Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Breaux v. USA, 03-50037 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 03-50037 Visitors: 84
Filed: Nov. 11, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS November 11, 2003 For the Fifth Circuit Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-50037 ANDRE J. BREAUX; VIRGINIA BREAUX Plaintiffs - Appellants VERSUS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; HEALTHSOUTH TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, doing business as Healthsouth Sports Medicine & Rehabilitation Center; CHAD R. MALESICH, Physical Therapist Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District o
More
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS November 11, 2003 For the Fifth Circuit Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-50037 ANDRE J. BREAUX; VIRGINIA BREAUX Plaintiffs - Appellants VERSUS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; HEALTHSOUTH TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, doing business as Healthsouth Sports Medicine & Rehabilitation Center; CHAD R. MALESICH, Physical Therapist Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Texas, San Antonio SA-00-CV-1483-EP Before DAVIS and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges and LITTLE*, District Judge. PER CURIAM:** The only question presented in this case is whether the district court abused its discretion in refusing to accept a * District Judge of the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. ** Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. supplemental affidavit of an expert filed in support of a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant. At the time the district court ruled on the motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff had not submitted summary judgment evidence establishing the requisite standard of care in this action alleging failure to properly treat and care for the plaintiff. After the court ruled on the motion, the plaintiff then moved for reconsideration and for the first time attached an affidavit purporting to establish the requisite standard of care. At the time the affidavit was filed, the time allotted for discovery had passed and the trial was imminent. Under these circumstances we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to accept the plaintiff’s new evidence filed in support of the motion for reconsideration. AFFIRMED. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer