### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

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 U SDC No:2:10-CV-3205

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jackie Serigny appeals the district court’s grant o f summary judgment in favor of L afourche P a r ish Government in her wrongful death suit against the parish. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM. U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Novem ber 21, 2013 Ly l e W . Cayce Clerk

* Purs uan t t o 5 TH C I R

. R. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et f orth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 13-30362 Document: 00512449384 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/201313-30362 FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Jackie Serigny (“Serigny”) brings this appeal on behalf of h erself and the estate o f h er late husband, Wayne Serigny. Mr. Serigny served a 30-day sentence in the Lafourche Parish Detention C enter that began on September 21, 2009. Serigny v. Lafourche Parish Gov’t , No. 10-3205, 2012 WL 3 548029 (E.D. La. Aug. 16, 2012). Initially, Mr. Serigny showed no signs o f e mergency medical needs and denied that he had fever, chills, night sweats, or w eight loss. During his i n c a rceration, however, Mr. Serigny complained of p ain in his throat and mouth. He was treated at the prison infirmary, who s e staff was contracted through Correcthealth Lafourche, LLC (“Correcthealth”). Upon his release, Mr. Serigny sought treatme n t from a personal physician and specialist who diagnosed him with incurable throat c a ncer. Mr. Serigny died on D ecember 16, 2009. All clinical staff members of Correcthealth are licensed or certified health

care provid e r s i n t he State of Louisiana. Correcthealth as a company was not enrolled with the Louisiana patient’s compensation f und until August 1 0, 2011. Serigny initially alleged claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 f or 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 c are at the p rison. The district court dismissed S erigny’s claims agai n st the parish one by one, culminating in an August 1 6, 2012 summary judgment order dismissing with prejudice all claims aga i n s t the parish. After th e d ismissal, Serigny made a motion to amend the judgment, requesting that the c ourt vacate its order granting summary j udgment. Serigny

2 Case: 13-30362 Document: 00512449384 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/21/201313-30362

argued that this w a s a p propriate because she had new evidence that Correcthealth was not p roperly 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 m otion. Serigny appeals. STANDARD OF REVIEW This court r eviews a district court’s grant of s ummary j udgment de novo, applyi n g the same s tandard 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 i ssues: the grant of summary judgment in f avor of the parish and the d enial of h er Rule 59 m otion. B oth 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: 11/21/201313-30362

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 i s Louisiana’s Medical Malpractice Act, which provides

a limitation on liability in exchange for health care provider s “ 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 1 5 of the Louisiana R evised Statutes and that its noncompliance divests it of immunity. Serigny has presented some evidence that Correcthealth was not properly qualified u nder the M edical Malpractice Act b ecause the company had not filed under the Act at t h e t i m e they w ere tr eating the prisoner. As the district court n oted, though, the Chief Legal Officer for Correcthealth declared that “all clinical s taff members of Correcthealth are licensed or certified health

ca r e p r oviders in the State of Louisiana.” Serigny, 2 012 WL 3548029 at *3. Since a health care provider may either be a “l i mited 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 negli g e n c e that was a

4 Case: 13-30362 Document: 00512449384 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/21/201313-30362

substantial cause of Mr. Serigny’s injuries. Serigny has presented no evidence of gross n egligence on the part of the parish and no evidence that the p a r i s h ’s actions were a substantial cause in Mr. Serigny’s death. II. Denial of Rule 59 Motion Serigny contends that the district c o urt abused its discretion in f ailing to grant her Rule 59(e) motion. A motion to r econsider based on an alleged discovery of new evidence should b e granted only if (1) the facts di scovered are of such a n ature that they would probably change the outcome; (2) the facts alleged are actually new l y discovered and could n ot 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 s ignificant newly discovered evidence. The l etter she submitted suggests that Correcthealth was not properly licensed in the s tate of Louisiana

. W e find this evidence is essentially cumulative with the evidence p r eviously presented. Both tend to establish that Correcthealth

was not properly licensed and qualified in the s tate. This new fact does not change our a nalysis: since the health care providers themselves were qualified and certified, the parish f ulfilled 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