206 So. 3d 1049
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Sylvia Scott sued Kindred Hospital in May 2014 alleging sexual battery by hospital employees; Kindred filed an exception of prematurity arguing the claim sounded in medical malpractice and required submission to a medical review panel.
- The trial court sustained Kindred’s prematurity exception and dismissed Scott’s civil suit without prejudice to presentation to a medical review panel; Scott did not appeal that dismissal.
- Scott filed a medical review panel request with the Division of Administration on December 15, 2014 alleging events between May–August 2013.
- Kindred moved to dismiss the medical review panel request as prescribed, arguing the LMMA prescriptive period (one year) applied and Scott’s December 2014 request was untimely.
- The trial court sustained the prescription exception and dismissed Scott’s panel request with prejudice; Scott appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the prior unappealed prematurity judgment had res judicata effect that Scott’s claims were governed by the LMMA and that her medical-malpractice claim was prescribed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Scott’s claims are governed by the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (LMMA) | The claims arise from sexual battery (a crime of violence) and thus are torts with a two-year prescriptive period under Civil Code art. 3493.10 | The earlier dismissal ruled the claims are medical malpractice subject to the LMMA; Scott failed to appeal that ruling so LMMA applies | LMMA governs; the unappealed prematurity judgment has res judicata effect and controls characterization of the claims |
| Whether Scott’s medical review panel request was timely | The panel request (Dec 15, 2014) is within two years of the alleged May–July 2013 sexual battery | Because LMMA applies, the one-year malpractice prescriptive period elapsed before the Dec 2014 request | The request was prescribed under the LMMA one-year rule; dismissal with prejudice affirmed |
| Whether the prior prematurity ruling can be re-litigated now | The prior ruling was erroneous, so Scott should be allowed to contest characterization now | The prior dismissal was final and unappealed and thus has res judicata effect | Prior final judgment is conclusive even if erroneous; Scott’s failure to appeal bars re-litigation |
| Whether contra non valentum or discovery doctrines prevent prescription | Scott argued defendants’ conduct (e.g., failure to produce documents) delayed discovery and tolled prescription | Kindred showed discovery efforts began after the prescriptive period had already run | Court found no basis to apply contra non valentum; prescription was not tolled |
Key Cases Cited
- Burandt v. Pendleton Mem’l Methodist Hosp., 123 So.3d 236 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2013) (prematurity under LMMA requires panel submission)
- Bush v. Nat’l Health Care of Leesville, 939 So.2d 1216 (La. 2006) (premature suit does not suspend prescription for medical-malpractice claims)
- Spott v. Otis Elevator Co., 601 So.2d 1355 (La. 1992) (exceptor generally bears burden on peremptory exception)
- Bosarge v. DePaul/Tulane Behavioral Health Ctr., 39 So.3d 790 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2010) (when prescription begins: actual or constructive knowledge standard)
- Grimes v. Louisiana Medical Mut. Ins. Co., 36 So.3d 215 (La. 2010) (dismissal for prematurity acquires res judicata effect if unappealed)
- M.R. Pittman Grp., L.L.C. v. Plaquemines Par. Gov’t, 182 So.3d 303 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2015) (standards for reviewing exceptions of prescription)