Miscellaneous

September 19, 2011

Statute of Limitations on Medical Malpractice Claims in Louisiana: Information Every Patient Should Know

One of the first things that must be determined in a potential medical malpractice claim is whether the statute of limitations bars the claim. An otherwise legitimate malpractice lawsuit may be invalid simply because the injured party waited too long to file the claim. In the State of Louisiana, the statutory period in which a claim must be filed is referred to as the “prescriptive period.” If a case is “prescribed”, it is beyond the statutory period. Louisiana statutory law (La. R.S. 9:5628(A)) states that malpractice suits must be filed “within one year from the date of the alleged act, omission, or neglect, or within one year from the date of discovery of the alleged act, omission or neglect.”

In a recent Louisiana Court of Appeals Case, Amos v. Crouch, the court addressed the issue of what constitutes “discovery” of the alleged negligent act or omission. In the Amos case, Dr. Crouch, a Jackson Parish general surgeon, diagnosed a patient with severe hemorrhoids when in fact the patient had colorectal cancer. After receiving the hemorrhoids diagnosis from Dr. Crouch, the patient decided to see another doctor for a second opinion. After a brief examination, the second doctor ordered tests that ultimately revealed the colorectal cancer. The Court of Appeals concluded that it was at the time of his cancer diagnosis that the statutory period began to run. The Court declared, “Prescription begins when a plaintiff obtains actual or constructive knowledge of facts indicating to a reasonable person that he or she is the victim of a tort.” It is important to note that knowledge only refers to “such information that ought to put the alleged victim on inquiry.” Therefore, in certain circumstances, a correct diagnosis from a second physician can equate to “discovery” of the doctor’s negligent act, triggering the prescriptive period.

However, the court refused to treat a correct secondary diagnosis as a per se reasonable belief that the original doctor committed malpractice. Instead, the court declared, “it depends on the particular circumstances of each case.” But, the Amos case does infer that a correct secondary diagnosis, although not conclusive, acts as strong evidence toward proving that a reasonable person would have discovered the possibility of malpractice at that time.

September 17, 2011

2nd Circuit Reverses in Part Caddo Parish Med Mal Case Over Causation Issue

by Berniard Law Firm

With the vast criticisms that surround medical malpractice cases, it is no wonder why many keep a close eye on these types of cases. While it is very rare for an appellate court to do so, once in a blue moon an appellate decision will overturn a jury verdict of a medical malpractice judgment. Patten v. Gayle is one of those cases in which the plaintiff appeals the court’s verdict that malpractice occurred, but resulted in no injury and thus awarded no damages.

The plaintiff, Ms. Charlotte Patten, was the patient of her OB-GYN, Dr. Christopher Gayle, the defendant. Dr. Gayle had scheduled Ms. Patten for a laparoscopic evaluation after Ms. Patten complained of severe pain that was believed to be related to an abdominal hysterectomy she received from Dr. Gayle in 1997. In performing the procedure, Dr. Gayle placed multiple operative trocars (a medical instrument used to gain access into the abdominal cavity) throughout the abdominal area in order to insert a laparoscope, which enabled Dr. Gayle to see within Ms. Patten’s abdominal cavity. While performing the procedure, Dr. Gayle moved the trocars to gain better visibility of Ms. Patten’s abdominal cavity, and inadvertently punctured Ms. Patten’s abdomen. Initially, Dr. Gayle did not believe that the abdomen cavity had been compromised, but after further investigation later in the procedure, Dr. Gayle discovered that the trocars had penetrated through Ms. Patten’s small bowel. The result of the injury required Dr. Gayle to have the hospital’s general surgeon perform an emergency surgery on Ms. Patten to correct the error. In addition, feculent material was found to have leaked into Ms. Patten’s abdominal cavity a few days after the surgery had been completed, resulting in an abdominal infection known as peritonitis and pneumonia. After her recovery, Ms. Patten filed a medical malpractice suit against, among other individuals, Dr. Gayle. The jury determined that Dr. Gayle had in fact deviated from the required standard of care and had committed malpractice, but found that his actions did not result in the injuries sustained to Ms. Patten and awarded no damages. Ms. Patten appealed stating that the jury manifestly erred in finding a lack of causation between Ms. Patten’s injuries and Dr. Gayle’s malpractice.

