255 So. 3d 604
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2009 Crockerham underwent a robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy at Woman's Hospital; she later alleged loss of bladder function and sued for medical malpractice and related claims.
- Medical Review Panel found no breach by Woman's Hospital but noted a factual issue whether Dr. Dickerson had proper credentials to perform the robotic surgery.
- Woman's Hospital moved for summary judgment (filed Nov. 28, 2016) attaching depositions (Dr. Dickerson and plaintiff expert Dr. Wheeler), Medical Review Panel materials, and other exhibits; hearing was reset and held March 20, 2017 without plaintiff’s counsel present; court granted summary judgment that day.
- Plaintiff filed an opposition after the hearing and moved for new trial; the trial court denied the new trial and plaintiff appealed the summary judgment.
- Key evidence in the summary‑judgment record: Dr. Dickerson testified he completed an animal lab course and that the hysterectomy at issue was his first robotic hysterectomy; Dr. Wheeler testified Woman’s Hospital required observation of at least one human robotic case and that Dr. Dickerson did not meet that requirement, creating a dispute on credentialing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligent credentialing — did Woman's Hospital negligently credential Dr. Dickerson? | Crockerham: Dr. Dickerson lacked required credentials (no observed human robotic case); Dr. Wheeler’s testimony creates a genuine fact issue. | Woman’s Hospital: Dr. Dickerson met hospital credentials (certificate, proctoring); plaintiff’s expert lacked sufficient basis. | Reversed in part — genuine issue of material fact exists on negligent credentialing; summary judgment improper on this claim. |
| Informed consent — is Woman's Hospital liable for failure to obtain informed consent? | Crockerham: Hospital failed to ensure she was informed that Dr. Dickerson had not performed/seen a live robotic hysterectomy. | Woman’s Hospital: Duty to obtain informed consent rests with the physician performing the procedure, not the hospital. | Affirmed in part — no genuine issue of material fact for hospital liability on informed consent; summary judgment proper as to that claim. |
| Effect of unopposed summary‑judgment filing and late opposition | Crockerham: Even though initially unopposed at hearing, the mover still must establish entitlement to judgment; exhibits submitted by mover can create triable issues. | Woman’s Hospital: Unopposed motion warrants judgment; plaintiff failed to timely oppose. | Court applied de novo review, considered only evidence before trial court, and held mover did not eliminate factual dispute on credentialing despite lack of timely opposition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, Inc., 639 So.2d 730 (La. 1994) (standard of appellate de novo review for summary judgment)
- Jackson v. City of New Orleans, 144 So.3d 876 (La. 2014) (definition of material fact and genuine issue)
- Billeaudeau v. Opelousas Gen. Hosp. Auth., 218 So.3d 513 (La. 2016) (negligent credentialing governed by general tort/duty‑risk analysis)
- Hondroulis v. Schuhmacher, 553 So.2d 398 (La. 1988) (physician, not hospital, bears duty to obtain informed consent)
- Pumphrey v. Harris, 111 So.3d 86 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2012) (trial court may not resolve credibility disputes on summary judgment)