187 So. 3d 445
La.2016Background
- Two consolidated medical-review-panel cases (Tillman and Miller) challenged the Division of Administration’s (DOA) practice of stamping faxed requests received after 5:00 p.m. as filed on the next business day, which rendered the filings untimely under one-year malpractice prescription.
- Tillman: decedent died May 22, 2012; plaintiffs faxed request May 22, 2013 after 5:00 p.m.; DOA later stamped it 5/23/2013.
- Miller: alleged malpractice April 1–4, 2012; plaintiffs faxed request April 4, 2013 after 5:00 p.m.; DOA stamped it 4/5/2013.
- Appellate courts held the filing date was the date DOA “stamped and certified” receipt (the next business day), dismissing both as prescribed. Plaintiffs sought certiorari.
- Supreme Court reviewed statutory text (LSA‑R.S. 40:1231.8(A)(2)(b)) in conjunction with the Louisiana UETA (LSA‑R.S. 9:2601 et seq.) and concluded that electronic/fax transmission is "received" when it enters the DOA’s designated fax/information processing system; stamping is ministerial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a faxed request is "deemed filed" on the date it enters DOA’s fax system or on the date DOA stamps/certifies it | Faxed requests transmitted before midnight on the last day of prescription were received that day and should suspend prescription | Section requires DOA to "stamp and certify" before deeming a request filed, so the filing date is the stamp date | Court held faxed requests are "received" when they enter DOA’s designated system; stamping is ministerial and cannot rewrite prescription periods |
| Whether the statutory phrase "date of receipt of the request stamped and certified by the division" is ambiguous as to fax filings | Ambiguous; should be read to reflect actual receipt date, not DOA’s stamp date | Clear: DOA may determine filing date by its stamp/certification practice | Court found the phrase ambiguous as applied to fax filings and construed it in light of UETA to mean actual electronic receipt date |
| Applicability of Louisiana UETA to faxed medical-review requests | UETA governs electronic records; fax transmissions enter recipient’s information system and are "received" then | DOA contended UETA may not control or that agency practice governs | Court held UETA applies; an electronic record is received when it enters designated system, even if unread |
| Whether DOA policy or rule that forward-stamps after-hours faxes validly shortens prescription or unconstitutionally delegates legislative power | Such a policy shortens prescription and is unauthorized; DOA cannot curtail statutory prescriptive periods | DOA relied on internal policy and related administrative provisions to justify stamp practice | Court held any rule that shortens the one-year prescription would be invalid; DOA may only record the actual transmission date/time from its system as ministerial act |
Key Cases Cited
- Thibodeaux v. Donnell, 9 So.3d 120 (La. 2009) (de novo review on pure questions of law)
- Holly & Smith Architects, Inc. v. St. Helena Congregate Facility, Inc., 943 So.2d 1037 (La. 2006) (standards for appellate review of legal questions)
- Milbert v. Answering Bureau, Inc., 120 So.3d 678 (La. 2013) (medical-malpractice prescription framework)
- Borel v. Young, 989 So.2d 42 (La. 2007) (MMA suspension of prescription during review panel process)
- LeBreton v. Rabito, 714 So.2d 1226 (La. 1998) (requirement to present malpractice claims to medical review panel before suit)
- State v. Alfonso, 753 So.2d 156 (La. 1999) (agency rules may not exceed legislative authorization)
- State v. Taylor, 479 So.2d 339 (La. 1985) (limits on delegation of legislative power)
- Schwegmann Bros. Giant Super Markets v. McCrory, 112 So.2d 606 (La. 1959) (delegation to administrative bodies to determine facts within statutory limits)