gets.primecure.net

Tag: medical malpractice

  • Medical Malpractice Claim Fails: No Expert Testimony to Support Allegations

    The following case highlights the critical role of expert testimony in medical malpractice lawsuits and the difficulty of succeeding on such claims without it.

    Case Background

    Claire James sued Dr. Shahed Jameel, alleging that his negligent care caused the death of her mother, Laura James. However, a Medical Review Panel had previously reviewed the case and found no breach of the standard of care by Dr. Jameel. Despite this, Claire proceeded with her lawsuit. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Jameel, and Claire appealed.

    Medical Malpractice in Louisiana

    To succeed in a medical malpractice claim in Louisiana, a plaintiff must prove:

    1. Standard of Care: The degree of care and skill expected of a healthcare provider in the same or similar circumstances.
    2. Breach of Duty: The healthcare provider’s actions fell below the accepted standard of care.
    3. Injury: The patient suffered an injury.
    4. Causation: The healthcare provider’s breach of duty directly caused the patient’s injury.

    The Importance of Expert Testimony

    Expert testimony is crucial in medical malpractice cases because it helps the court understand complex medical issues and determine whether the standard of care was breached. Without expert testimony, it’s often impossible for a layperson (judge or jury) to make that determination.

    The Court’s Analysis

    The appeals court reviewed the case and focused on the lack of expert testimony to support Claire’s claims. Here’s what they considered:

    • Medical Review Panel: The panel, consisting of medical experts, unanimously found no breach of the standard of care by Dr. Jameel.
    • Plaintiff’s Evidence: Claire failed to present any expert testimony to contradict the panel’s findings or support her allegations of negligence.
    • Tangential Evidence: The only expert opinion Claire offered was from a panel member who criticized a different doctor’s actions, not Dr. Jameel’s.

    The court emphasized that without expert testimony to establish a breach of the standard of care, Claire could not meet her burden of proof in a medical malpractice case.

    Key Takeaways

    • Medical Review Panel: The opinion of a Medical Review Panel carries significant weight in Louisiana malpractice cases.
    • Expert Testimony is Essential: Without expert testimony, it’s very difficult to win a medical malpractice lawsuit, especially when the medical issues are complex.
    • Summary Judgment: If a plaintiff fails to produce expert evidence to support their claims, the defendant is likely to succeed on a motion for summary judgment.

    Outcome

    The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s decision, granting summary judgment in favor of Dr. Jameel. This case illustrates the high bar plaintiffs face in medical malpractice cases and the necessity of expert testimony to establish a breach of the standard of care.

  • Louisiana Medical Malpractice: When the Mailbox Rule Doesn’t Deliver

    Filing a medical malpractice claim in Louisiana involves navigating a complex process, including meeting strict deadlines. One crucial step is timely paying the filing fee to the Patient’s Compensation Fund Oversight Board (PCF Board). But does the “mailbox rule” apply to these payments? A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal case, In re: Medical Malpractice Review Panel Proceedings of Tiffany Anderson, grappled with this question, highlighting the importance of understanding the nuances of the law and the potential consequences of missed deadlines.

    Tiffany Anderson’s Case:

    Tiffany Anderson filed a request for a medical review panel with the PCF Board alleging medical malpractice. She mailed the required filing fee within the 45-day deadline, but the payment was not received by the PCF Board until after the deadline. The PCF Board declared her claim invalid, and the district court upheld this decision. Anderson appealed.

    The Court’s Decision:

    The Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s ruling, stating that the “mailbox rule” should apply to filing fees. This rule generally states that a mailed document is considered filed on the date it’s mailed, not the date it’s received. The court reasoned that the law doesn’t specify whether “to pay” means the payment must be received or merely mailed within the deadline. In such cases, they favored the interpretation that preserves the claim.

    Dissenting Opinion:

    However, there was a dissenting opinion. Judge McDonald argued that the plain meaning of “to pay to the board” implies receipt of the payment, not just mailing it. He cited previous cases supporting this interpretation and expressed concern that applying the mailbox rule could circumvent the 45-day deadline. He also pointed to recent legislative changes suggesting a trend towards a “date of receipt” requirement.

