Brandi Billeaudeau, Veronica Billeaudeau, and Joseph Billeaudeau v. Opelousas General Hospital Authority, Dr. Kondilo Skirlis-Zavala, and the Shumacher Group of Louisiana, Inc.
2016 La. LEXIS 2082
| La. | 2016Background
- Brandi Billeaudeau (patient) presented to Opelousas General Hospital (OGH) ED with stroke symptoms; Dr. Kondilo Skirlis‑Zavala (an independent contractor) allegedly misdiagnosed and delayed tPA, causing severe brain injury.
- Plaintiffs sued OGH and others under the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (LMMA) and separately alleged negligent credentialing against OGH for granting Dr. Zavala ED privileges.
- Plaintiffs settled their malpractice claims but reserved the negligent‑credentialing claim; they moved for partial summary judgment that that claim is not subject to the LMMA (and its damages cap).
- District Court granted the motion; Court of Appeal affirmed; Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether negligent credentialing is malpractice under the LMMA.
- The Court applied statutory construction and the six Coleman factors to determine whether negligent credentialing sounds in medical malpractice or general negligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether negligent credentialing is a claim "arising from medical malpractice" under the LMMA | Credentialing is an administrative act distinct from treatment and thus falls outside the LMMA (general negligence) | Credentialing is integral to provision of health care; exposing patients to unqualified physicians is treatment‑related and thus within the LMMA | Held: negligent credentialing sounds in general negligence and is not governed by the LMMA |
| Whether Coleman factors indicate malpractice (treatment‑related, need for medical expert, assessment of patient, context, but‑for, intent) | Many factors (no contemporaneous treatment, administrative nature, no medical expert required on treatment standard) weigh against malpractice | Some factors (hospital scope, need to evaluate physician qualifications) support malpractice | Held: overall Coleman analysis weighs in favor of general negligence; key factors (treatment‑related, expert medical evidence, patient assessment) do not support LMMA coverage |
| Whether legislative history/expressio unius requires inclusion of credentialing in LMMA | Plaintiffs: omission of "credentialing" from statutory list shows legislature did not include it | OGH: repeated failed bills are not dispositive; credentialing may fall under supervision/training already in LMMA | Held: statutory text and strict construction of LMMA favor excluding credentialing; Coleman test confirms exclusion |
| Whether negligent credentialing claim must be subject to LMMA pre‑suit panel and damages cap | Plaintiffs: permitting claim outside LMMA allows uncapped recovery for the same injury via an administrative‑theory backdoor | OGH: allowing separate general‑negligence claim would undermine LMMA's purposes | Held: Court affirms claim is governed by general tort law (not LMMA), so LMMA pre‑suit & cap do not apply to negligent credentialing |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. Deno, 813 So.2d 303 (La. 2002) (six‑factor test for distinguishing malpractice from general negligence)
- LaCoste v. Pendleton Methodist Hosp., 966 So.2d 519 (La. 2007) (administrative hospital failures not necessarily malpractice under LMMA)
- Dupuy v. NMC Operating Co., LLC, 187 So.3d 436 (La. 2016) (pre‑treatment hospital actions related to health care can fall within LMMA)
- Williamson v. Hospital Service Dist. No. 1 of Jefferson, 888 So.2d 782 (La. 2004) (LMMA construed strictly; some nonclinical hospital acts are outside LMMA)