Opinion
2022 CW 1381
03-24-2023
KARLA BURGESS v. STEVEN E. WARD AND PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE, GEICO INSURANCE COMPANY, SALLY GORDON, AND USTYA INSURANCE
In Re: United Services Automobile Association and Sally Gordon, applying for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 683067.
BEFORE: McCLENDON, PENZATO, AND LANIER, JJ.
WRIT GRANTED WITH ORDER. The portion of the November 22, 2022 judgment of the trial court ordering defendants, United Services Automobile Association and Sally Gordon, to accept the authorization and disclosure and use forms submitted by plaintiff, Karla Burgess, as edited or provide authorization and disclosure and use forms that are prepared specifically for additional medical examination purposes only, and not for treatment purposes, and that limits the authorization and disclosure and use to purposes appropriate for an additional medical examination, is reversed. Once the court finds that the party seeking an additional medical examination has established good cause for same, the court should presume that the examination will be conducted in a reasonable manner. If the opposing party seeks to have restrictions placed on said examination, the burden shifts to that party to establish special circumstances justifying the imposition of said restrictions. In meeting this burden, one may not rely on mere allegations or speculation, but should produce competent evidence establishing the need for the restrictions and the harm which could result without same. We find that plaintiff failed to produce competent evidence establishing a need for restrictions on her completion of the forms required for the additional medical examination and what harm might result if such restrictions were not imposed. See Augustine v. Safeco Insurance Company of Oregon, 2021-01753 (La. 10/21/22), 351 So.3d 353. Accordingly, we order plaintiff to complete Dr. Robert's forms as provided, without any edits, changes, or additions.
PMc
AHP
WIL