Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; December 15, 2014; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Diana Becnel, George Becnel, and Johnna Hurd appeal the trial court's decision to grant Dr. Leanne Redman's Exception of No Cause of Action, resulting in the dismissal of their claims against her. The court reverses this judgment and remands for further proceedings. The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Advocare and its Scientific and Medical Advisory Board members after Diana Becnel experienced severe adverse effects from Advocare’s "SLAM" energy product, which she had been led to believe was safe due to information on Advocare's website. Becnel suffered a loss of consciousness, and subsequent medical evaluations diagnosed her with a seizure disorder and myocardial infarction attributed to the product. The plaintiffs allege claims based on composition and design defects under Louisiana law, as well as negligent misrepresentation. Additionally, George Becnel and Johnna Hurd claim loss of consortium, with Hurd also seeking damages for witnessing the incident. The trial court's ruling is challenged on the grounds that the plaintiffs adequately stated a claim for negligent misrepresentation.
Plaintiffs argue that the district court incorrectly granted an Exception of No Cause of Action, asserting they sufficiently alleged Dr. Redman's duty in their original damages petition. The appellate court reviews this exception de novo, focusing solely on the petition's sufficiency without delving into the case's merits. The court must determine if, when viewed favorably to the plaintiff, the petition states a valid cause of action. Plaintiffs contend that they adequately pleaded Dr. Redman's duty to warn Ms. Becnel regarding the risks associated with Advocare’s “SLAM” product. They allege that Dr. Redman, along with the Scientific and Medical Advisory Board, implied through advertising that they endorsed the product’s contents and should have been aware of its similarities to 5-Hour Energy, which had documented safety concerns.
Additionally, Plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in rejecting their claim of negligent misrepresentation. Under Louisiana law, to establish this claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate the defendant's legal duty to provide accurate information, a breach of that duty, and resulting damages. The court found that Plaintiffs adequately alleged that the Advisory Board had such a duty and failed to include necessary warnings about the SLAM product's risks. Thus, the allegations of duty and breach were deemed sufficient to proceed.
Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Dr. Redman and the Scientific and Medical Advisory Board failed to warn Diane Becnel about the risks of consuming Advocare’s product. The allegations indicate that the Board's perceived prestige influenced Becnel's decision to use the product. Following consumption of the "SLAM" energy product, she experienced adverse effects almost immediately, lost consciousness, and required ambulance transport to St. Charles Parish Hospital. Becnel was later diagnosed with a seizure disorder and a myocardial infarction linked to her reaction to the product. The court concludes that the Plaintiffs have established a causal connection between the Board's actions and the damages suffered by Becnel. As a result, the trial court's decision to grant Dr. Redman’s Exception of No Cause of Action is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. Damages for mental pain and anguish are recoverable for witnessing injuries to others.
