Michelle Detraz v. Victor Lee D/B/A Virgin Nails

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

04-988 MICHELLE DETRAZ

VERSUS

VICTOR LEE D/B/A VIRGIN NAILS

********** ON REMAND FROM THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 20026019 HONORABLE HERMAN C. CLAUSE, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX CHIEF JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Sylvia R. Cooks, Michael G. Sullivan, Billy Howard Ezell, and James T. Genovese, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Philip Stephen Aucoin, Jr. Stacy S. Lee 400 East Kaliste Saloom Road - Suite 1400 Lafayette, LA 70508 Telephone: (337) 291-1743 COUNSEL FOR: Defendants/Appellees - Bechin Huynh and Bechin Huynh, d/b/a Virgin Nails

Chris Paul Villemarette Scott M. Hawkins Hawkins, Garbin & Villemarette, LLC 102 Asthma Boulevard - Saloom III Suite 110 Lafayette, LA 70508 Telephone: (337) 233-8005 COUNSEL FOR: Plaintiff/Appellant - Michelle Detraz THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge.

After concluding that the jury was correct in failing to find causation in

this case, the Louisiana Supreme Court remanded this case so that we may “consider

the plaintiff’s remaining assignments of error.” Detraz v. Lee, d/b/a Virgin Nails, 05-

1263, p. 12 (La. 1/17/07), ___ So.2d ___.

The plaintiff entreats us to find that the trial court’s failure to bring the

jury into the courtroom to review the alleged inconsistent testimony of Dr. Ronald

Daigle was reversible error. We decline the plaintiff’s invitation. While the trial

court incorrectly refused to allow the jurors back into the courtroom, La.Code Civ.P.

art. 1795 accords discretionary power to the trial court. Even if the jurors were

brought into the courtroom, Section B of Article 1795 does not mandate that the trial

judge must allow the reading of the requested testimony.

The plaintiff further complains that the alternate juror should have been

discharged once the jury retired to begin deliberations. We agree. However, the

record fails to disclose that the alternate juror participated in the deliberations. The

alternate juror’s mere presence during jury deliberations was harmless.

CONCLUSION

Considering the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

AFFIRMED.