Steven Richardson began to experience excruciating lower back pain in August 2012 while visiting his daughter in Farmerville, Louisiana. Richardson was taken by ambulance to the emergency room at Christus Health Northern Louisiana Hospital (“Christus Health”). Richardson was treated by Dr. James W. Cotter, III, a specialist in emergency medicine.
Richardson told Dr. Cotter that he was experiencing severe lower back pain, had received a steroid injection from his son-in-law (an eye doctor), and had been taking prescription pain medication. Dr. Cotter ordered lab work for a complete blood count, and Dr. Mark Kraemer, who consulted on Richardson’s case, ordered an MRI. The blood test showed that Richardson had an elevated white blood cell count.
Dr. Cotter concluded that the elevated white blood cell count was due to the steroid injection that Richardson had received from his son-in-law. Dr. Kraemer’s report stated that the MRI showed no evidence of discitis, inflammation, or infection between discs in the spine.
Two days after visiting Christus Health, Richardson sought treatment from Dr. Carl Goodman, an orthopedic surgeon, at the Highland Clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. Dr. Goodman concluded from the MRI results that Richardson suffered from an acute lumbar strain.
Twelve days later, Richardson saw Dr. James Hardy Gordon, a pain management and anesthesiology specialist, at Louisiana Pain Care in Monroe. Richardson told Dr. Gordon that he had severe back pain and a fever of 102 degrees. Dr. Gordon did not find that Richardson had a fever, but blood work showed that Richardson had an infection. Richardson was then admitted to St. Francis Medical Center, where an MRI pointed to a case of discitis. In February 2013, Richardson underwent heart surgery, which he believes was made necessary by the effects of the discitis.
Richardson filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Cotter and Dr. Goodman. The lawsuit alleged that Drs. Cotter and Goodman failed to diagnose his discitis and performed below the standard of care. Dr. Goodman filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Richardson failed to offer evidence that the care he received did not meet the required standard. Dr. Cotter also filed a motion for summary judgment, similar to Dr. Goodman’s.
Richardson opposed these motions for summary judgment by relying on the expert testimony from Dr. Gordon’s deposition to establish the requisite standard of care. However, the trial court held that Dr. Gordon, a pain management and anesthesiology specialist, was not qualified to provide expert testimony on the standard of care applicable to Dr. Cotter, an ER specialist, and Dr. Goodman, an orthopedic surgery specialist.
The trial court gave Richardson 60 days to find a qualified expert witness or witnesses, warning that the doctors’ summary judgment motions would be granted if Richardson failed to find such an expert. Richardson was unable to find a qualified expert witness, so the trial court granted Dr. Cotter’s and Dr. Gordon’s motions for summary judgment.
Richardson appealed to Louisiana’s Second Circuit Court of Appeal, arguing that Dr. Gordon’s deposition testimony was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants operated according to the appropriate standard of care. The Appellate Court reviewed Louisiana’s standards for medical malpractice claims, wherein the plaintiff must show two things: first, that the standard of care the plaintiff received fell below the standard of care that is required of the doctor in the specific area of practice; second, a causal relationship between the plaintiff’s injury and the treatment that did not meet the appropriate standard of care. Fusilier v. Dauterive, So.2d 74 (La. 2000). A doctor’s duty of care is met by using the same degree of skill regularly used by his or her peers in a similar situation. Gordon v. Louisiana State Univ. Bd. of Sup’rs., 669 So.2d 736 (La. Ct. App. 1996). Expert testimony from a doctor is permissible to prove the standard of care required of another doctor so long as there is an overlap in the field of treatment in which both doctors practice. Battaglia v. Chalmette Med. Ctr., Inc., 126 So.3d 524 (La. Ct. App. 2012).
The Court held that Dr. Gordon’s deposition testimony failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact about whether the treatment received by Richardson was below the standard of care. The Court’s holding was based on its conclusion that Dr. Gordon was not a proper expert to establish the standard of care because there was no overlap between Dr. Gordon’s specialty and that of Dr. Cotter or Dr. Goodman. Further, even if Dr. Gordon were qualified to offer his medical opinion in this case, his deposition testimony was insufficient to establish the standard of care from Dr. Cotter and Dr. Goodman. Therefore, the Court affirmed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of Dr. Cotter and Dr. Goodman.
This case demonstrates the fundamental importance of establishing the relevant standard of care in medical malpractice claims. Failing to determine the proper standard of care leaves the plaintiff with no point of comparison for the defendant’s conduct and no way to show that the defendant did not meet his or her duty under the law. Only qualified expert witnesses can be relied upon to establish the standard of care, which shows the seriousness with which courts take this step of the process.
Additional Source: RICHARDSON v. COTTER
Written by Berniard Law Firm
Additional Berniard Law Firm Articles on Medical Malpractice: Can You Lose Your Medical Malpractice Case If You Don’t Have Enough Evidence?