Lewis v. Morgan, 93 So. 3d 741

Nurse Debra A. Lewis’s license was suspended during an investigation after concerns about narcotic requests.
A January 18, 2007 Formal Physician Complaint/Concern alleged Dr. Larcena’s concerns about Lewis’s narcotic requests.
The Board sustained the suspension on review, with district court and this court affirming the Board’s findings.
On January 22, 2008 Lewis filed suit for damages against Morgan, Roberts, Larcena, Mahoney, Gulf States entities, alleging negligence, fraud, conspiracy, and defamation.
Defendants moved for summary judgment on immunity grounds under La. Rev. Stat. 37:931; trial court granted; judgment entered May 12, 2011; Lewis appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is 37:931 immunity available for information provided to the Board?	Lewis argues the claims extend beyond mere Board communications.	Defendants contend immunity covers information provided to the Board.	Yes; immunity applies to Board information.
Do all claims arise from information provided to the Board?	Lewis asserts some claims stem from misrepresentations in communications.	All claims arise from Board-related information leading to suspension.	All claims arise from Board information.
Was malice or lack of reasonable belief shown to defeat immunity?	Lewis must show malice or absence of reasonable belief.	Board-found information was reasonably believed accurate; no malice shown.	Lewis failed to prove malice or lack of reasonable belief; immunity upheld.

Gonzales v. Kissner, 24 So.3d 214 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2009) (summary judgment burden on mover; de novo review standard)
Aucoin v. Rochel, 5 So.3d 197 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2008) (summary judgment standards; burden shifting in absence of factual dispute)
Robles v. ExxonMobile, 844 So.2d 339 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2003) (burden allocation under C.C.P. Art. 966; absence of genuine issue)
Ernest v. Petroleum Service Corp., 868 So.2d 96 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2003) (de novo review of summary judgment; criteria identical to trial court)