    Key Takeaways:

    This case emphasizes the following crucial points:

    • Strict Deadlines in Medical Malpractice Claims: The Louisiana medical malpractice process involves strict deadlines. Missing any of them can have serious consequences for your claim.
    • The Mailbox Rule & Its Limitations: While the mailbox rule generally applies to filing legal documents, its applicability to payments like filing fees can be less clear.
    • Importance of Legal Counsel: Navigating the complexities of medical malpractice claims requires experienced legal guidance. An attorney can help you understand the deadlines, ensure timely filings, and advocate for your rights.

    The Tiffany Anderson case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to all deadlines in medical malpractice claims. While the court’s decision in this case favored the plaintiff, the dissenting opinion and other legal precedents highlight the potential risks of relying solely on the mailbox rule for payments. When in doubt, it’s always best to err on the side of caution and ensure your payments are received by the deadline.

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Blog Articles on Medical Malpractice and Prescription Issues: Louisiana Court Upholds Prescription in Wrongful Death Suit, Highlights Joint Tortfeasor Rule and Grieving Widow Granted Opportunity to Fight Prescription in Medical Malpractice Case

  • Louisiana Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Case, Highlighting Importance of Fact-Finding in Proving Negligence

    In a significant development for medical malpractice litigation in Louisiana, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal recently reversed a summary judgment, underscoring the importance of thorough fact-finding and the potential need for expert testimony in such cases. The case, Diana Deruise-Pierce v. University Healthcare System, L.C., et al., underscores the necessity of thorough fact-finding and the potential need for expert testimony in medical malpractice cases, even when negligence appears evident.

    Case Overview:

    The lawsuit stemmed from the treatment rendered to Mr. Pierce at University Medical Center in New Orleans. Mr. Pierce was admitted for a medical procedure, but his condition deteriorated overnight. Despite this, the medical team proceeded with the planned procedure.

    Tragically, Mr. Pierce went into cardiac arrest during the procedure and passed away. His widow, Diana Deruise-Pierce, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit alleging that the healthcare providers breached the standard of care by transporting and leaving Mr. Pierce unattended in the hallway outside the radiology suite while he was in a severely deteriorated state.

    Trial Court’s Ruling:

    The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, relying on the medical review panel’s opinion that no breach of the standard of care occurred. The court also emphasized the absence of independent medical expert testimony to support the plaintiff’s negligence claim.

    Court of Appeal’s Decision:

    The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment, highlighting the presence of genuine issues of material fact that precluded summary judgment. The court emphasized the ambiguity surrounding whether Mr. Pierce was left unattended and for how long.

    Crucially, the court recognized that even without expert testimony, a breach of the standard of care could be established if the alleged negligence was so obvious that a layperson could infer it. The court also pointed to the deposition testimony of a fellow physician, Dr. Cooper, which suggested potential deviations from the standard of care.

    While acknowledging the challenges in proving causation without expert testimony, the court stressed the need for further fact-finding to determine the circumstances surrounding Mr. Pierce’s death and whether the alleged negligence contributed to it.

    This case underscores the critical importance of thorough investigation and fact-finding in medical malpractice cases. It highlights that even when negligence seems apparent, a detailed examination of the circumstances is necessary to establish a breach of the standard of care and its causal link to the patient’s injuries.

    The decision also emphasizes the potential role of expert testimony in proving medical malpractice. Still, it acknowledges that negligence may be so evident that expert opinion is not required in some instances.

    This case serves as a reminder that medical malpractice cases are complex and require careful consideration of all relevant facts and evidence. If you or a loved one has suffered harm due to potential medical negligence, it is crucial to consult with an experienced attorney to understand your legal rights and pursue appropriate action.

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Blog Articles on Fact-Finding and Expert Witnesses: When Do I Need Expert Testimony for a Medical Malpractice Lawsuit? and Appeal Necessary in Car Accident Case Where District Court’s Finding of Fact Strays

  • Louisiana Court Upholds Prescription in Wrongful Death Suit, Highlights Joint Tortfeasor Rule

    A recent ruling by the Louisiana Court of Appeal has shed light on the complexities of prescription (the state’s equivalent of a statute of limitations) and the concept of joint tortfeasors in wrongful death cases. The case, Crocker v. Baton Rouge General Medical Center, involved a tragic incident where a mentally impaired man, Jerry Sheppard, died after an altercation following his discharge from the hospital.

