Senate committee delays bill that would prioritize medical‑expert testimony to address problematic continuance language
Loading...
Summary
Senate Bill 66, which would require courts to take testimony of subpoenaed medical experts in priority to other witnesses in child abuse/neglect and custody proceedings, was deferred after senators and stakeholders raised concerns that a continuance clause as drafted would remove judicial discretion and be unworkable.
Senate Bill 66, presented March 31 by Senator Valerie Hodges, would require courts in proceedings involving alleged child abuse or neglect to take the testimony of subpoenaed medical experts in priority to parties and other witnesses. The sponsor said the change aims to prevent repeated cancellations that force doctors to miss clinic time and delay patient care.
Lauren Bailey, general counsel for the Louisiana State Medical Society, told the committee the society supported the bill because it would let physicians return to practice instead of waiting in court for hours if testimony is postponed. Senator Hodges said judges in some parishes already take medical testimony promptly, and she framed the bill as aligning practice to reduce patient harms tied to missed appointments.
Several senators expressed concern about one provision that would compel the court to take testimony when a medical expert is present even if a continuance has been requested for other reasons. Senators said the clause could eliminate judicial discretion in common continuance scenarios—attorney illness, the need to preserve deposition testimony, or other circumstances—and could be practically unworkable if a medical expert’s appearance conflicts with other scheduling needs.
Members and stakeholders including the Louisiana Psychological Association, the Louisiana District Judges Association (on a white card), and the Louisiana Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys said they were willing to work with the bill author to craft language that protects medical witnesses without removing necessary court flexibility. Senator Hodges agreed to revise the continuance language and voluntarily deferred SB66 to the next week’s agenda.
The committee did not take a vote on the bill but directed the author to work with committee members and stakeholders to address the continuance concerns before returning.
