Laborde v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co, 6:16-cv-00734

Background

Plaintiff Kenneth J. Laborde, M.D., a surgeon who performs hand microsurgery, sued Northwestern Mutual for breach of contract and for statutory penalties/attorney’s fees under La. Rev. Stat. § 22:1821 after Northwestern denied disability benefits.
The entitlement dispute centers on whether Laborde was disabled from his occupation (microsurgery) following a March 2014 right rotator cuff tear.
After filing the complaint, Laborde suffered a finger injury and developed a heart condition; he submitted a second benefits request six days after filing suit and Northwestern conducted discovery regarding those conditions.
Northwestern moved in limine to exclude (1) evidence of post-complaint conditions that Laborde never pleaded or amended into the complaint, and (2) testimony from Laborde’s accountant as an expert because of an alleged untimely Rule 26 disclosure.
The Court held that evidence of the finger injury and cardiac condition as continuing bases for disability (preventing microsurgery) may be admitted and permitted Laborde to amend the complaint before trial; but evidence that those conditions limit his ability to perform general surgery (a different occupation/theory) was excluded.
The Court also allowed Laborde’s accountant to testify (largely as a lay witness reporting income/net business figures) and declined to exclude him for the short disclosure delay given lack of prejudice and ample time before trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Laborde may present evidence of post-complaint medical conditions as bases for disability when not expressly amended into the complaint	These conditions are additional facts showing continued disability under the same breach/statutory claims; Northwestern had notice and discovery	Plaintiff failed to timely move to amend; new conditions/claims were not pleaded and thus should be excluded	Court allowed evidence of finger and cardiac conditions as continuing bases for inability to perform microsurgery and granted leave to amend pretrial; excluded evidence that those conditions limited general surgery (new legal theory)
Whether new factual assertions first raised after filing must be treated as a motion to amend under Rule 15(a)	Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment standard and notice/discovery mitigate need for formal early amendment	New claims/theories raised late are improper and prejudicial	Court treated the situation under Rule 15 principles, granted leave to amend because no prejudice and justice/fairness favored amendment
Whether a late expert disclosure (accountant) requires exclusion under Rule 26 and the Scheduling Order	Hartiens was disclosed in initial disclosures and later provided CV/opinion; testimony is factual about income and corporate losses	Disclosure missed the Scheduling Order deadline; expert-report requirements were not timely satisfied	Court allowed the accountant to testify (primarily as a lay witness/financial reporter); declined exclusion as disproportionate remedy absent prejudice
Whether amendment to add a new legal theory (inability to perform general surgery) is permitted on eve of trial	N/A (Plaintiff sought to expand theory)	Prejudicial to Northwestern because discovery did not contemplate that theory	Court excluded evidence and theory regarding limitation/inability to perform general surgery as a new, prejudicial legal theory

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard requires more than conclusory allegations)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (same; pleading principles)
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (Rule 15(a) leave to amend freely given)
Stover v. Hattiesburg Public Sch. Dist., 549 F.3d 985 (Fifth Circuit discussion of amendment practices at summary judgment)
Riley v. Sch. Bd. Union Par., [citation="379 F. App'x 335"] (Fifth Circuit: treat claims first raised in response to summary judgment as motion to amend)