In medical malpractice cases, the appellate courts apply the manifest error standard of review when ruling on issues of causation. The manifest error standard, as stated in Johnson v. Morehouse General Hospital, mandates that an appellate court may not overturn a trial court’s ruling, unless it is determined that the court’s factual determination is clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. The court in Johnson states that it is not enough that the appellate court disagree with the trial court’s decision, it must find that there is no reasonable factual basis for the trial court’s conclusion. The court in Lovelace v. Giddens requires the appellate courts to pay close attention to medical malpractice cases when it comes to conclusions of causation, as great deference must be given when medical experts make differing conclusions as to medical causation.

September 15, 2011

The Complexities of the Involuntary Dismissal of a Claim

by Berniard Law Firm

A lawsuit can be resolved in many ways. Prior to formal court proceedings, the suit may be dropped voluntarily for one reason or another, or the parties might come to an agreement in mediation. If the case goes to trial, it may be resolved with the judge or jury entering a verdict after a full trial. It may also be resolved before the close of proceedings by way of dismissal. If a case is dismissed it can have serious repercussions for a suit, and often destroys the likelihood of recovery if a dismissal is entered against a plaintiff. There are many types of possible dismissals that can end a proceeding including the involuntary dismissal of a claim.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1627 governs involuntary dismissal. The plaintiff presents their case first, and upon the completion of the presentation of the plaintiff’s case, the defendant may make a motion for involuntary dismissal. The judge then reviews the evidence presented. If he finds the plaintiff has shown no right to relief, he may grant the motion for involuntary dismissal. On a motion for involuntary dismissal, the plaintiff’s testimony should generally be accepted as true. So long as the plaintiff has presented enough evidence to establish his argument by a preponderance of the evidence, a fairly low burden of proof, the case should be allowed to proceed and the motion denied. If the motion is granted, the plaintiff can appeal the decision. A decision granting involuntary dismissal is difficult to overcome on appeal but it is not impossible. The 2011 case of Settle v. Paul illustrates what can happen where a plaintiff successfully appeals an involuntary dismissal.

In 2009, James Settle sued Brenda Michelle Paul, his ex-girlfriend, in a dispute over the existence of a partnership agreement between the parties. Mr. Settle and Ms. Paul formed a construction company and took on several small projects in the company’s infancy. In 2003, Ms. Paul filed the necessary paperwork to have the company incorporated in Louisiana, forming the limited liability corporation Landmark Construction Company of Coushatta (Landmark). She was listed as the sole member of Landmark. Mr. Settle agreed that the parties decided Ms. Paul would be the sole member of the corporation because they wanted the company protected from seizure against Mr. Settle’s child support obligations. The company was profitable throughout the duration of its operation.

September 13, 2011

Jones Act Lawsuit Fails Under Seaman Claim

by Berniard Law Firm

“Plaintiff Lost at Seaman Claim”

Robert Teaver may have fancied himself a man of the sea but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana that there was no way he could establish his status as a “seaman” for purposes of the Jones Act.

When dealing with litigation, especially when making a claim under a premise, words mean everything. To clarify, words mean specific things and those specific definitions are everything. Robert Teaver attempted to sue his employer under the Jones Act. The Jones Act was crafted to protect seamen who are injured in the course of their employment. This statute lays out the elements that must be met in order for a potential plaintiff to file a successful suit under it. Robert Teaver was a crane operator and installer for Seatrax of Louisiana, Inc. This company makes and installs cranes for offshore drilling platforms. Mr. Teaver’s work took him over water but he was not employed on a maritime vessel.

September 11, 2011

Third Circuit Court of Appeals Shoots Down Lafayette Woman’s Claim Damages Were Too Low

by Berniard Law Firm

Plaintiff Sherrie Lafleur was injured in an April 2007 rear-end collision on Ambassador Caffery Parkway in Lafayette. Mrs. Lafleur was waiting for a traffic signal when Brenda Nabours drove her vehicle into the rear of Mrs. Lafleur’s vehicle. The low-impact collision caused no damage to Mrs. Nabours’ vehicle and no structural damage to Mrs. Lafleur’s car.

