Court Opinion

ID: 9363963
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-17 22:04:08.958436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:35.033073
License: Public Domain

STATE OF LOUISIANA
          COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
JENNIFER HULIN AND EDWARD                       NO.   2022 CW 1292
LAMPARSKI, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF THEIR MINOR                              PAGE 1 OF 2
CHILD, NOAH LAMPARSKI
VERSUS
KYLE SNOW, PATRICIA SNOW,                        January 17, 2023
AND THE STATE OF LOUISIANA,
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND
FAMILY SERVICES

In Re:     Jennifer Hulin and Edward Lamparski on behalf of their
           minor child, Noah Lamparski, applying for supervisory
           writs, 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St.
           Tammany, No. 201912577.

BEFORE:    THERIOT, CHUTZ, LANIER, HESTER, AND GREENE, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED.    We find the trial court erred in its September
22, 2022 judgment precluding the testimony of Dr. Sarah Zate
regarding the parental care of defendants, Kyle and Patricia
Snow, the ultimate issue of negligence, and the credibility of
defendant, Patricia Snow.       We find the plaintiffs, Jennifer
Hulin and Edward Lamparski, on behalf of their minor child, Noah
Lamparski, have carried their burden of proving the reliability
and relevance of the testimony of Dr. Sarah Zate, a board-
certified pediatrician who has extensive knowledge of parental
care and neglect, particularly in foster care settings, by a
preponderance of the evidence.        Vedros v. Northrop Grumman
Shipbuilding, Inc., 119 F.Supp.3d 556, 561 (E.D. La. 2015).       We
find that given her qualifications, Dr. Zate can testify as to
the parental care offered by defendants, Kyle and Patricia
Snow.   State in Interest of D.R.B., 52,843 (La. App. 2nd Cir.
6/26/19), 278 So.3d 407,       410,  413  (considering the expert
testimony of a board-certified pediatrician regarding the extent
and non-accidental nature of the life-threatening injuries
suffered by an infant at the hands of its parents).       We further
find that Dr. Zate can testify as to the ultimate issue of
negligence.   Fromenthal v. Delta Wells Surveyors, Inc., 1998-
1525 (La. App. 4th Cir. 10/4/00), 776 So.2d 1, 6-7, writ denied,
2001-0177   (La.   3/16/01),  787 So.2d 317,      (admitting expert
testimony that embraced the ultimate issue of whether the
defendant was liable for its failure to comply with safety
standards).    Finally, we find the trial court erred in its
determination    that   Dr.  Zate   would  be   offering   testimony
regarding the credibility of defendant, Patricia Snow. A review
of the evidence indicates that Dr. Zate considered defendant,
Patricia Snow's, multiple stories about how Noah Lamparski
received his injuries as a factor in assessing her negligence,
not as an element of demonstrating that defendant, Patricia
Snow, was not credible.      Dr. Zate indicated in her deposition
that a credibility determination is outside the scope of her
expertise. Goodman v. Harris County, 571 F.3d 388, 399-400 (5th
Cir. 2009)    (finding no error in the trial court's ruling
admitting    expert    testimony    where   the    expert   observed
inconsistencies in the defendant's account of ev~nts). For
                   STATE OF LOUISIANA
         COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
                                                 NO. 2022 CW 1292

                                                      PAGE 2 OF 2

these reasons, we grant this writ application and reverse the
portion of the trial court's September 22,       2022  judgment
granting in part the motion to exclude and/or limit expert
testimony filed by defendants, Kyle and Patricia Snow, and deny
this motion.

                                 MRT
                                 WIL
                                 CHH

Chutz   and   Greene,      dissent.
                        JJ.,          We find the trial court
committed legal error by failing to comply with La. Code Civ. P.
art. 1425(F), which requires the trial court to provide findings
of fact, conclusions of law, and reasons for judgment detailing
in law and fact why a person shall be allowed or disallowed to
testify under La. Code Evict. arts 702 through 705.   Neither the
trial court's sparse oral reasons for judgment nor the judgment
itself, which granted in part the motion to exclude and/or limit
the expert testimony of Dr. Sarah Zate,        conformed to the
requirements of La. Code Civ. P. art. 1425.     See Camsoft Data
Systems, Inc. v. Southern Electronics Supply, Inc., 2019-0741
 (La. App. 1st Cir. 7/2/19), 2019 WL 2865255, *2.    We therefore
would vacate the trial court's September 22, 2022 judgment
granting the motion to exclude and/or limit the expert testimony
of Dr. Zate and remand the matter to the trial court with
instructions to comply with La. Code Civ. P. art. 1425.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

    DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
        FOR THE COURT