274 So. 3d 1275
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Relators Mary and Harlon Brock filed a medical malpractice complaint (death of Courtney Brock) and sought a medical review panel under the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (MMA).
- In pre-suit discovery under La. R.S. 40:1231.8(D)(4), Relators issued two notices of record depositions seeking (1) coroner records and autopsy material related to Dr. Stephen Hendry (deceased) and (2) Board records concerning Dr. Hendry's medical license.
- Respondents (St. Bernard Parish Hospital Service District and Dr. Hendry’s estate) moved to quash production and to bar Relators from submitting the produced records to the medical review panel.
- The trial court granted the motion and prohibited Relators from disclosing the obtained records to the medical review panel.
- Relators sought supervisory review (writ); the appellate court considered whether the trial court could restrict evidence submitted to the medical review panel under La. R.S. 40:1231.8(D)(2).
- The appellate court reversed, holding the trial court erred in acting as an evidentiary gatekeeper for the medical review panel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may restrict evidence presented to a medical review panel under La. R.S. 40:1231.8(D)(2) | Trial court lacks authority; the panel determines what evidence may be considered (catchall in statute reserves that decision) | Catchall must be narrowly construed to permit only evidence directly pertinent to alleged medical care/breach; requested records not pertinent and include sensitive autopsy material | Trial court may not act as evidentiary gatekeeper; the panel decides what evidence to consider; reversal of quash order |
Key Cases Cited
- Perritt v. Dona, 849 So.2d 56 (La. 2003) (construed predecessor statute to limit discovery devices at medical review panel stage)
- Cacamo v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 798 So.2d 1210 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2001) (trial courts have broad discretion regulating pretrial discovery)
- Griffith v. Jones, 602 N.E.2d 107 (Ind. 1992) (trial courts may not dictate the content or matters a medical review panel may consider)
- Chen v. Kirkpatrick, 738 N.E.2d 727 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (trial court may not function as gatekeeper for panel evidence)
- Med. Review Complaint by Downing, 272 So.3d 55 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2019) (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
- Kelty v. Brumfield, 633 So.2d 1210 (La. 1994) (noting Louisiana MMA modeled on Indiana law)