Legendre v. Harrah's New Orleans Management Company et al

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

NELLIE LEGENDRE
VERSUS
HARRAH’S CASINO NEW
ORLEANS

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 23-3674
SECTION: “H”

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant Jazz Casino Company, LLC’s Motion for
Post-trial Adjustment of Charged Medical Expenses Pursuant to Louisiana
Revised Statutes § 9:2800.27 (Doc. 101). For the following reasons, Defendant’s
Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Nellie Legendre filed this action against Defendant Jazz Casino
Company, LLC to recover for injuries she sustained when she collided with one
of Defendant’s employees, Eddie Giles, at Harrah’s Casino and fell to the
ground.
1
Plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of the incident, including a
fractured right hip, which required surgery, and a laceration to her head.
Plaintiff used her Medicare benefits to cover the costs of her treatment.
Before trial, Defendant filed a Motion in Limine wherein it sought to
prevent Plaintiff from introducing evidence of charged medical expenses that

1
Plaintiff originally brought this action against Harrah’s New Orleans Management
Company d/b/a Harrah’s New Orleans and Harrah’s Casino New Orleans, LLC, but the
parties later stipulated that Defendant Jazz Casino Company, LLC was the sole proper
defendant in this matter. Doc. 69.
Case 2:23-cv-03674-JTM-MBN Document 109 Filed 08/12/26 Page 1 of 6

2

were not paid by Medicare and were “gratuitously written-off” by her medical
providers.
2
The Court denied the Motion in Limine, ruling that applicable state
law prevented the jury from viewing evidence of the amounts Plaintiff actually
paid for her care and that “the jury shall be informed only of the amount billed
by a medical provider for medical treatment.”
3

This matter was tried before a jury beginning on March 9, 2026. In
accordance with Louisiana Revised Statutes § 9:2800.27(F) (2022), the jury
was only shown evidence of the amount Plaintiff’s medical providers billed for
her treatment.
4
The jury found that both Giles and Plaintiff were negligent,
allocating 95% of fault for Plaintiff’s injuries to Giles, for which Defendant is
vicariously liable, and 5% to Plaintiff.
5
The jury awarded Plaintiff $129,695.21
in compensatory damages for her charged medical expenses.
6

LAW AND ANALYSIS
Defendant now moves to reduce Plaintiff’s $129,695.21 jury award for
past medical expenses to $447.18 pursuant to § 9:2800.27(B). Plaintiff agrees
that her jury award must be reduced but asserts that her award for past
medical expenses should only be reduced to $53,827.61. In its Motion,
Defendant claims that Plaintiff’s medical bills reflect “gratuitous write-offs” by
Ochsner Health (“Ochsner”), one of Plaintiff’s medical providers, and thus the

2
Docs. 45 and 68.
3
Doc. 77 at 3–4 (quoting LA. REV. STAT. § 9:2800.27(F) (2022)). Louisiana has since amended
§ 9:2800.27 to permit the trier of fact to receive evidence of the “amounts billed and amounts
actually paid for medical expenses that have been incurred by the claimant.” Id. at §
9:2800.27(E) (2026).
4
See generally Trial Ex. P-5. The Court notes that Plaintiff did not introduce evidence of the
full amount billed for her Walgreens prescriptions at trial but rather chose to introduce
evidence of the amount Plaintiff actually paid.
5
Doc. 96.
6
The jury also awarded Plaintiff $100,000.00 for pain and suffering and $50,000.00 for
disability, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life.
Case 2:23-cv-03674-JTM-MBN Document 109 Filed 08/12/26 Page 2 of 6

3

reduction of Plaintiff’s award for past medical expenses pursuant to §
9:2800.27(B) should be further reduced because these “gratuitous write-offs”
make Plaintiff’s award unreasonable.
7
Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s
award is unreasonable because “Medicare was never billed by Ochsner.”
8

Plaintiff counters that Defendant misapplies the statute and that it has not
presented any evidence that supports a finding that her award for medical
expenses is unreasonable. The Court will first apply § 9:2800.27(B) to calculate
Plaintiff’s recoverable past medical expenses before addressing Defendant’s
argument that Plaintiff’s award should be reduced as unreasonable.
Plaintiff’s award for past medical expenses is governed by Louisiana
Revised Statutes § 9:2800.27(B), which states in pertinent part:
In cases where a claimant’s medical expenses have been paid, in
whole or in part, by a health insurance issuer or Medicare to a
contracted medical provider, the claimant’s recovery of medical
expenses is limited to the amount actually paid to the contracted
medical provider by the health insurance issuer or Medicare, and
any applicable cost sharing amounts paid or owed by the claimant,
and not the amount billed. The court shall award to the claimant
forty percent of the difference between the amount billed and the
amount actually paid to the contracted medical provider by a
health insurance issuer or Medicare in consideration of the
claimant’s cost of procurement, provided that this amount shall be
reduced if the defendant proves that the recovery of the cost of
procurement would make the award unreasonable.
9