Mrs. Lafleur filed suit against Mrs. Nabours (and Mrs. Nabours’ insurer Shelter Mutual Insurance Company) claiming that she suffered a severe neck injury as a result of the accident. Shelter admitted liability for the collision and the case proceeded to trial without a jury on the issues of causation and damage. The trial court found the debilitaing injuries claimed by Mrs.Lafleur were not a result of the collision and actually predated the accident by many years. The trial court awarded the medical damages incurred by Mrs. Lafleur from the date of the accident through August 2007 in the amount of $5,457.97. The court found Mrs. Lafleur failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her remaining medical treatment was necessitated by the Collision. The trial court also awarded general damages of $10,000. Mrs. Lafleur appealed the award claiming both the calculations for special and general damages were abusively low and contrary to the evidence.

Special damages are awarded to repay you for financial losses you have suffered. In Lousiana, the amount of special damages awarded is a finding of fact subject to the manifest error standard of review. Under this standard, the appellate court looks to whether the factfinder’s conclusion was a reasonable one not whether the trier of fact was right or wrong. If the conclusion was reasonable, a reviewing court may not reverse even though convinced it would have weighed the evidence differently. Where the factfinder’s determination is based on its decision to credit the testimony of one of two or more witnesses, that finding can virtually never be manifestly erroneous.

September 9, 2011

3rd Circuit Ruling Regarding Workplace Injury – Part 3 of Series

by Berniard Law Firm

Though Mr. Herbert’s primary argument was that he was outside the scope of his employment, he argued in the alternative that, even if the injury occurred within the scope of employment, the Defendants committed an intentional tort. Such a tort is the only recourse available to defeat a workers’ compensation defense when the injury occurs within the scope of employment. When making an intentional tort claim one must prove that the act that resulted in the injury was intentional. An intentional act requires the actor to either consciously desire the physical result of the act or know that the result is substantially certain to occur from his conduct. “Substantially” in this context requires more than a probability that an injury will occur and “certain” alludes to inevitability. Negligent, reckless, or wanton action is not enough to satisfy an intentional tort. These high standards make it difficult to succeed in a suit for intentional tort within the workplace.

Mr. Herbert was unable to succeed in his alternative argument because no proof was provided that either Industrial or GMI desired to harm Mr. Herbert or that the companies were substantially certain that the injury would occur from the companies’ acts. The court concluded that there was no evidence to prove that safety modifications made to the helicopter were an intentional cause of the injury. Neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendants felt that the safety harness used was unsafe, which defeated any claim that the Defendants knowingly acted to cause harm to Mr. Herbert.

In addition to the intentional tort, Mr. Herbert also claimed that the Defendants were responsible for spoliation of evidence. Spoliation of evidence is an intentional tort that impairs a party’s ability to prove a claim due to negligent or intentional destruction of evidence. In essence, the ability to make a claim for spoliation of evidence protects not only the claimant’s rights to suit, but also the court’s ability to provide justice. The key question in these claims is whether or not the defendant had a duty to preserve the evidence for the plaintiff. A duty of preservation may arise through contract, statute, special relationship, agreement, or an already acted upon undertaking to preserve the evidence. Because spoliation of evidence can be satisfied by an act under a negligence standard, this claim is easier to succeed on than one for any other intentional tort.

September 7, 2011

Discussion Regarding Employment Injuries – Part 2

by Berniard Law Firm

The issue of injuries within the scope of employment is not always black and white. Two concepts have somewhat complicated the matter: the borrowed employee and joint employment. Under the borrowed employee doctrine, a permanent employer may loan an employee to another, temporary employer. While under the temporary’s employ, the employee’s actions are that of the temporary employer. This doctrine means that if an employee is injured while working for the temporary employee, the questions regarding scope of employment apply only to the temporary employer. If the injury falls within the scope of the temporary employment, then the temporary employer may invoke workers’ compensation as an affirmative defense to tortious liability.

