STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
2019 CA 1145
BRADY BASS
VERSUS
DISA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC., CONVENIENT CARE, L.L.C. D/B/ A TOTAL OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE, RANDY B. BARNETT, D.O., AND PSYCHEMEDICS CORPORATION
Judgment Rendered: JUN 1 2 2020
On Appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Trial Court No. 661, 547
The Honorable William A. Morvant, Judge Presiding
Pamela W. Carter Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellant, New Orleans, Louisiana Brady Bass
Ann M. Halphen Attorneys for Defendant/ Appellee, Sarah N. White Convenient Care, L.L.C. d/ b/ a Baton Rouge, Louisiana Total Occupational Medicine
George Hardy Robinson, Jr. Attorneys for Defendants/ Appellees, Lafayette, Louisiana DISA Global Solutions, Inc. and and Randy B. Barnett Holly H. Williamson William Michael Reed Houston, Texas
Charles H. Hollis Attorneys for Defendant/ Appellee, Allison A. Fish Psychemedics Corporation New Orleans, Louisiana
BEFORE: HIGGINBOTHAM, PENZATO, AND LANIER, JJ. PENZATO, J.
Appellant, Brady Bass, appeals a trial court judgment granting appellee' s,
Convenient Care, L.L.C., d/ b/ a Total Occupational Medicine ( Total), summary
judgment and dismissing all claims against it. For the reasons that follow, we
reverse and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Bass originally filed a petition for damages against Total, DISA Global
Solutions, Inc. ( DISA), Dr. Randy B. Barnett, D.O. 1, and Psychemedics
Corporation ( Psychemedics) averring that on January 16, 2017, he was directed to
Total for the administration of an employment- related urine and hair sample drug
test. Although the petition and first amended petition refer to urine and hair
sample drug tests being performed, Bass also underwent a breathalyzer test for
alcohol use. The results of both the alcohol and urine test were negative.
However, the hair test reflected a positive result for marijuana use. Bass alleged
that the drug test specimen was collected by Total under the direction of DISA
trained and managed employees at Total' s clinic, and that the hair sample was sent
to Psychemedics for chemical analysis. Bass' s first amended petition alleged that
personnel at Total committed acts of negligence by collecting his hair sample in
an unsterile, disorganized, and unsanitary area while using unsterile collection
equipment. , 2 He further alleged that Total negligently collected his " hair sample
in conditions and under a situation wherein the hair sample was likely to be mis-
labeled or otherwise contaminated[.]" Bass also claimed that Total personnel were
negligent by not following the protocol mandated by the Substance Abuse and
1 Dr. Barnett filed a declinatory exception of lack of personal jurisdiction, which the trial court granted dismissing all claims against Dr. Barnett. Subsequently, Bass filed a first amended petition for damages naming Dr. Jerome Cooper, D.O. as a defendant. 2 By way of amendment, Bass sought to have the first amended petition to be totally substituted for the original petition.
2 Mental Health Services Administration ( SAMSHA)3 by failing to have him initial the hair sample. Bass asserted that the hair collection procedure permitted his hair
sample to be erroneously identified. He averred that Total' s less than sterile
collection procedures and negligent handling of the hair sample led to a false -
positive result for marijuana, and he sought damages resulting from the alleged
false -positive drug test. Bass also alleged that Total committed acts of negligence
per se by violating the statutory duties contained in La. R.S. 49: 1001 et seq.,
SAMHSA and PHMSA.'
Total filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that Bass cannot
produce any facts or evidence to substantiate his allegations that Total negligently
collected his hair sample or that the hair sample was likely mislabeled. In support
of the motion, Total attached the first amended petition, the deposition of Matthew
Guarisco,5 along with numerous attachments, and the deposition of Bass, along
with numerous attachments. Bass opposed Total' s motion for summary judgment
and submitted numerous exhibits therein. Total filed a reply memorandum and
objected to the expert affidavit that had been submitted by Bass in opposition to
the motion for summary judgment. A hearing was held on April 29, 2019, and the
trial court orally granted the motion for summary judgment. On May 8, 2019, the
trial court signed a judgment in accordance with its oral ruling, granting Total' s
motion for summary judgment and dismissing Bass' s claims against Total with
prejudice. It is from this judgment that Bass appeals.
