310 So.3d 746
La. Ct. App.2020Background
- On August 1, 2017, Alicia Brisco Bailey filed a request for a medical review panel on behalf of her deceased son, alleging care by Dr. Matthew Guillory from August 12, 2015 to September 6, 2016.
- Dr. Guillory filed a peremptory exception of prescription in state court on February 2, 2018, arguing the malpractice claims were time-barred under La. R.S. 9:5628.
- A hearing on the exception was held March 18, 2019; Ms. Bailey was served with notice but did not appear. The trial court granted the exception and entered judgment March 27, 2019 dismissing Bailey’s claims against Guillory.
- Dr. Guillory had attached the medical-review request and hospital records to his exception, but no documents or other evidence were formally introduced at the March 18 hearing.
- The appellate court held that because the attached documents were not introduced into evidence at the hearing, the trial court had no properly admitted petition or evidence before it and therefore erred in granting the prescription exception.
- The appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of malpractice claim (prescription) | Bailey’s panel request suffices and claim not shown to be prescribed | Guillory: claims barred by one-year/three-year limits under La. R.S. 9:5628 | Court did not decide timeliness on merits because no admissible evidence was introduced at hearing |
| Burden of proof on prescription exception | If petition shows discovery within one year, Bailey need not prove timely unless exception proves otherwise | Guillory bore burden generally, but attachments alone insufficient without hearing evidence | Because exception was decided without evidentiary support, ruling vacated and remanded |
| Admissibility of documents attached to exception | Attached medical-review request and records should be considered | Guillory relied on attachments to show prescription | Attachments not introduced at hearing are not evidence and cannot be considered |
| Effect of ruling during medical review panel stage | Bailey argued procedural protections apply; the panel request is the operative petition | Guillory relied on statute/case law allowing provider to raise prescription before panel | Court required proper evidentiary showing at hearing; absent that, exception cannot be granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Perritt v. Dona, 849 So.2d 56 (La. 2003) (health-care provider may raise prescription exception before a panel)
- Campo v. Correa, 828 So.2d 502 (La. 2002) (explains one-year discovery rule and three-year absolute limit)
- Cichirillo v. Avondale Industries, Inc., 917 So.2d 424 (La. 2005) (exception of prescription decided on pleadings absent evidentiary support)
- Verbois v. Taylor, 185 So.3d 59 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2015) (summarizes medical-malpractice prescriptive periods)
- Denoux v. Vessel Management Services, Inc., 983 So.2d 84 (La. 2008) (documents not properly introduced at hearing cannot be considered as evidence)
- In re Medical Review Panel Proceedings of Ouder, 991 So.2d 58 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2008) (the request for a medical review panel is treated as the petition for timeliness review)