    Jerry Sheppard was taken to the emergency room at Baton Rouge General Medical Center (BRGMC) due to hallucinations. Despite his mental impairment, he was discharged without notifying his family. Hours later, he was found wandering the streets and was fatally injured in an altercation with a homeowner, Mr. Zeno.

    Jerry’s mother, Ridder Crocker, filed a lawsuit against both BRGMC and Mr. Zeno, alleging their negligence led to Jerry’s death. Mr. Zeno raised a prescription exception, arguing the lawsuit against him was filed beyond the one-year deadline. Ms. Crocker countered, claiming the timely filing of her medical malpractice claim against BRGMC suspended prescription for Mr. Zeno as a joint tortfeasor.

    The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision, dismissing Ms. Crocker’s claims against Mr. Zeno due to prescription. The court determined that BRGMC and Mr. Zeno were not joint tortfeasors, as their alleged negligent acts did not occur contemporaneously and they owed different duties to Jerry.

    Understanding Joint Tortfeasors and Prescription:

    • Joint Tortfeasors: In Louisiana, joint tortfeasors are individuals whose combined actions cause harm to another. When one joint tortfeasor is sued within the prescriptive period, it can interrupt prescription for all joint tortfeasors.
    • Prescription: In personal injury and wrongful death cases, Louisiana has a one-year prescription period. If a lawsuit is not filed within this timeframe, the claim is generally barred.
    • Medical Malpractice and the LMMA: The Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (LMMA) governs claims against healthcare providers. It requires a medical review panel’s evaluation before a lawsuit can be filed, which can suspend prescription against healthcare providers but not necessarily against other parties.

    Case Implications

    This case illustrates that even when multiple parties contribute to an injury, they might not be considered joint tortfeasors for prescription purposes. The court’s emphasis on the timing and nature of the alleged negligent acts underscores the importance of carefully analyzing each party’s role in the incident.

    Key Takeaways

    • Timely Filing is Crucial: Strict adherence to prescription deadlines is vital in Louisiana. Failing to file a lawsuit within the one-year period can permanently bar your claim.
    • Joint Tortfeasor Rule: The joint tortfeasor rule can interrupt prescription for all parties involved, but only if their actions are sufficiently connected in time and causation.
    • Seek Legal Advice: Navigating the complexities of prescription and the LMMA can be challenging. If you believe you have a claim, it’s crucial to consult with an experienced attorney as soon as possible.

    Additional Sources:RIDDER WILLIAMS CROCKER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF HER DECEASED SON, JERRY LEE SHEPARD VERSUS BATON ROUGE GENERAL MEDICAL CENTER — MID CITY AND ITS STAFF, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO oa THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH UNIT, WILLIAM T. ELLIOT, MD, AND JOSEPH THOMAS, JR, MD

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Prescription Issues: Prescription Important in Lawsuit Tied to Truck Fire and The Clock is Ticking: Understanding Prescription in Louisiana Personal Injury Cases

  • Louisiana Court Upholds Medical Malpractice Review Requirement in Hospital Device Lawsuit

    In a recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision, the court reinforced the importance of the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (LMMA) in determining the course of lawsuits against healthcare providers. The case involved a patient who allegedly suffered injuries due to a medical device used after surgery.

    Gregory Arrington, following surgery at St. Tammany Parish Hospital, was provided with an Alternating Leg Pressure (ALP) wrap to prevent blood clots. He claimed the device malfunctioned, causing him harm. The Arringtons sued the hospital, alleging negligence in the selection, purchase, and implementation of the ALP wrap.

    The hospital countered with a dilatory exception of prematurity, arguing that the claims fell under medical malpractice and required a medical review panel’s evaluation before proceeding to court. The trial court agreed and dismissed the Arringtons’ claims against the hospital without prejudice. The Arringtons appealed this decision.

    The Court’s Ruling and the Coleman Factors:

    The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling, focusing on the LMMA’s definition of “malpractice” and the six “Coleman factors” used to determine if a claim falls under medical malpractice.

