248 So. 3d 342
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- Kayla Arceneaux was admitted to Lafayette General Medical Center (LGMC) while ~30–31 weeks pregnant; fetal monitoring was removed and by Jan. 15 no fetal heart tones were detected; she delivered a stillborn on Jan. 16, 2014.
- Shortly after delivery Arceneaux reported inability to feel her legs and had multiple falls during hospitalization; she alleges an L2–L3 disc protrusion and incurred medical expenses from negligent nursing/hospital care.
- Plaintiff sought a medical review panel (MRP); the MRP issued a unanimous opinion finding no breach by LGMC or Dr. Nevils.
- LGMC moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiff had no expert proof of standard of care, breach, or causation; plaintiff opposed, claiming negligence was so obvious no expert was needed, and submitted affidavits and safety reports.
- At the May 1, 2017 hearing the trial court said plaintiff could not survive a malpractice case without an expert, but instead of granting LGMC summary judgment it sua sponte granted plaintiff a 90‑day extension to procure an expert.
- LGMC sought supervisory review; the appellate court granted the writ, reversed the continuance judgment, and remanded for a hearing on LGMC’s motion based on the record as of May 1, 2017.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert proof is required to establish standard of care, breach, and causation in this medical‑malpractice claim | Arceneaux: malpractice is so obvious (falls, post‑op deficits) that a layperson can infer negligence without expert testimony | LGMC: plaintiff has no expert to prove standard, breach, or causation; summary judgment appropriate | Court: Expert testimony is generally required; plaintiff offered only lay affidavits and the trial court correctly doubted obvious‑negligence theory |
| Whether the trial court properly sua sponte granted a 90‑day continuance to obtain an expert when no continuance was requested | Arceneaux: did not request continuance; relied on obvious‑negligence exception | LGMC: no motion for continuance was before the court; no good cause shown; delay was unwarranted given age of case and prior discovery time | Court: Trial court abused discretion in granting continuance sua sponte where plaintiff did not request it and no probable injustice or good cause shown |
| Whether LGMC was entitled to summary judgment based on the record at the hearing date | Arceneaux: factual disputes (falls, deficits) create triable issues | LGMC: record (MRP opinion, no opposing expert) establishes absence of material factual support for plaintiff’s claim | Court: Because plaintiff produced no expert evidence and trial court rejected obvious‑negligence claim, LGMC was arguably entitled to summary judgment; appellate court remanded for a hearing confined to evidence existing on May 1, 2017 |
| Proper scope/procedure for appellate supervisory review of interlocutory continuance granting extra time to obtain expert | Arceneaux: continuation favored for fairness | LGMC: writ appropriate to prevent unnecessary delay and prejudice | Court: Supervisory writ granted because reversal could terminate litigation and no disputed facts prevent resolution; reversed continuance order |
Key Cases Cited
- Pfiffner v. Correa, 643 So.2d 1228 (La. 1994) (expert testimony generally required except for malpractice so obvious a layperson can infer negligence)
- Newsome v. Homer Mem'l Med. Ctr., 32 So.3d 800 (La. 2010) (trial court abused discretion in granting continuance to consider late expert affidavit given delay and circumstances)
- Guillory v. Chapman, 44 So.3d 272 (La. 2010) (upheld exclusion of late expert affidavit; no good cause for extension)
- Sims v. Hawkins‑Sheppard, 65 So.3d 154 (La. 2011) (supreme court found plaintiff did not show good cause for additional time to file opposing expert affidavit)
- Shultz v. Guoth, 57 So.3d 1002 (La. 2011) (summary judgment appropriate where plaintiff failed to show breach or causation)
- Samaha v. Rau, 977 So.2d 880 (La. 2008) (once movant points out absence of factual support, non‑movant must produce evidence of material factual dispute)
- Herlitz Constr. Co. v. Hotel Inv'rs of New Iberia, 396 So.2d 878 (La. 1981) (appellate supervisory jurisdiction principles; decide merits when reversal would terminate litigation)
- Brown v. Sanders, 960 So.2d 931 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2007) (procedural vehicle and standards for seeking supervisory writs)