Emanuel Flintroy, Individually and on Behalf of his Daughter, Jessica Wright v. The State of Louisiana Health Science Center-Monroe, Dr. Rick Cavell, Dr. Gwen Holdiness, Dr. Stuart Melton, S.M. Beal, RN, Randy Ratcliff, RN, Lauren Tucker, RN, K. Richardson, RN and S. Dunham, RN
53,777-CA
La. Ct. App.Mar 3, 2021Background
- Jessica Wright, a 20‑year‑old with sickle cell disease, died on August 7, 2008, after treatment at LSU Health Sciences Center–Monroe.
- Her father, Emanuel Flintroy (never married to the mother), filed a Medical Review Panel (MRP) request on July 31, 2009, and a medical‑malpractice petition on November 2, 2011, asserting wrongful death and survival claims and alleging he was Jessica’s father.
- The MRP issued an opinion on August 1, 2011, finding no breach of care.
- LSU raised a peremptory exception of no right of action, arguing Flintroy had to establish filiation by filing a paternity action within one year of the child’s death under La. C.C. art. 198 (a peremptive period), which he did not do.
- The district court held filing the administrative MRP request did not interrupt the peremptive one‑year period and that Flintroy therefore lacked standing to sue on Jessica’s behalf; the court sustained the exception and dismissed the suit with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing an MLSSA MRP request suspends or interrupts the one‑year peremptive period in La. C.C. art. 198 for a putative father's paternity action | Flintroy: MLSSA suspends prescription during an MRP; by analogy the MRP filing should interrupt/suspend the peremptive period | LSU: Art. 198 is peremptive and peremption cannot be interrupted; MLSSA suspends prescription only, not peremption | Court: MRP filing does not interrupt peremption; Art. 3461 bars interruption/suspension of peremption |
| Whether a timely MRP filing can be liberally construed as a pleading that preserves a paternity claim (Udomeh) | Flintroy: The MRP request alleged paternity and should be read to preserve the paternity claim under liberal pleading rules | LSU: Udomeh involved district court pleadings; an MRP filed with the Division of Administration is administrative and lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate paternity | Court: Udomeh does not authorize treating an administrative MRP request as a paternity suit; the Division has no authority to decide paternity |
| Whether Flintroy had the right to assert wrongful death/survival damages absent a timely paternity action | Flintroy: MLSSA should be strictly construed in favor of plaintiffs and his pleadings preserve his claim of filiation | LSU: No timely paternity action within the one‑year peremptive period; therefore Flintroy lacks the status required to sue | Court: Because Flintroy did not timely establish filiation under Art. 198, he lacked the right to assert his daughter's claims; exception sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Udomeh v. Joseph, 103 So. 3d 343 (La. 2012) (tort petition alleging fatherhood can preserve a paternity claim under liberal pleading rules)
- Jenkins v. Starns, 85 So. 3d 612 (La. 2012) (peremption may not be suspended or interrupted)
- Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc., 16 So. 3d 1065 (La. 2009) (peremptive statutes strictly construed in favor of claims)
- Watkins v. Lake Charles Mem. Hosp., 144 So. 3d 944 (La. 2014) (MLSSA/medical malpractice provisions are construed to protect claimants)
- Miller v. Thibeaux, 159 So. 3d 426 (La. 2015) (courts liberally construe petitions to preserve paternity allegations)