John W. Tew, II v. United Services Automobile Association, Timothy Andries, and GEICO General Insurance Company

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: March 15, 2021
• Docket: 2020CW1307
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

JOHN W. TEW, II NO. 2020 CW 1307

VERSUS

UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, TIMOTHY ANDRIES AND GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

CONSOLIDATED WITH

JOHN W. TEW, II

GOAUTO INSURANCE COMPANY AND MARCH 15, 2021 EARL V. HUTTON

In Re: John W. Tew, II, applying for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 656812 c/ w 657425.

BEFORE: McDONALD, HOLDRIDGE, AND PENZATO, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. The writ is granted in part, and the portion of the trial court' s December 11, 2020 order that granted the motion to compel an examination by a vocational rehabilitation filed expert by United Services Automobile Association ( USAA) is reversed. The minute entry reflects that mover, USAA, failed to introduce evidence during the hearing on the motion. When a party raises a motion that must be proven, it is that burden to party' s present evidence establishing the claims made therein. Evidence not properly and officially offered and introduced cannot be considered, even if it is physically placed in the record. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 1464; Landis Construction Co. v. State, 2015- 1167 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 2/ 29/ 16), 199 So. 3d 1, 2- 3. There was no evidence properly admitted upon which the trial court could rely to find that USAA satisfied its burden of proof per La. Code Civ. P. art. 1464. The writ is denied as to the portion of the order granting USAA' Robert s motion to compel an additional medical examination by Dr. Everett. It appears the plaintiff has already submitted to the ordered examination, thus, rendering the issue moot. See In re E. W., 2009- 1589 ( La. 1st Cir. App. 5/ 7/ 10), 38 So. 3d 1033, 1036- 37 ( It is well settled that courts will not decide abstract, hypothetical, or moot controversies. When an issue is moot, any judicial pronouncement on the matter would be an

impermissible advisory opinion.).

JMM GH AHP

CO OF APP FIR T CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CL R OF COURT FOR THE COURT