Burandt v. Pendleton Memorial Methodist Hospital
123 So. 3d 236
| La. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Decedent Pauline Singelmann was an acute-care/ICU patient transferred to a HealthSouth-operated long-term acute care unit at Pendleton Memorial Methodist Hospital before Hurricane Katrina; she died in the storm’s aftermath and her remains were identified three months later.
- Daughter Dorothy Burandt sued HealthSouth and Methodist Hospital for survival and wrongful death damages, alleging failures in planning, evacuation, and non-medical duties, and alleging abandonment/intentional acts.
- HealthSouth (a qualified health care provider under the LMMA) filed a dilatory exception of prematurity arguing all claims sound in medical malpractice and therefore required submission to a medical review panel.
- The trial court granted the exception and dismissed Burandt’s suit as premature; Burandt appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo whether the petition’s allegations fall within the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (LMMA) or sound in general tort.
- The court applied the Coleman six-factor test and concluded Burandt’s original petition alleged non-treatment-related failures (evacuation planning, administrative preparedness, non-medical duties) and therefore the LMMA did not apply; judgment reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Burandt’s claims fall within the LMMA (i.e., sound in medical malpractice) so as to require a medical review panel? | Claims arise from HealthSouth’s conduct toward a patient during confinement and thus are medical-malpractice matters. | Allegations are treatment-related or require medical expertise, so LMMA applies and suit is premature. | Reversed: original allegations do not relate to medical treatment and LMMA does not apply. |
| Is failure to plan/supervise to accommodate the patient a medical-malpractice claim? | Was an omission in patient-specific care; requires medical-standard proof. | It is healthcare-related and thus within LMMA. | Held not within LMMA on this record; ambiguity resolved for plaintiff; insufficient proof that claim is treatment-related. |
| Is failure to evacuate/maintain emergency power a malpractice claim? | Evacuation decisions affect patient care and may implicate professional judgment. | Such decisions are treatment-related and need medical review panel. | Held outside LMMA: evacuation/failed preparedness are non-treatment administrative failures; no expert medical proof required. |
| Does the abandonment/intentional-tort allegation fall under LMMA? | Characterized as intentional abandonment of a patient under provider control. | As acts toward a patient, LMMA governs. | Held not within LMMA: intentional-abandonment theory fails as to LMMA because (1) record shows negligence only and (2) LMMA does not cover post-mortem claims (patient definition terminates at death). |
Key Cases Cited
- LaCoste v. Pendleton Methodist Hosp., 966 So.2d 519 (La. 2007) (Supreme Court applying Coleman factors to determine LMMA scope for hurricane-related hospital failures)
- Coleman v. Deno, 813 So.2d 303 (La. 2002) (articulates six-factor test for determining whether a wrong is treatment-related)
- Williamson v. Hosp. Serv. Dist. No. 1 of Jefferson, 888 So.2d 782 (La. 2004) (procedural guidance on supplemental pleadings and prematurity exceptions)
- Mineo v. Underwriters at Lloyds, London, 997 So.2d 187 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2008) (LMMA inapplicable to nursing-home failures to evacuate or provide basic necessities after Katrina)
- Montalbano v. Buffman Inc., 90 So.3d 503 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2012) (failure-to-evacuate claims not within LMMA; no medical-treatment nexus)