    The court held that the hospital’s actions regarding the ALP device constituted “healthcare” under the LMMA. They reasoned that the selection and use of medical devices are intertwined with patient treatment and require medical expertise.

    The court also considered the Coleman factors, particularly:

    • Treatment-Related: The use of the ALP wrap was directly related to Mr. Arrington’s post-surgery treatment and involved professional medical judgment.
    • Expert Medical Evidence: Determining if the hospital was negligent in choosing and using the device would necessitate expert medical testimony.
    • Assessment of Patient’s Condition: The decision to use the ALP wrap involved assessing Mr. Arrington’s risk for DVT, a medical condition.
    • Physician-Patient Relationship: The incident occurred within the context of a physician-patient relationship and the scope of activities a hospital is licensed to perform.
    • Injury Related to Treatment: The injury allegedly wouldn’t have happened if Mr. Arrington hadn’t sought treatment at the hospital.

    Things to Know: 

    • Importance of the Medical Review Panel: The LMMA mandates that medical malpractice claims be reviewed by a medical review panel before litigation. This process aims to filter out meritless claims and encourage early resolution.
    • Broad Scope of the LMMA: The LMMA’s definition of “malpractice” is expansive, encompassing not just the direct treatment of patients but also decisions about medical devices and equipment used in their care.
    • Coleman Factors as a Guide: The six Coleman factors provide a framework for courts to determine whether a claim falls under medical malpractice, even in cases where the line between administrative and medical decisions may seem blurred.

    This case emphasizes the importance of understanding the LMMA and its procedural requirements when pursuing claims against healthcare providers in Louisiana. It reinforces the necessity of a medical review panel’s assessment in cases involving allegations of negligence related to medical devices and equipment. If you have suffered an injury due to a medical device, it is crucial to seek legal counsel to navigate the complexities of the LMMA and protect your rights.

    Additional Sources: GREGORY ARRINGTON HUSBAND OF/AND CLARNETTA ARRINGTON VERSUS ST. TAMMANY PARISH HOSPITAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 1 D/B/A ST. TANIMANY PARISH HOSPITAL AND CURRIE MEDICAL SPECIALTIES, INC. 

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Blog Articles on Medical Malpractice: What Type of Expert Testimony Is Needed in a Louisiana Medical Malpractice Lawsuit? and Louisiana Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Case: The Importance of Expert Testimony

  • Louisiana Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Case: The Importance of Expert Testimony

    A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision has underscored the significance of expert testimony in medical malpractice cases. The case, Mariakis v. North Oaks Health System, involved a wrongful death lawsuit alleging that the hospital failed to provide adequate care, leading to the patient’s death. The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the hospital, but the Court of Appeal reversed this decision, highlighting the necessity of expert evidence to resolve complex medical malpractice claims.

    Lori Mariakis presented to the emergency department at North Oaks Hospital with severe abdominal and vaginal pain. She was diagnosed with a colitis flare-up and discharged. Five days later, she returned with worsening symptoms and was diagnosed with constipation. However, her condition deteriorated, and she was admitted to another hospital, where she tragically passed away.

    Her sons sued North Oaks Health System, alleging that the hospital’s negligence in diagnosing and treating their mother led to her death. The medical review panel initially found no evidence of malpractice. However, the plaintiffs presented an expert witness, Dr. Robert V. West, who opined that the care provided by North Oaks fell below the applicable medical standard of care and caused Ms. Mariakis’s death.

    After initially excluding the testimony of the plaintiffs’ first expert witness, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of North Oaks, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked expert evidence to support their claims. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.

    The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, focusing on the importance of expert testimony in medical malpractice cases. It held that the plaintiff’s expert witness affidavit and subsequent report were sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the standard of care and causation, thereby precluding summary judgment.

    Things to Know: 

    • Expert Testimony is Crucial: In medical malpractice cases, expert medical testimony is generally required to establish the standard of care, breach of that standard, and causation.
    • Summary Judgment and Expert Evidence: When a defendant in a medical malpractice case moves for summary judgment based on the plaintiff’s lack of expert testimony, the plaintiff must present competent expert evidence to counter the motion and demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact.
    • Admissibility of Expert Evidence: The court also addressed the admissibility of expert evidence, emphasizing the need for proper authentication and compliance with procedural rules.

