342 So.3d 975
La. Ct. App.2022Background:
- Mrs. Reynolds created Walgreens.com accounts for herself (Apr. 1, 2015) and for child K.Q. (June 11, 2015); Walgreens employee Jyl Feske allegedly accessed pharmacy records between May 2014 and June 2015.
- During a custody dispute, Mrs. Reynolds alleged she’d been blocked from K.Q.’s account and that Feske had changed contact info and accessed confidential records; Mrs. Reynolds filed an OCR complaint on Oct. 31, 2016.
- At custody hearings on June 12 and 16, 2017, testimony confirmed Feske accessed the Reynolds’ records and disclosed Mr. Reynolds’ medication to third parties.
- Walgreens’ investigator emailed Mrs. Reynolds Oct. 5, 2017 (explaining limits of Walgreens.com family accounts but acknowledging employee-system access) and Walgreens sent breach letters on Apr. 13, 2018 apologizing and admitting possible employee access/disclosure.
- The Reynolds sued Walgreens Feb. 12, 2019; Walgreens filed a prescription (statute of limitations) exception; trial court dismissed all claims as prescribed (Jan. 28, 2021). Appeal followed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mrs. Reynolds’ claims are time‑barred under La. C.C. art. 3492 | Mrs. Reynolds argues contra non valentem tolled prescription until Walgreens completed its investigation (Feb. 23, 2018) | Walgreens argues Mrs. Reynolds had constructive/actual knowledge by Oct. 31, 2016 and June 2017 hearings, so suit (filed Feb. 2019) is prescribed | Affirmed: Mrs. Reynolds’ claims are prescribed — she had sufficient knowledge (OCR complaint Oct. 31, 2016) |
| Whether Mr. Reynolds’ claims are time‑barred | Mr. Reynolds contends he did not know his own records were accessed until June 12, 2017, so prescription began then (contra non valentem/discovery rule) | Walgreens argues constructive knowledge existed earlier and that plaintiffs were on notice from prior events and filings | Reversed in part: Court found Mr. Reynolds lacked sufficient knowledge before June 12, 2017, so contra non valentem applied to delay accrual |
| Whether Walgreens’ Apr. 13, 2018 breach letters interrupted prescription (acknowledgment) | Reynolds argue the breach letters acknowledged liability and interrupted prescription for Mr. Reynolds | Walgreens implicitly contested prescription; trial court treated letters as acknowledgments | Held: The breach letters constituted acknowledgment interrupting prescription; Mr. Reynolds’ claims are not prescribed |
Key Cases Cited
- Carter v. Haygood, 892 So.2d 1261 (La. 2005) (sets out four categories of contra non valentem)
- Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 48 So.3d 234 (La. 2010) (applies discovery rule to prescriptive accrual)
- Gary v. Camden Fire Insurance Co., 676 So.2d 553 (La. 1996) (acknowledgment may interrupt prescription; tacit acknowledgment explained)
- Damond v. Williams, 295 So.3d 415 (La. App. 1st Cir.) (constructive knowledge standard—notice that excites attention)
- Bracken v. Payne and Keller Co., Inc., 970 So.2d 582 (La. App. 1st Cir.) (acknowledgment restarts prescriptive period)
- Huer v. Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans, 672 So.2d 1053 (La. App. 4th Cir.) (acknowledgment need not admit specific damage amount, only defendant responsibility)