Banks v. Children's Hospital
156 So. 3d 1263
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Miya Banks, eight, died from HLH after a liver transplant at Children’s Hospital.
- Two alleged negligent infusions: Jan 7, 2005 (contaminated platelets) and Jan 25, 2005 (platelets via a T-tube instead of central port).
- Plaintiffs filed suit; Medical Review Panel found breach on Jan 25 but no damages; amended petition added Jan 7 claim.
- Jury trial in 2013; jury answered 16 interrogatories with inconsistencies between breaches, causation, death, and damages.
- Trial court dismissed judgment despite inconsistent verdicts; plaintiffs appealed, arguing Article 1813 E required remand or new trial and de novo review.
- Court applied de novo review for legally tainted verdict and affirmed that plaintiffs failed to prove causation or loss of a chance of survival.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court err under Article 1813 E? | Banks argues court should remand or grant new trial due to inconsistent answers. | Childrens Hospital contends Article 1813 E not triggered or de novo review unnecessary. | Legal error; de novo review warranted due to inconsistent verdict. |
| Does de novo review apply where legal error affects fact-finding? | De novo review allowed to reassess evidence on causation. | Review should be manifest error unless de novo warranted by error. | De novo review proper; Court independently weighs preponderance of evidence. |
| Did Jan 25, 2005 breach cause loss of a chance of survival? | Plaintiffs proved loss of a chance of survival due to Jan 25 breach worth damages. | No, breach did not cause death or loss of chance; insufficient proof of causation. | Plaintiffs failed to prove loss of a chance of survival by a preponderance. |
| Did Jan 7, 2005 transfusion violate the standard of care? | Plaintiffs argued failure to pre-test donor blood violated standard of care. | No evidence that standard required pre-testing outside blood bank; jury rejected. | No breach proven on Jan 7 by preponderance. |
| Is the loss-of-chance doctrine applicable here given expert and autopsy evidence? | Loss of chance doctrine supports damages for reduced survival probability. | Expert evidence does not establish causation; autopsy and data rebut theory. | Loss of chance not proven; damages not recoverable under theory. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferrell v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 650 So.2d 742 (La. 1995) (inconsistent special verdict answers require Article 1813 E review)
- Picou v. Ferrara, 483 So.2d 915 (La. 1986) (restricts de novo review to issues interdicted by error)
- Lam v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 946 So.2d 133 (La. 2006) (limits de novo review to interdict findings)
- Ullah, Inc. v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 54 So.3d 1193 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2010) (de novo review when legal error obstructs fact-finding)
- Evans v. Lungrin, 708 So.2d 731 (La. 1998) (establishes de novo review standard where applicable)
- Palumbo v. Shapiro, 81 So.3d 923 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2011) (applies Ferrell framework to 1813 E context)