    Implications for Patients and Medical Providers

    The Mariakis decision highlights the challenges of navigating medical malpractice litigation in Louisiana. For patients and their families, it underscores the critical importance of securing qualified expert witnesses to support their claims. Expert testimony can be the deciding factor in establishing a healthcare provider’s negligence and its causal link to the patient’s injuries or death.

    For medical providers, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to the standard of care and documenting their actions thoroughly. Even if a medical review panel initially finds no evidence of malpractice, a plaintiff can still prevail in court if they present compelling expert testimony.

    The Mariakis case illustrates the complexities of medical malpractice litigation and the critical role of expert witnesses. Whether you’re a patient seeking justice for medical negligence or a healthcare provider defending your actions, seeking legal counsel from an experienced medical malpractice attorney is crucial. They can help you understand the legal standards, gather and present expert evidence, and navigate the complexities of the litigation process.

    Additional Resources:CHRISTOPHER CHARLES MARIAKIS AND MICHAEL ANDREW MARIAKIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF LORI HALE MARIAKIS VERSUS NORTH OAKS HEALTH SYSTEM

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Expert Testimony: Louisiana Court Reinstates Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Case: The Importance of Timely Expert Evidence and The Role of Expert Witnesses in Accident Claims: Resolving Conflicting Testimony

  • Coroner Not Liable for Burial of Foster Child’s Remains

    A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit decision has highlighted the complex legal issues surrounding the handling of deceased individuals’ remains, particularly in the context of foster care. The case, involving the parents of a minor child who passed away while in foster care, underscores the challenges in establishing liability against a coroner for the disposition of remains.

    In this case, the parents of Eli Simmons, a minor child who died while in foster care, sued various parties, including the Orleans Parish Coroner, alleging negligence in the handling of their son’s remains. The Coroner filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, dismissing the parents’ claims.

    The parents appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in its decision. However, the Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding that the parents failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their negligence claims against the Coroner.

    Key Points of the Ruling:

    • Burden of Proof: The Court emphasized that in a summary judgment motion, the burden of proof initially rests with the mover (the party requesting the summary judgment). However, once the mover establishes that there’s no genuine issue of material fact, the burden shifts to the opposing party to present evidence demonstrating a factual dispute that warrants a trial.
    • Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED): The parents’ primary claim was for NIED, alleging that the Coroner’s actions caused them emotional distress. The court noted that to succeed in an NIED claim, the plaintiff must prove the defendant violated a legal duty and engaged in outrageous conduct.
    • Coroner’s Duties and Immunities: The court highlighted specific Louisiana laws outlining the Coroner’s duties and immunities. Louisiana law grants coroners immunity for discretionary acts within their lawful powers and duties. Additionally, no action can be taken against a cemetery authority (which includes the Coroner’s office in this context) for the remains left in its possession for over 60 days unless a written contract exists for their care.
    • Lack of Evidence: The court found that the parents failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding the Coroner’s alleged negligence or outrageous conduct.

    Coroners in Louisiana enjoy a degree of immunity that allows them to perform their duties without the constant threat of litigation. La. R.S. 13:5713. The immunity, however, isn’t absolute. It doesn’t protect them from claims arising from actions that are:

    • Outside the scope of their lawful powers and duties
    • Criminal, fraudulent, malicious, intentional, or grossly negligent

    In the Simmons case, the court found the Coroner’s actions fell within the scope of their lawful duties and were not unreasonable or outrageous, thus entitling them to immunity.

    This case highlights the complexities surrounding the handling of deceased individuals’ remains, particularly in cases involving foster children. While the parents’ grief is understandable, the court’s decision underscores the legal framework protecting coroners from liability in certain situations.

    The ruling also emphasizes the importance of understanding the burden of proof in summary judgment motions. If you are involved in a legal dispute, it’s crucial to consult with an experienced attorney to ensure your rights are protected and that you present sufficient evidence to support your claims.