3 SAMHSA means the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. La. R.S. 49: 1001( 8).
4 PHMSA appears to be the United States Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Bass has pointed to no specific provision of either of PHMSA or SAMHSA that Total has violated.
5 Although the deposition of Guarisco spells his name " Giarusco," he requested that the entire deposition be changed to reflect the correct spelling.
3 ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Bass assigns as error that the trial court erred in finding no genuine issues of
material fact, in weighing summary judgment evidence, and in making inadvertent
credibility determinations.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Summary judgment procedure is favored and " is designed to secure the just,
speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action .... and shall be construed to
accomplish these ends." La. C. C. P. art. 966( A)(2). In reviewing the trial court' s
decision on a motion for summary judgment, this court applies a de novo standard
of review using the same criteria applied by the trial courts to determine whether
summary judgment is appropriate. Reynolds v. Bordelon, 2014- 2371 ( La. 6/ 30/ 15),
172 So. 3d 607, 610.
After an opportunity for adequate discovery, a motion for summary
judgment shall be granted if the motion, memorandum, and supporting documents
show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that the mover is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. La. C. C. P. art. 966( A)(3). The only documents
that may be filed in support of or in opposition to the motion are pleadings,
memoranda, affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, certified medical
records, written stipulations, and admissions. La. C. C. P. art. 966( A)(4).
The mover bears the burden of proving that he is entitled to summary
judgment. However, if the mover will not bear the burden of proof at trial on the
subject matter of the motion, he need only demonstrate the absence of factual
support for one or more essential elements of his opponent' s claim, action, or
defense. La. C. C. P. art. 966( D)( 1). If the moving party points out that there is an
absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to the adverse party' s
claim, action, or defense, then the nonmoving party must produce factual support
11 sufficient to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact or that the
mover is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. C. C. P. art. 966( D)( 1);
Holmes v. Lea, 2017- 1268 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 5/ 18/ 18), 250 So. 3d 1004, 1009.
In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the trial court' s role is not to
evaluate the weight of the evidence or to determine the truth of the matter, but
instead to determine whether there is a genuine issue of triable fact. Janney v.
Pearce, 2009- 2103 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 5/ 7/ 10), 40 So. 3d 285, 289, writ denied,
2010- 1356 ( La. 9/ 24/ 10), 45 So. 3d 1078. A " genuine" issue is a triable issue,
which means that an issue is genuine if reasonable persons could disagree; if on the
state of the evidence, reasonable persons could reach only one conclusion, there is
no need for a trial on that issue. A fact is " material" when its existence or
nonexistence may be essential to plaintiffs cause of action under the applicable
theory of recovery. Kasem v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2016- 0217 ( La. App.
1st Cir. 2/ 10/ 17), 212 So. 3d 6, 13.
LAW AND DISCUSSION
Louisiana courts have adopted a duty -risk analysis in determining whether to
impose liability under general negligence principles. Williams v. Gulf Coast
Occupational Med., Inc., 2015- 1130 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 2/ 26/ 16), 2016 WL 770376,
at * 3 ( unpublished), writ denied, 2016- 0577 ( La. 5/ 13/ 16), 191 So. 3d 1056 ( citing
La. C. C. art. 2315; Lemann v. Essen Lane Daiquiris, Inc., 2005- 1095 ( La.
