IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-30362

JACKIE B. SERIGNY, Individually and on behalf of the Estate of Wayne A.

Serigny, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

LAFOURCHE PARISH GOVERNMENT, through Charlotte Randolph,

Parish President, 

 Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No:2:10-CV-3205

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jackie Serigny appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in

favor of Lafourche Parish Government in her wrongful death suit against the

parish. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 21, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

*

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.

 Case: 13-30362 Document: 00512449384 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2013
13-30362

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Jackie Serigny (“Serigny”) brings this appeal on behalf of herself and the

estate of her late husband, Wayne Serigny. Mr. Serigny served a 30-day

sentence in the Lafourche Parish Detention Center that began on September 21,

2009. Serigny v. Lafourche Parish Gov’t, No. 10-3205, 2012 WL 3548029 (E.D.

La. Aug. 16, 2012). Initially, Mr. Serigny showed no signs of emergency medical

needs and denied that he had fever, chills, night sweats, or weight loss. During

his incarceration, however, Mr. Serigny complained of pain in his throat and

mouth. He was treated at the prison infirmary, whose staff was contracted

through Correcthealth Lafourche, LLC (“Correcthealth”). Upon his release, Mr.

Serigny sought treatment from a personal physician and specialist who

diagnosed him with incurable throat cancer. Mr. Serigny died on December 16,

2009.

All clinical staff members of Correcthealth are licensed or certified health

care providers in the State of Louisiana. Correcthealth as a company was not

enrolled with the Louisiana patient’s compensation fund until August 10, 2011. 

Serigny initially alleged claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations

of the constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, as well

as state law negligence claims against a wide array of defendants involved in the

provision of medical care at the prison. The district court dismissed Serigny’s

claims against the parish one by one, culminating in an August 16, 2012

summary judgment order dismissing with prejudice all claims against the

parish.

After the dismissal, Serigny made a motion to amend the judgment,

requesting that the court vacate its order granting summary judgment. Serigny

2

 Case: 13-30362 Document: 00512449384 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/21/2013
13-30362

argued that this was appropriate because she had new evidence that

Correcthealth was not properly licensed and qualified. The evidence presented

was a one-page letter from the Department of Health and Hospitals, Bureau of

Health Services Financing, stating that “there are no records available for

Correcthealth Lafourche, LLC.” The court denied the motion. Serigny appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo,

applying the same standard as the district court. Wiltz v. Bayer CropScience,

Ltd. P’ship, 645 F.3d 690, 694 (5th Cir. 2011). This court reviews a denial of a

Rule 59 motion under an abuse of discretion standard. Johnson v. Diversicare

Afton Oaks, LLC, 597 F.3d 673, 677 (5th Cir. 2010).

DISCUSSION

Serigny raises two issues: the grant of summary judgment in favor of the

parish and the denial of her Rule 59 motion. Both contentions concern the

proper reading of section 703 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes, which reads as

follows:

In lieu of appointing a physician, the governing authority of any parish

may enter into a contract with a health care provider, licensed or

regulated by the laws of this state, to provide requisite health care

services, as required in this Section. . . . The sole responsibility of the

governing authority of each parish which is mandated by the provisions

of this Section with respect to providing health care services for

prisoners shall be the appointment of a physician and the payment of

the salary of that physician or its contractual obligations with a health

care provider selected in accordance with this Section. The parish and

its governing authority shall not be liable for any action arising as a

result of the actions or inactions of the physician or health care

provider, whether ex delicto or ex quasi delicto or ex contractu, by a

prisoner or his representative to recover damages or any other losses,

including those for the death of the prisoner, unless the governing

3

 Case: 13-30362 Document: 00512449384 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/21/2013
13-30362

authority exercises gross negligence or willful misconduct in the

performance of its duties and obligations imposed by this Section, and

such gross negligence or willful misconduct was a substantial factor in

causing the injury.

La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15:703.

The statute defines “health care provider” as 

a person, partnership, limited liability partnership, limited

liability company, corporation, facility, or institution licensed or

regulated by the laws of this state to provide health care services

or professional services as a physician and qualified as such in

accordance with R.S. 40:1299.42.

Id. Section 40:1299.42 is Louisiana’s Medical Malpractice Act, which provides

a limitation on liability in exchange for health care providers “qualifying” by

paying into a patient compensation fund. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40.129.42(A).

I. Grant of Summary Judgment

Serigny argues that the parish failed to comply with section 703(B) of Title

15 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes and that its noncompliance divests it of

immunity. Serigny has presented some evidence that Correcthealth was not

properly qualified under the Medical Malpractice Act because the company had

not filed under the Act at the time they were treating the prisoner. As the

district court noted, though, the Chief Legal Officer for Correcthealth declared

that “all clinical staff members of Correcthealth are licensed or certified health

care providers in the State of Louisiana.” Serigny, 2012 WL 3548029 at *3. 

Since a health care provider may either be a “limited liability company” or a

“person,” we likewise conclude the district court was not in error in finding that

the parish government fulfilled its obligation to provide a health care provider

under the statute, and was not liable absent gross negligence that was a

4

 Case: 13-30362 Document: 00512449384 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/21/2013
13-30362

substantial cause of Mr. Serigny’s injuries. Serigny has presented no evidence

of gross negligence on the part of the parish and no evidence that the parish’s

actions were a substantial cause in Mr. Serigny’s death.

II. Denial of Rule 59 Motion

Serigny contends that the district court abused its discretion in failing to

grant her Rule 59(e) motion. 

A motion to reconsider based on an alleged discovery of new evidence

should be granted only if (1) the facts discovered are of such a nature that

they would probably change the outcome; (2) the facts alleged are actually

newly discovered and could not have been discovered earlier by proper

diligence; and (3) the facts are not merely cumulative or impeaching.

Johnson, 597 F.3d at 677 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Serigny argues that she presented significant newly discovered evidence. 

The letter she submitted suggests that Correcthealth was not properly licensed

in the state of Louisiana. We find this evidence is essentially cumulative with

the evidence previously presented. Both tend to establish that Correcthealth

was not properly licensed and qualified in the state. This new fact does not

change our analysis: since the health care providers themselves were qualified

and certified, the parish fulfilled its obligations under Section 703. We hold that

the district court did not abuse its discretion.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM.

5

 Case: 13-30362 Document: 00512449384 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/21/2013