Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-818-SDD-SCR
12-18-2014
CAROLE K. BROWDY, M.D. v. HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE CO. AND "THE GROUP SHORT TERM DISABILITY AND LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF AEROSPACE TESTING ALLIANCE-SALARIED"
RULING
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Plaintiff, Carole K. Browdy, M.D. ("Plaintiff"). Defendant, Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company ("Hartford" has filed an Opposition to this motion. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this Court's Ruling and Judgment dismissing her claims and granting summary judgment on behalf of Hartford.
Rec. Doc. No. 72.
Rec. Doc. No. 74.
Rec. Doc. No. 70.
Rec. Doc. No. 71.
The motion was filed within 28 days of the relevant ruling; thus, it is evaluated pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. "A Rule 59(e) motion calls into question the correctness of a judgment." However, a Rule 59(e) motion is "not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment." Rather, a motion for reconsideration is for the purpose of correcting "manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence."
Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478 (5th Cir. 2004)(citation and quotations omitted).
Id. at 479.
Id. (citations and quotations omitted).
Plaintiff contends the Court committed manifest legal error in its Ruling. However, all of Plaintiff's reconsideration claims were made in the briefs before the Court at the time of the Ruling, Plaintiff offers no new evidence that was not considered by the Ruling, and Plaintiff fails to point to "manifest error" rather her own disagreement with the Court's application of controlling law to the undisputed facts of the case. Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 59(e). Simply disagreeing with the Court's decision is not a grounds for reconsideration. The Court carefully considered all of Plaintiff's claims and legal arguments, and the Court stands by the analysis and reasoning set forth in the Ruling.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
Rec. Doc. No. 72.
--------
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on December 18, 2014.
/s/_________
JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA