CRANDALL CONSULTING
Home › Website Tracking Cases › Jacqueline Horton, et al. v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center

Jacqueline Horton, et al. v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: October 12, 2026

10th Judicial District Court for Natchitoches Parish
Court
Louisiana
Jurisdiction
Not identified
Decision / Filing Date
Lawsuit
Matter Type

Docket / citation: 93767

Risk scores, classifications, statistics, and technical findings are informational guidelines based on observed website behavior and publicly available litigation activity, statutes, court decisions, legal commentary, and other public sources. They are not legal advice, legal opinions, or determinations of liability.

Summary

The settlement website describes a class action settlement for Willis-Knighton Medical Center patient portal account holders and people who requested appointments online between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2023. It lists compensation varying by subclass and one year of CyEx Privacy Shield Pro, with a February 23, 2026 update announcing that enrollment is active through June 25, 2026. The excerpt does not identify the underlying statutes, tracking technologies, or a final approval ruling.

Litigation Status

Settled
Current Status
Neutral
Reported Outcome Direction
Settlement
Ruling Stage
None identified
Precedential Weight

Status, direction, and weight describe how tracked public sources characterize this matter as of our last review — they are informational classifications, not legal assessments.

Procedural Posture

Class action settlement website describing a proposed settlement, with a final approval hearing scheduled for January 22, 2026. A February 23, 2026 update states that the Privacy Shield Pro benefit is active.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The excerpt does not identify a merits ruling or establish whether the court granted final settlement approval.

Significance

Neutral / mixed significance. Characterizations of significance describe how the matter has generally been discussed in tracked public sources; individual holdings are often narrow, procedural, or fact-specific, and this page does not state or imply broader holdings than the sources support.

What This Page Does and Does Not Say

This page reports what our tracked public sources say about this matter — including, where identified, the procedural posture (for example, a ruling on a motion to dismiss is not a final merits decision). It does not report legal conclusions beyond those sources, does not predict outcomes, and does not constitute legal advice.

Technologies at Issue

No specific technologies have been identified in tracked sources for this matter.

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: CyEx.

Statutes Invoked

No specific statutes have been identified in tracked sources for this matter.

Related Intelligence

Sources

About This Page

Publisher: Inspection-Ready Institute, Inc. (DBA Crandall Consulting), an independent website compliance and risk consultancy. We are not a law firm and nothing on this page is legal advice.

How this content is produced: Facts are extracted from publicly available sources — court and government materials, recognized legal press, professional analysis, and industry reports — by our litigation intelligence engine, stored with full source provenance, and rendered from the database. Risk guidelines are computed by a deterministic formula, never by an AI model directly. See the full methodology.

Limitations: Counts labeled "Tracked" reflect matters identified in our source set and are not official court statistics. We report what courts decided and did not decide; we do not predict outcomes.

Corrections: If you believe anything on this page is inaccurate, contact us via the contact page and we will review the underlying sources promptly.

Is Your Website Creating Hidden Tracking Risk?

Scan your site for third-party tracking and potential wiretap exposure. Free, no account required.

Scan My Website