3/ 10/ 06), 923 So. 2d 627, 632- 633). For liability to attach under a duty -risk
analysis, a plaintiff must prove: ( 1) the defendant had a duty to conform his
conduct to a specific standard ( the duty element); ( 2) the defendant failed to
conform his conduct to the appropriate standard ( the breach of duty element); ( 3)
the defendant' s substandard conduct was a cause -in -fact of the plaintiff' s injuries
the cause -in -fact element); ( 4) the defendant' s substandard conduct was a legal
M cause of the plaintiff' s injuries ( the scope of liability or scope of protection
element); and ( 5) actual damages ( the damages element). A negative answer to
any of the inquiries of the duty -risk analysis results in a determination of no
liability. Williams, 2016 WL 770376, at * 3( citing Catania ex rel. Catania v.
Stephens, 2014- 1294, 2015 WL 1228521, * 11 ( La. App. lst Cir. 3/ 17/ 15)
unpublished), writs denied, 2015- 0734 and 2015- 0735 ( La. 6/ 1/ 15), 171 So. 3d
933, 934). Therefore, to carry the burden on summary judgment, Total was
required to show an absence of factual support for any of the foregoing elements of
Bass' s negligence cause of action.
Total maintains that Bass failed to produce factual support for two essential
elements to his claim: ( 1) that Total, through its employee, Matthew Guarisco,
failed to conform its conduct to the appropriate standard of care; and ( 2) that
Total' s alleged substandard conduct would cause a false -positive result in a hair
sample that should have tested negative for marijuana.
Breach of Standard of Care
Generally, under Louisiana law a person' s duty toward another can be
simply stated as the obligation to conform to the standard of conduct of an average
reasonable man under same or similar circumstances. Elliott v. Laboratory
Specialists, Inc., 588 So. 2d 175, 176 ( La. App. 5th Cir. 1991), writ denied, 592
So. 2d 415 ( La. 1992). Thus, for Total to have breached any duty, first one must
be owed and secondly it must have acted unreasonably in collecting the hair
sample. See Elliott, 588 So. 2d at 176.
Total submitted the deposition of Guarisco, a certified hair sample collector,
who took Bass' s hair sample on January 16, 2017. Guarisco, who was certified by
Psychemedics to perform hair testing, testified as to his process. Guarisco testified
that he wears gloves with every test, including for hair samples. He explained that
0 in performing hair drug screens he first wipes down the table. He then opens an
envelope that contains a piece of aluminum foil ( foil boat), alcohol wipe, and red
tamper tape seal.b In addition to wiping down the table, Guarisco also places a
paper towel on the table and puts the foil boat on top of it. Guarisco stated that he
opens the alcohol wipe and cleans the scissors in front of the patient before cutting
the hair from the person' s head. He then shows the patient that there is nothing
inside the envelope, and he places the hair inside the foil boat, which is then placed
inside the envelope. Guarisco seals the hair sample inside the envelope with two
adhesive strips and slides it to the patient to place his initials on the envelope.
Guarisco then places a red tamper evidence seal over the original seal.
After the envelope is sealed, the patient initials the chain of custody form,7
and Guarisco initials, signs and dates the seal. The label bears a number which is
placed on the seal of the envelope. The patient also signs the seal to acknowledge
that he has not adulterated the hair sample. Guarisco folds up the chain of custody
form, places it in the envelope with the hair test, seals it, and places it in
Pyschemedics' bin. Guarisco stated that the chain of custody form was given to
Bass to sign.
Bass claims that a question of fact remains as to whether Total breached its
duty of care to ensure that the integrity of the sample is maintained by collecting
the hair in an unsanitary and unsterile manner that may have resulted in a false
positive test. The negligent acts that Bass complains Total committed through
Guarisco were ( 1) collecting the hair sample in an unsanitary and disorganized
manner; ( 2) not following the proper protocol mandated by SAMHSA and
6 Although only Bass refers to the term " foil boat," we use his terminology for the sake of simplicity.
7 The chain of custody form is entitled " Psychemedics Forensic Drug Testing Custody and Control Form."
7 Louisiana Drug Testing laws; and ( 3) collecting the hair sample in a situation
where the hair sample was likely to be mislabeled. Bass further complains that
Total committed errors by ( 1) failing to make lockers available; ( 2) failing to
advise him to wash his hands; ( 3) failing to show him the scissors and table being
wiped; ( 4) failing to put paper between the foil boat and the table; and ( 5)
distractions to Guarisco during the hair trimming.
