Case Name: Andre J. BREAUX; Virginia Breaux, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America; Healthsouth Texas Limited Partnership, doing business as Healthsouth Sports Medicine & Rehabilitation Center; Chad R. Malesich, Physical Therapist, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-11-11
Citations: 80 F. App'x 354
Docket Number: No. 03-50037
Parties: Andre J. BREAUX; Virginia Breaux, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America; Healthsouth Texas Limited Partnership, doing business as Healthsouth Sports Medicine & Rehabilitation Center; Chad R. Malesich, Physical Therapist, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before DAVIS and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges and LITTLE, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 80
Pages: 354–355

Head Matter:
Andre J. BREAUX; Virginia Breaux, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America; Healthsouth Texas Limited Partnership, doing business as Healthsouth Sports Medicine & Rehabilitation Center; Chad R. Malesich, Physical Therapist, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 03-50037.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 11, 2003.
David M. Adkisson, Law Offices of David M. Adkisson, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
James F. Gilligan, Jr., US Attorney’s Office, Ruth Greenfield Malinas, David Lee Hanna, Ball & Weed, San Antonio, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before DAVIS and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges and LITTLE, District Judge.
District Judge of the Western. District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The only question presented in this case is whether the district court abused its discretion in refusing to accept a 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 plaintiffs new evidence filed in support of the motion for reconsideration.
AFFIRMED.
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.