Figuring out whether an employee is borrowed or not is not always easy. Several questions can be asked to help classify the employment: Who has control over the employee? Who is paying the employee’s wages? Who has the right to terminate the employment? Who furnished the necessary tools and location for the employee’s work? How long was the temporary employment? Whose work was being done at the time of the injury? Was there an agreement between the permanent and temporary employers? Did the employee agree to the new temporary employment? Did the permanent employer relinquish control over the employee? The answers to these questions should paint a clear picture of whether or not the employee was in fact a borrowed employee. As in the Herbert case, if an employee agrees to do work for a temporary employer only because he is afraid of being fired by his permanent employer for refusal and is paid by the regular employer, then the employee has not fully acquiesed to the new job and the permanent employer has not relinquished control over the employee; it is still responsible for paying the employee’s wages. If this were the case, an injury that occurred while conducting the temporary employer’s work would fall outside the scope of employment because the employee is not a borrowed employee and the work would not be consistent with typical work conducted by the employee for the permanent employer. However, remember that the answer to each question proposed above is not determinative but rather should be analyzed within the totality of the circumstances.

In Herbert v. Richards, the court found that because GMI had no payroll, no equipment, and no contracts for leased land where the deer netting took place, the company was not an entity separate from Industrial. Since GMI was not a separate entity, it was not possible for GMI to have borrowed Mr. Herbert from Industrial. Thus, the court of appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants with regards to the issue of borrowed employee status.

September 5, 2011

Three Part Series Regarding Workplace Injuries

by Berniard Law Firm

3rd Circuit Uses Helicopter Injury Case to Clarify “Injury Within the Scope of Employment”

Injuries in the workplace occur frequently and thus many states have forced employers to purchase workers’ compensation insurance. Under workers’ compensation, the employer’s insurance agrees to pay for any lost wages and medical bills as a result of the employee’s injury. In exchange for this security the employer may use workers’ compensation as an affirmative defense with the burden of proof on the employer to insulate the employer from tort liability. This essentially minimizes an injured’s claim. However, as Herbert v. Richard illustrates, it is vital that one consider whether or not the injury occurred while within the scope of employment. Depending on the answer to this question, an employer may be barred from using workers’ compensation as an affirmative defense to protect itself from tort liability, resulting in a potentially greater claim by the injured.

In Herbert v. Richard, an employee fell from a helicopter while netting deer in Mexico on behalf of a game management company, Game Management Inc (GMI). Though the deer netting enterprise was GMI’s, the employee worked for Industrial Helicopters, Inc., a company owned by the same family that owned GMI. Mr. Herbert, the employee, had been a fuel truck driver for twenty nine years and had only been on GMI’s netting excursions once before the injury. Industrial sought to invoke a workers’ compensation affirmative defense arguing that Mr. Herbert was either within the scope of his employment, was a borrowed employee from Industrial, or, alternatively, that Industrial and GMI were joint employers.

September 3, 2011

Ouachita Parish Medical Malpractice Case Reminds Litigants of the Importance of Meeting Litigation Deadlines

by Berniard Law Firm

Previously on this blog, we have explored a number of cases where a party has faced defeat in court because of the failure to follow a procedural rule in litigation. Louisiana’s rules of civil procedure are designed to require a timely commencement to a suit and to ensure that the suit is then adjudicated in an expedient manner. Similar rules apply to the procedure for summary judgments. Motions either for or in opposition to summary judgments may be accompanied by affidavits (in fact, in some cases, affidavits are required). An affidavit must be filed no later than eight days prior to the hearing on the motion. La. C.C.P. art. 966(B). A party’s failure to observe this time requirement will result in the court’s excluding the affidavit from consideration. As the plaintiff in Sims v. Hawkins-Sheppard learned, such a failure can result in a dismissal of the case when the affidavit is critical to opposing summary judgment.