As to the protocol, Bass testified that the hair sample was taken from the
back of his head with a pair of scissors. He did not recall whether Guarisco wiped
down the scissors, and he did not observe the table being wiped down. Bass did
not remember if Guarisco was wearing gloves. Bass testified that no sheet of paper
had been placed under the foil boat to prevent the hair from contacting the table.
He further stated that there was hair in the foil boat hanging off the sides and
making contact with the table. He testified that the hair hanging off the foil boat
was put inside the foil boat even though it had touched the table. Bass did not
dispute that the hair in the foil boat was his hair, and agreed that he witnessed his
hair being placed into the foil boat. After the hair sample was sealed in the foil
boat, Bass signed and initialed the chain of custody form and initialed the envelope
into which the hair sample was placed.
Bass also submitted the affidavit of Dana Way, a forensic scientist and
chemist. She opined that errors in collection indicated that the collector was
unreliable. In accordance with La. C. C. P. art. 966( D)( 2), Total objected to the
admissibility of Way' s affidavit as not complying with La. C. C. P. art 967( A).
Total asserted that an expert must have correct and complete facts in order to issue
an accurate opinion. The trial court admitted the affidavit of Way over the
objection of Total, but indicated that the affidavit included generalities and factual
N. discrepancies, and therefore, it did not support Bass' s argument that there were
genuine issues of material fact.
The present case is similar to Thompson v. Center for Pediatric &
Adolescent Medicine, L.L. C., 2017- 1088 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 3/ 15/ 18), 244 So. 3d
441, 444, writ denied, 2018- 0583 ( La. 6/ 1/ 18), 243 So. 3d 1062, where the trial
court allowed an expert' s affidavit into evidence but found it insufficient to create
a genuine issue of material fact. Affidavits used to support or oppose a motion for
summary judgment must comply with La. C. C. P. art. 967( A), which provides that
an affidavit of an expert may set forth " opinions on the facts as would be
admissible in evidence under Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 702, and shall
show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated
therein." Louisiana Code of Evidence article 702 permits an expert to testify in the
form of an opinion if. "(1) The expert' s scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a
fact in issue; ( 2) The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; ( 3) The
testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and ( 4) The expert has
reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case." See also
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 590- 95, 113 S. Ct.
2786, 2795- 98, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 ( 1993); Freeman v. Fon' s Pest Management, Inc.,
2017- 1846 ( La. 2/ 9/ 18), 235 So. 3d 1087, 1089- 90 ( recognizing that Daubert is
now codified in La. C. E. art. 702). The inadequacy of an affidavit offered in
connection with a motion for summary judgment is a " formal defect," which is
waived by the opponent unless he timely objects to the affidavit. Thompson, 244
So. 3d at 446 ( citing Independent Fire Insurance Company v. Sunbeam
Corporation, 99- 2181 ( La. 2/ 29/ 00), 755 So. 2d 226, 235 n. 4).
I Under La. C. C. P. art. 966( D)( 2), "[ a] ny objection to a document shall be
raised in a timely filed opposition or reply memorandum." Pursuant to this
provision, if an expert' s affidavit contains opinions that lack an adequate factual
basis, are not sufficiently reliable, or are otherwise inadmissible under La. C. E. art.
702 and La C. C. P. art. 967( A), the opposing party must object to the affidavit.
