further, Plaintiff signed HIPAA authorizations for both Concentra Urgent Care and St.
Charles Parish School Board,8 as well as an authorization specifically permitting the school board
to release pre-employment physical examination forms and health records,9 during the course of
this litigation. In light of these authorizations, Plaintiff’s voluntary production of her 2021
4 See LA. ADMIN. CODE § 28: CXIII.303 Bulletin 119- Louisiana School Transportation specifications and Procedures
(“Drivers must pass a physical and eye examination meeting current CDL requirements annually. A copy of the
examination record must be filed with the LEA transportation office before the beginning of each school year.”).
5 Notably, Plaintiff’s citation to State v. Downs, 2004-2402 (La. App. 1 Cir., 9/23/05); 923 So.2d 726, further highlights
the statute’s inapplicability to this case. In Downs, the Louisiana First Circuit reversed the trial court’s denial of
Plaintiff’s motion in limine where the State issued a noncompliant subpoena to obtain blood-alcohol testing records
from a healthcare provider as part of an ongoing criminal prosecution. Here, in accordance with Plaintiff’s signed
authorization, Concentra Urgent Care disclosed Plaintiff’s 2022 examination records to the school board as a part of
Plaintiff’s annual recertification process as required by Louisiana administrative law. Further, to the extent Plaintiff
argues that the school board improperly disclosed her records under LA. REV. STAT. § 13:3715(B)(1), the argument
fails given that the school board is not a “healthcare provider” under the statute.
6 See ECF No. 179 at 5.
7 LA. ADMIN. CODE § 28: CXIII.303.
8 See ECF No. 179 at 5.
9 ECF No. 174-2.
examination records,'° and her designation of “[a]ny and all CDL Physicals” on her final exhibit
list in this matter,!' Plaintiff cannot now argue that the 2022 examination records are inadmissible.
I. CONCLUSION
Despite her arguments otherwise, Plaintiff plainly authorized the release of her 2022 CDL
medical examination records to her local education agency in accordance with her statutory
obligation to undergo and file evidence of an annual physical examination in order to work as a
school bus driver in Louisiana. Further, her citation to the Louisiana procedural law governing a
healthcare provider’s release of medical records in response to a subpoena is inapplicable in this
federal diversity suit. The medical records at issue are relevant, should have been produced in
discovery, and were obtained with Plaintiff’s authorization. Accordingly, for all the foregoing
reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Certain Medical Records
(ECF No. 174) is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 15" day of April, 2024.
fpael paneer psd
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10 See ECF No. 185-7.
ECF No. 117 at 6 § 15.