169 So. 3d 319
La.2015Background
- Snider sued Dr. Yue for alleged breach of the standard of care in August 2007 when a permanent pacemaker was emergently implanted.
- Plaintiff’s medical history included a May 2007 myocardial infarction with coronary artery disease treatment, beta-blocker use, and anticoagulation.
- Snider presented to Beauregard and St. Patrick hospitals with bradycardia symptoms; Yue recommended pacemaker implantation.
- The medical review panel concluded Yue failed to comply with the standard of care and that his conduct contributed to minor injury.
- A jury found in favor of Yue in 2012; the court of appeal reversed on informed-consent issues, the supreme court reversed that reversal, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings with manifest-error review in mind.
- Guidelines for Indications for Permanent Cardiac Pacing (Class I/II/III) were discussed, indicating non-emergent pacing requires careful assessment and documentation; the parties presented conflicting expert testimony on standard-of-care applicability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Yue’s decision to implant the pacemaker a breach of the standard of care? | Snider contends the decision was rushed without monitoring or stopping medications. | Yue acted within the appropriate standard given bradycardia and symptoms. | No manifest error; jury’s finding not clearly wrong. |
| Is the jury’s verdict regarding breach of care manifestly erroneous given conflicting expert opinions? | Evidence favored breach based on guidelines and panel opinions. | Evidence supported Yue’s adherence to the standard; some experts agreed the guidelines permitted implantation. | Not manifestly erroneous; reasonable to credit defense expert. |
| Did the remand proceedings properly address informed-consent issues under manifest-error review? | Remand should fix errors related to informed consent. | Remand focused on standard-of-care; informed-consent issue not dispositive on liability. | Remand retained for remaining assignments of error; informed-consent issue discussed but not reversed on the issue here. |
| Does the appellate standard of review apply manifest-error deference to jury credibility findings? | Evidence contradicted the jury’s credibility-findings. | Jury credibility should be given deference under manifest-error standard. | Court must defer to the fact-finder’s credibility determinations unless manifestly erroneous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (manifest error standard and deference to credibility findings)
- Clay v. Our Lady of Lourdes Regional Medical Center, 93 So.3d 536 (La. 2012) (reasonableness of fact-finder; do not reweigh evidence)
- Pinsonneault v. Merchants & Farmers Bank & Trust Co., 816 So.2d 270 (La. 2002) (avoid substituting own factual findings)
- Bellard v. American Central Ins. Co., 980 So.2d 654 (La. 2008) (evaluating expert testimony and conflicts)
- Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120 (La. 1987) (manifest error review and credibility)