Deroche v. Tanenbaum, 131 So. 3d 400

Elaine Deroche filed a claim with LPCF in January 2008 alleging Dr. Tanenbaum deviated from the standard of care by following MGA FPS prep instructions contrary to Fleet’s warnings before her February 2007 colonoscopy.
Deroche previously tolerated the same FPS prep in 2004 without incident; Dr. Tanenbaum relied on that prior experience for the 2007 preparation.
Deroche vomited after the first FPS dose and reportedly took the second dose without the recommended hydration interval, without timely notification to Dr. Tanenbaum or MGA.
Post-colonoscopy, Deroche developed dehydration, acute renal failure, and nephrocalcinosis, leading to hospitalization; medical panel later found no deviation from standard of care.
In November 2012, Deroches sued Dr. Tanenbaum, MGA, and Fleet; Dr. Tanenbaum moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted in January 2013; appellate review was de novo.
Court held that, on de novo review, the Deroches failed to present expert evidence establishing the applicable standard of care, its breach, or causation, and summary judgment was proper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Deroche prove deviation from the standard of care?	Tanenbaum breached by not basing FPS prep on proper hydration testing.	No expert evidence shows deviation; context aligned with medical review panel.	No genuine issue; summary judgment proper.
Did Tanenbaum breach by not informing of nephrotoxicity risk?	Failure to disclose material risk rendered care negligent.	No expert proof of material risk; consent and prior experience mitigate.	Not proven; materiality requires expert proof.
Did reliance on Fleet labeling establish a breach of standard of care?	Outdated FPS instructions breached standard.	Panel found instructions within standard; labeling alone not controlling.	No breach; labeling not dispositive of standard.
Was there an expert basis to support causation between breach and renal injury?	Inadequate pre-procedure evaluation and warnings caused injury.	No expert evidence linking breach to injury; panel findings support non-breach.	No triable issue; summary judgment proper.

Pfiffner v. Correa, 643 So.2d 1228 (La. 1994) (expert testimony generally required to prove standard of care and breach)
Hondroulis v. Schuhmacher, 553 So.2d 398 (La. 1988) (material risks must be disclosed; informed consent framework)
Independent Fire Ins. Co. v. Sunbeam Corp., 755 So.2d 226 (La. 2000) (de novo review of summary judgment; standard for material facts)