215 So. 3d 889
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- Six-year-old Anna Cathryn Cooper was hospitalized with E. coli complications (sepsis, renal failure, thrombocytopenia, possible HUS) and underwent a pericardiocentesis in LSUHSC-S PICU that resulted in cardiac puncture and further surgery.
- A medical review panel of pediatric cardiologists unanimously found a breach of the standard of care; the case proceeded to jury trial in September 2015.
- The jury found liability and awarded damages totaling $370,000 broken down among Anna Cathryn (pain & suffering, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment, past and future medical expenses) and $25,000 each in bystander damages to John and Julie Cooper.
- The trial court entered judgment adopting the jury verdict as a lump sum; defense counsel had approved the judgment form prior to signature but later sought a new trial to correct the judgment’s handling of future medical expenses under La. R.S. 40:1237.1.
- Defendant appealed the bystander awards and the trial court’s denial of the motion for new trial to amend the judgment to comply with the statutory scheme governing future medical care awards against state services providers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity/quantum of bystander damages to both parents | Coopers argued their testimony and lay-witness observations showed severe, debilitating emotional distress warranting $25,000 each | LSUHSC-S argued plaintiffs failed to prove severe, debilitating, foreseeable emotional distress required for bystander recovery | Affirmed: appellate court found testimony (parents and family friends) supported award; not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether judgment must separately declare future medical need and provide payment mechanism under La. R.S. 40:1237.1 | Plaintiffs contended subsecs (F)(3) and (I) permit lump-sum judgment including future medicals and/or defendant waived objection by approving judgment form | Defendant argued statute mandates specific recitation of need/amount and payment-as-incurred procedures for future medical care against state providers; judgment noncompliant and correctable via new trial | Reversed trial court’s denial of new trial; judgment amended: total reduced to $350,000 (lump) and separately declared $20,000 future medical care to be paid as incurred under La. R.S. 40:1237.1(F),(L) |
| Standard of review for quantum and new-trial rulings | Plaintiffs relied on deference to jury and trial court discretion | Defendant emphasized legal requirement to correct judgments that conflict with statutory payment procedures | Court applied fact-discretion review to quantum (deferential) and held trial court abused discretion in denying new trial to correct legal error in judgment wording |
| Effect of counsel’s pre-approval of proposed judgment | Plaintiffs argued approval waived later statutory-compliance objections | Defendant argued substantive statutory requirements cannot be waived by counsel’s form approval and are correctable | Court held statutory requirements govern and amended judgment despite prior approval by defense counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Guillory v. Lee, 16 So.3d 1104 (La. 2009) (appellate deference to factfinder on quantum)
- Trahan v. McManus, 728 So.2d 1273 (La. 1999) (bystander damages elements)
- Lejeune v. Rayne Branch Hosp., 556 So.2d 559 (La. 1990) (examples of serious emotional distress and recovery for bystander claims)
- Blair v. Tynes, 621 So.2d 591 (La. 1993) (clinical diagnosis not always required for emotional distress recovery)
- Bourgeois v. Kost, 846 So.2d 692 (La. 2003) (procedural rule that substantive changes to judgments require motion for new trial or appeal)