Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
Every doctor places great value on their professional reputation in the medical world. This is because a doctor’s reputation is one of the primary ways a community judges the doctor’s standard of care. When this reputation is wrongly called into question, a doctor may want to use legal avenues to clear their name. A Parish of Tammany doctor found their reputation challenged and decided to fight back with their own counter-lawsuit to establish that he was not responsible for a woman’s death after his treatment.
Elaine Bonano went to the emergency room and was seen by Dr. Richard Jeansonne. Dr. Jeansonne assessed her symptoms and diagnosed her with a urinary tract infection (UTI). She was ordered to take oral medication to treat the infection and had a short stay at the hospital. Less than two days later, Mrs. Bonano returned to the emergency room and was seen by another doctor at the hospital. The doctor changed the diagnosis from a UTI to a kidney infection.
Eventually, Mrs. Bonano passed away, and her husband pursued a negligence claim through a medical review panel (MRP). The claim was based on the initial misdiagnosis and his view that the improper diagnosis was the beginning of the end for his wife. The MRP met and unanimously agreed that Dr. Jeansonne’s medical treatment of Mrs. Bonano was proper.
Even though Mr. Bonano never pursued a lawsuit against Dr. Jeansonne, Dr. Jeansonne filed his own lawsuit against Mr. Bonano. He alleged malicious prosecution and defamation. Dr. Jeansonne’s claim was based on the belief that Mr. Bonano had no basis to even request an MRP and that because his medical skills were called into question, it was hurtful to his reputation and was the basis for a defamation lawsuit.
The Twenty-Second Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Tammany dismissed the lawsuit. The dismissal was based on Mr. Bonano’s claim that there was no cause of action and a statute of limitations claim, called prescription. Unhappy with the verdict, Dr. Jeansonne appealed the dismissal to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal.
An essential element of a malicious prosecution claim is that the original action must have been a criminal or civil proceeding. See Lemoine v. Wolfe, 168 So.3d 362 (La. 2015). For Dr. Jeansonne’s lawsuit to proceed, he had to prove that an MRP was a legal proceeding. Unfortunately for Dr. Jeansonne, the case law in Louisiana is very clear on the court’s view of an MRP. An MRP is not a judge or a jury but merely a body of experts assembled to evaluate a medical claim and to provide an expert opinion. See Derouen v. Kolb, 397 So. 2d 791 (La. 1981). In fact, no lawsuit for medical malpractice can even be brought until an MRP considers the case. La. R.S. 40:1299.47(B)(l)(a)(i).
Prescription is a statute of limitations action in a lawsuit. The prescriptive period for a defamation lawsuit is one year. See Clark v. Wilcox, 928 So.2d 104 (La. Ct. App. 2005). This period begins to run when the party affected has knowledge of the defamation-causing action.
Because Louisiana case law has held that an MRP is not a legal proceeding, the First Circuit denied Dr. Jeansonne’s claim of malicious prosecution. The MRP’s primary function is to separate legitimate claims from illegitimate allegations and is a precursor to a legal claim. Further, after the MRP’s decision, Mr. Bonano did not pursue any legal action against Dr. Jeansonne. Therefore, there was no legal basis for a claim of malicious prosecution, and the lawsuit was properly dismissed.
When the First Circuit considered the issue of prescription, it first had to determine at what point Dr. Jeansonne had knowledge. The time limit to bring a defamation claim is one year. The First Circuit determined that the latest date Mr. Jeansonne could have known of possible defamation was December 3, 2013. This was the date the MRP handed down its decision. Dr. Jeansonne’s lawsuit was not filed until January 7, 2015. The date the lawsuit was brought was well over the one-year time limit, and the dismissal of the defamation claim was proper.
This case demonstrated two essential aspects of bringing a lawsuit. First, malicious prosecution claims can only be validly considered if the subject was actually prosecuted. The second is that lawsuits must be brought in a timely manner. Neither condition was met, and this case was determined to be properly dismissed. Both these legal issues require evaluation by a good lawyer.
Additional Sources: Richard Jeansonne, Jr., M.D. versus Ferdinand Bonano
Written by Berniard Law Firm Blog
Additional Berniard Law Firm Articles on Medical Malpractice: Louisiana Lawsuit Illustrates the Importance of Timing for Medical Malpractice Claims