As a preliminary matter, Defendant’s contention that Ochsner never
directly billed Medicare for Plaintiff’s medical treatment—and therefore
Plaintiff cannot recover the cost of procurement—is unfounded where §

7
Doc. 101 at 2.
8
Id. at 3.
9
LA. REV. STAT. § 9:2800.27(B) (2022).
Case 2:23-cv-03674-JTM-MBN Document 109 Filed 08/12/26 Page 3 of 6

4

9:2800.27(B) does not require direct billing to Medicare.
10
Additionally, the
Court notes that the parties have submitted evidence of several medical
treatments that were not considered by the jury in crafting its verdict. Because
the jury did not have the opportunity to consider whether Plaintiff should
recover for her May 31, 2024 x-ray at Ochsner,
11
services provided by Eagan
Healthcare of Plaquemines,
12
or treatments provided by Kenner Emergency
Group,
13
the Court cannot consider evidence regarding those medical costs
here. After excluding this evidence, the Court finds that Plaintiff personally
paid $129.39 for her medical expenses
14
and Medicare paid $523.03.
15
Having
made these findings, the Court further finds that Plaintiff’s cost of
procurement, which is ”forty percent of the difference between the amount
billed and the amount actually paid to the contracted medical provider by . . .
Medicare,” is $51,665.27.
16

Turning to whether Plaintiff’s award for the cost of procurement is
reasonable, the Court finds that it is. Defendant’s characterization of the
Ochsner write-offs as “gratuitous” is unsupported by the record. The Ochsner
billing records clearly label the write-offs as “Contractual Write-Offs” under
subheadings entitled “Insurance Payments and Adjustments.”
17
Section

10
Although § 9:2800.27(B) does not expressly define “amount billed,” subsection (F) supports
this interpretation. See Id. at (F) (“The jury shall be informed only of the amount billed by a
medical provider for medical treatment.”).
11
Doc. 101-1 at 36 (documenting a $28.00 charge for an x-ray of Plaintiff’s hip/pelvis during
a visit with Todd Layman on May 31, 2024).
12
Doc. 101-2 at 1 (documenting a $1,250.00 charge on June 4, 2023).
13
Id. at 1–2 (documenting charges for a Meloxicam Oral Tablet and a Methocarbamol).
14
Doc. 101-1 at 32; Trial Ex. P-5 at 31 (detailing Plaintiff’s payments to Walgreens for several
prescriptions).
15
Doc. 101-2 at 1. Together, Plaintiff and Medicare paid $661.42 to her medical providers.
16
LA. REV. STAT. § 9:2800.27(B) (2022). The difference between the amount billed—
$129,695.21—and the amount actually paid by Medicare—$523.03—is $129,163.18. Forty
percent of the difference is $51,665.27.
17
Doc 101-1 passim. The Ochsner billing records also reflect that Plaintiff maintained
insurance coverage through “Humana Managed Medicare – Humana Medicare HMO.” Id.
Case 2:23-cv-03674-JTM-MBN Document 109 Filed 08/12/26 Page 4 of 6

5

9:2800.27(B) contemplates contractual adjustments, like Ochsner’s here, by
allowing claimants to recover the cost of procurement—“forty percent of the
difference between the amount billed and the amount actually paid to the
contracted medical provider by a health insurance issuer or Medicare”—rather
than the full amount billed.
18
Having determined that the Ochsner write-offs
were contractual and considering that Defendant cites no authority where a
Court has reduced a claimant’s award for the cost of procurement based on
written-off amounts—gratuitous or otherwise—the Court sees no reason to
find that the cost of procurement is unreasonable here. While a large portion
of Plaintiff’s medical expenses were written off in this case, Defendant benefits
from those write-offs in that it will not be held liable for the full amount billed,
as it would if Plaintiff was not covered by Medicare or private health
insurance.
19
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s cost of procurement is
reasonable under the circumstances. Plaintiff is entitled to recover for past
medical expenses in the amount of $52,326.69.
20

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion (Doc. 101) is GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s jury award for medical expenses
shall be reduced from $129,695.21 to $52,326.69 pursuant to Louisiana
Revised Statutes § 9:2800.27(B).

18
LA. REV. STAT. § 9:2800.27(B) (2022).
19
See id. at (D) (“The recovery of past medical expenses other than those provided by
Subsection B or C of this Section shall be limited to amounts paid to a medical provider by or
on behalf of the claimant, and amounts remaining owed to a medical provider, including
medical expenses secured by a contractual or statutory privilege, lien, or guarantee.”).
20
This amount encompasses the sum of amounts paid by Plaintiff and Medicare, $661.42,
plus the calculated cost of procurement, $51,665.27.
Case 2:23-cv-03674-JTM-MBN Document 109 Filed 08/12/26 Page 5 of 6

6

New Orleans, Louisiana this 12th day of August, 2026.

_________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:23-cv-03674-JTM-MBN Document 109 Filed 08/12/26 Page 6 of 6