Thompson, 244 So. 3d at 446 ( citing La. C. C. P. art. 1425( F); Adolph v. Lighthouse
Property Insurance Corporation, 2016- 1275 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 9/ 8/ 17), 227 So. 3d
316, 320; Dawson v. Harmony, L.L. C., 2012- 1580, ( La. App. 1 Cir. 3/ 22/ 13), 2013
WL 1189381 ( unpublished), writ denied, 2013- 1915 ( La. 11/ 8/ 13), 125 So. 3d
454). We stated in Thompson, " In the absence of an objection or, as here, if the
objection is overruled, the trial court is now statutorily obligated to consider the
expert' s opinions." 244 So. 3d at 446- 47 ( citing La. C. C. P. art. 966( D)( 2)). At
that point, in determining whether the evidence creates a genuine issue of material
fact, the trial court cannot make credibility determinations, evaluate testimony, or
otherwise weigh the evidence. The trial court must assume all affiants are credible.
Thompson, 244 So. 3d at 447.
The instant case presents the same factual scenario as in Thompson that the
expert affidavit was objected to but admitted by the trial court. Because Way' s
affidavit was not excluded pursuant to Total' s objection, her opinion must be
considered in determining whether Bass met his burden of proving the existence of
a genuine issue of material fact or that Total is not entitled to judgment as a matter
of law. See La. C. C. P. art. 966( D)( 2); Thompson, 244 So. 3d at 447.
Total contends that Way' s opinions do not create a genuine issue of material
fact because she relied on incorrect and/ or incomplete facts in reaching her
conclusions. However, in a motion for summary judgment, the reasoning or
methodology underlying an expert' s opinion are relevant only to determine
10 whether the opinions are admissible under La. C. C. P. art. 967( A) and La. C. E. art.
702. Thompson, 244 So. 3d at 447. Similar to the facts in Thompson, once Way' s
affidavit was admitted, Total did not seek review of the trial court' s ruling by filing
an answer to this appeal or seeking a supervisory writ. Therefore, the admissibility
of Way' s affidavit and whether the opinions therein are adequately supported to
meet La. C. E. art. 702 and La. C. C. P. art. 967( A) are not before this court. We are
required to consider the affidavit. See Thompson, 244 So. 3d at 447- 48.
Bass argues that the trial court impermissibly made a credibility
determination in finding that Way' s affidavit did not create a genuine issue of
material fact. Way' s affidavit established that she reviewed several testing results
from Bass, including those from the hair sample collected on January 16, 2017,
which was tested by Psychemedics and retested by Omega Laboratories, Inc.
Omega). Way refers to Bass' s hair sample being " problematic because the errors
in the collector raise doubt about the validity and integrity of the collection
process." She indicates that both the Omega and Psychemedics documents noted
the collection error of missing donor initials on the specimen. Furthermore, the
summary judgment documents submitted by Total include the retesting of the hair 8 sample by Omega, which does state, " No donor initials on specimen." Way
specifically stated that the collection procedure, which included the lack of donor
signature raised doubt about the link between Bass and the specimen submitted
under his name. She indicated that the January 16, 2017 hair sample had no usable
data and should not be considered due to noncompliance with drug testing
protocol. Finally, she stated that the January 16, 2017 hair test " provides collector
8 We note that Total submitted summary judgment evidence that Bass admitted to initialing and signing the hair sample donor form ( also known as the chain of custody form) and the envelope. However, on summary judgment the trial court cannot make credibility determinations, evaluate testimony, or weigh conflicting evidence in deciding a motion for summary judgment. Adolph, 227 So. 3d at 321.
11 errors and urine drug test results for [ Bass] are inconsistent with determining a
positive drug test result." As we are required to consider the affidavit, the affidavit
and deposition of Bass are sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to
the validity and integrity of the collection process.
CONCLUSION
For the above and foregoing reasons, we reverse the May 8, 2019 judgment
of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Convenient Care, L.L.C.,
d/b/ a Total Occupational Medicine and dismissing all claims of Brady Bass against
it. We remand to the trial court for further proceedings. All costs of this appeal
are assessed to Convenient Care, L.L.C. d/b/ a Total Occupational Medicine.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.