Today, the Louisiana Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the LeBlanc v. Thomas case that challenges the legality of the LSU Health Sciences Center decision to shutter Charity Hospital without approval of the legislature after guardsmen and doctors decontaminated the facility and readied it for business just weeks after the federal levee failure in fall 2005.

Attorneys for the defendants argued for a change in venue so that the eventual trial is held in East Baton Rouge, where LSU is located, instead of in New Orleans where the actions to close Charity took place.

Overcoming a false fire alarm that interrupted his argument, Leonard Aragon effectively articulated the plaintiff's position that "cause of action" was in New Orleans and compelled the justices to rule to keep the case in Orleans Parish. In other words, because the four essential elements of the case - that Charity was open in New Orleans, that the Chancellor of LSUHSC decided to close Charity in New Orleans, that the Chancellor sent agents to physically close the hospital in New Orleans, and that legislative approval was not sought in Baton Rouge - trump the opposite argument that the suit should move to East Baton Rouge Parish to accommodate state officials or agencies that may become involved in the suit at a later date. Since, at past hearings, defense lawyers decided against disputing those four elements, they are treated as fact for the purposes of the venue argument.

Justices quizzed plaintiffs as to why the LSU Board of Supervisors was not named in the lawsuit. Aragon replied arguing that the Chancellor of LSUHSC actually administers the hospital, made the decision to close the facility, and is provided by statue with all the same powers as the Board of Supervisors. When Justices questioned the defense attorneys about the chain of command involved with that decision, the defense attorney gave an interesting reply:

"We haven't gotten that far into the record."

That was after defense attorney Preston Castille Jr. previously made the argument that "if it was closed by anything, it was closed by the hurricane."

This assertion prompted some muffled snickers in the courtroom. Perhaps it was just the hyperbole of the statement but maybe court spectators have seen these photographs documenting the condition of Charity Hospital after the hurricane had supposedly 'made the decision' to close it.