On May 22, 2009, Rebecca Sims sued Dr. Tonya Hawkins-Sheppard alleging medical malpractice after Sims’s son was severely injured and disfigured during delivery at the Glenwood Regional Medical Center in Ouachita Parish. During the discovery phase, Hawkins-Sheppard requested the identity of any medical expert who could support Sims’s claim of malpractice. Sims responded that she had not consulted a medical expert, and Hawkins-Sheppard filed a motion for summary judgment. A hearing on the motion was set for May 4, 2010. Sims requested, and was granted, a continuance of the hearing until July 7, 2010. Sims then filed an opposition to summary judgment that included an unsigned physician’s affidavit. Sims’s lawyer stated that the unsigned affidavit would be replaced with a valid affidavit before the scheduled hearing on the motion. No such substitution was made. On the day of the hearing, Sims explained to the trial judge that she had fired her lawyer and was seeking new counsel. Sims suggested that she had been misled by her attorney. Refusing to permit further delay, the judge went ahead with the hearing and then granted Hawkins-Sheppard’s motion for summary judgment. Sims appealed. The Second Circuit found that the trial court had abused its discretion in failing to permit Sims a reasonable amount of time to find new counsel and to substitute the unsigned affidavit with a valid, signed version. Hawkins-Sheppard then appealed to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which reached a different result. “[W]e find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in this case,” the supreme court stated. “[Sims] failed to show ‘good cause’ under La. C.C.P. art. 966(B) why she should have been given additional time to file an opposing affidavit.” Consequently, the court concluded, there was no genuine

issue to the material fact that Sims was unable to prove that Hawkins-Sheppard breached the standard of care. A medical malpractice action is one that, on summary judgment, requires a valid affidavit containing a medical expert’s opinion on the issue of the doctor’s breach of duty. Had Sims’s motion been accompanied by a valid affidavit, she could have avoided the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. Thus, the court reversed the Court of Appeal and affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Hawkins-Sheppard.

September 1, 2011

Court Explores Scope of Employment in Baton Rouge Car Accident

by Berniard Law Firm

After working at his job as a recruiter for the U.S. Army, Sergeant Sean Fowler went out drinking with friends on the evening of February 4, 2008. He returned to the recruiting station in Covington briefly to pick up some personal belongings before heading home, as he had the following day off from work. At about 12:30 am early Mardi Gras morning, Fowler fell asleep at the wheel of his government-owned vehicle (“GOV”).

At the intersection of Harding and Howell Boulevards in Baton Rouge, he collided with a car driven by Fartima Hawkins. Fowler, who submitted to a breathalyzer test at the scene, had a blood alcohol content of 0.112%, which was over the legal limit in Louisiana of 0.08%. Hawkins, who sustained serious injuries in the crash, sued Fowler and the U.S. government in federal district court. Her complaint asserted that Fowler was acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the crash and, therefore, the government was liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The district court granted the U.S. government’s motion for summary judgment. Hawkins appealed, arguing that a genuine issue of material fact existed over whether Fowler was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit conducted a de novo review of the district court’s decision. Hawkins’s case against the federal government was premised on the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which limits responsibility for injury to that which is “caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). Under the FTCA, the question of whether a negligent act occurred within the course and scope of a federal employee’s duty is settled according to the law of the state in which the alleged act occurred. See Garcia v. United States. Thus, the Fifth Circuit applied Louisiana jurisprudence in its analysis. Generally, an employee’s conduct is within the course and scope of his employment if it is (1) of the kind of conduct that he is employed to perform; (2)it occurs within the authorized time and space of employment; and (3) it is initiated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer. See Orgeron v. McDonald. The default approach in Louisiana is the “going and coming” rule: that is, when an employee is involved in a car accident on his way to or from his place of employment, it is considered to be outside of the course and scope. An exception to the rule is when the employee uses an employer-owned vehicle in the “performance of an employment responsibility.” Factors that influence the analysis include: (1) whether the employee’s use of the vehicle benefitted the employer; (2) whether the employee was subject to the authority of the employer at the time of the accident; (3) whether the employee was authorized to use the vehicle; and (4) whether the worker was motivated to use the vehicle, at least in part, by the employer’s concerns. Brooks v. Guerrero. The court found “no evidence … that Fowler’s use of the GOV was related to any employment responsibility or was of any value to the Army.” Instead, the court found that “Fowler was going home for the Mardi Gras holiday at the time of the accident” and, accordingly, was not acting within the course and scope of his duties as an Army recruiter. Although the court recognized that Fowler’s “permission to use a GOV on the evening of the accident [was] genuinely disputed,” it held that the settlement of that issue was not essential to determining the course and scope of employment. Thus, the court concluded that “no genuine issue of material fact exists that might preclude entry of summary judgment in favor of the United States.”