    Additional Sources: PATRICK SIMMONS, SR., ET. AL VERSUS THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Blog Articles on Coroners  and Statutory Immunity: Coroner’s Outrageous Actions Result In Loss of Statutory Immunity in Louisiana Lawsuit and Understanding Statutory Employer Immunity in Workers’ Compensation Cases in Louisiana

  • Granddaughters and Medical Malpractice in Louisiana: Who Can Initiate the Claim?

    In the recent Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, decision of Guffey v. Lexington House, the court delved into the complexities of prescription (the Louisiana equivalent of a statute of limitations) in medical malpractice cases. This ruling provides valuable insights into the interplay between the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (LMMA) and the state’s Civil Code, specifically concerning who can initiate a medical review panel and how that affects prescription for potential plaintiffs. This blog post will dissect the Guffey decision, analyze its implications, and offer guidance for navigating medical malpractice claims in Louisiana.

    Case Background

    Geneva Guffey, a nursing home resident, suffered a severe leg injury when a Lexington House employee dropped her during a transfer. She tragically passed away a few months later. Her granddaughter, Deana Fredrick, initiated the medical review panel process, a prerequisite to filing a medical malpractice lawsuit in Louisiana.

    Lexington House challenged Deana’s right to file the request, arguing she wasn’t a direct beneficiary under Louisiana law. The trial court and the Court of Appeal initially sided with Deana, allowing the medical review panel to proceed.

    The panel found that Lexington House had breached the standard of care. Subsequently, two of Geneva’s children filed a lawsuit. Lexington House responded with exceptions of vagueness and prescription, the latter being the focus of this appeal. They argued that the lawsuit was filed beyond the one-year prescriptive period and that Deana’s initial filing did not suspend prescription for the other potential plaintiffs. The trial court denied the exception of prescription, leading to this appeal.

    Court’s Ruling

    The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision, denying the exception of prescription. The court focused on the definition of “claimant” under the LMMA and concluded that there’s a distinction between the right to initiate the medical review panel process and the right to file a lawsuit after the panel’s decision.

    The court reasoned that the LMMA’s definition of “claimant” is broad, encompassing not just direct beneficiaries but also representatives of the patient or the decedent’s estate. This broad definition serves the LMMA’s purpose, which is to facilitate the efficient resolution of medical malpractice claims.

    The court also addressed the argument that allowing anyone to initiate the medical review panel process would render meaningless a provision allowing healthcare providers to raise an exception of no right of action. The court countered that the LMMA’s definition of “claimant” is specific enough to prevent frivolous claims.

    Key Takeaways from the Guffey Decision

    • Broad Definition of “Claimant”: The LMMA’s definition of “claimant” is inclusive, allowing not only direct beneficiaries but also representatives of the patient or the decedent’s estate to initiate the medical review panel process.
    • Suspension of Prescription: Filing a request for a medical review panel suspends prescriptions for all potential plaintiffs, even those not directly involved in the panel process.
    • Distinction Between Panel Initiation and Lawsuit: The right to initiate the medical review panel process doesn’t necessarily equate to the right to file a lawsuit after the panel’s decision. The Louisiana Civil Code’s provisions on wrongful death and survival actions determine the latter.

    Implications for Medical Malpractice Claims

    The Guffey decision clarifies several aspects of medical malpractice litigation in Louisiana. It underscores the importance of initiating the medical review panel process in a timely manner, as this suspends prescriptions for all potential plaintiffs. It also highlights the broad definition of “claimant” under the LMMA, potentially allowing a wider range of individuals to initiate the process.

    However, it’s important to remember that initiating the panel process doesn’t automatically guarantee the right to file a lawsuit. The right to sue is still governed by the Louisiana Civil Code, which specifies the classes of beneficiaries who can bring wrongful death and survival actions.

    If you are considering filing a medical malpractice claim in Louisiana, consulting with an experienced attorney is crucial. They can help you navigate the complexities of the LMMA, ensure compliance with procedural rules, and protect your rights throughout the process.

    Additional Sources: JAMES E. GUFFEY, ET AL. VERSUS LEXINGTON HOUSE, LLC 

    Article Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Prescription: Grieving Widow Granted Opportunity to Fight Prescription in Medical Malpractice Case and Trial Court Errs by Granting an Exception of Prescription to Insurance Company