Expansion has to be measured relative to a baseline.
Carl J. Barbier 19, Judge, US District Court, Louisiana Eastern, “Wightman v. Ameritas Life Ins. Corp.,” 426 F. Supp. 3d 258, Lexis
Second, Defendants urge the Court not to be the first "to judicially expand the scope of this statute decades after enactment." (Rec. Doc. 8 at 12). The question before the Court is the precise scope of the statute, namely if the notice requirements of 40:2203.1 apply to dentists and dental services. The use of the term "expand" is misleading, as no court has previously addressed this issue. In fact, Defendants have not presented, nor has the Court's independent research revealed, any case analyzing in depth the scope of 40:2203.1. Thus, there is no core precedent surrounding this issue from which the Court can "expand."