113 So. 3d 197
La.2013Background
- Plaintiffs (husband and children of Margaret Benjamin) sue Dr. Zeichner for medical malpractice after Mrs. Benjamin’s surgery on Aug. 29, 2000 allegedly caused death.
- Medical Review Panel found no deviation from standard of care; plaintiffs later filed suit.
- In May 2004, plaintiffs served an expert affidavit from Dr. Shamblin; summary judgment motion not heard.
- At trial in April 2011, Zeichner objected to Shamblin’s qualifications under La. R.S. 9:2794(D)(1).
- Shamblin had surrendered Louisiana license in 2007 and Alabama license in 2010; issues focused on whether he was currently licensed or graduated from an accredited medical school.
- Trial court refused to qualify Shamblin; defendant moved for directed verdict; court of appeal reversed trial court; this court granted writ to review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 9:2794(D)(1) requires current licensure or accreditation at trial | Shamblin qualified under (D)(1)(d) since he was licensed when he rendered his affidavit. | Statute requires current licensure or graduation from an accredited medical school at the time of qualification. | Statute unambiguous; current licensure or graduation required; trial court correct to exclude Shamblin. |
| Whether Tulane accreditation in 1958 was proven or can be assumed | Evidence showed Tulane was LCME-accredited in 1958; hearsay evidence should be considered preliminarily. | Accreditation in 1958 not proven; cannot assume from later licensure or other records. | Records did not conclusively establish 1958 LCME accreditation; plaintiffs failed to prove (D)(1)(d). |
| Whether the court should apply a relaxed evidentiary standard at qualification hearings | Preliminary determination of witness competency should consider broader evidentiary materials. | Qualification determinations must follow statutory requirements and record evidence. | Court held no relaxation of evidentiary standards; statutory requirements control. |
| Standard of appellate review for expert-qualification determinations | Trial court’s discretion should be reviewed for abuse given the record. | Manifest error standard applies to factual determinations; de novo review for legal interpretation. | De novo review of statutory interpretation; appellate deference to trial court on factual findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Benjamin v. Zeichner, 62 So.3d 65 (La. 2011) (discusses expert qualification under 9:2794(D)(1))
- Benjamin v. Zeichner, 94 So.3d 1005 (La. 2012) (appellate discussion on accreditation evidence)
- Benjamin v. Zeichner, 102 So.3d 49 (La. 2012) (Louisiana Supreme Court decision related to the same matter)
- Williams v. Zeichner, 11-00447 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/13/11) (unpublished) (La.App. 3 Cir.) (unpublished opinion cited regarding qualification issues)
- Broussard v. Hilcorp Energy Co., 24 So.3d 813 (La. 2009) (cited for evidentiary and procedural principles)
- Red Stick Studio Development, L.L.C. v. State ex rel. Dept. of Economic Development, 56 So.3d 181 (La. 2011) (cited for statutory interpretation and standards)
- Cenac v. Public Access Water Rights Ass’n, 851 So.2d 1006 (La. 2003) (cited for standard of review and preemption principles)
- England v. Louisiana State Bd. of Medical Examiners, 259 F.2d 626 (5th Cir. 1958) (addressed meaning of 'a college in good standing' in medical education)