Jeansonne v. Bonano
241 So. 3d 1027
| La. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- After his wife's in-hospital death, Bonano (pro se) requested a Louisiana Medical Review Panel (MRP) on May 8, 2012, naming Dr. Richard Jeansonne among defendants.
- The MRP met by telephone on December 3, 2013, and unanimously concluded Dr. Jeansonne had appropriately treated Mrs. Bonano and had not treated her during her final admission.
- Bonano did not file a subsequent medical-malpractice lawsuit after the MRP opinion issued.
- Dr. Jeansonne filed suit on January 7, 2015 alleging malicious prosecution and defamation based on Bonano's MRP request and statements.
- Bonano (after obtaining counsel) filed peremptory exceptions: no cause of action (malicious prosecution) and prescription (defamation); the trial court sustained both and dismissed Jeansonne’s claims.
- On appeal, the court reviewed de novo and affirmed: malicious-prosecution claim failed because an MRP is not a civil judicial proceeding and MRP opinions are non‑adjudicatory; defamation claim prescribed because prescription began when Jeansonne had knowledge of the defamatory publication (Dec. 3, 2013).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether convening an MRP and its favorable opinion supports a malicious prosecution claim | Jeansonne: MRP opinion is a bona fide termination in his favor sufficient for malicious prosecution | Bonano: MRP is non‑judicial, issues only a nonconclusive expert opinion, not a civil proceeding | Held: No — MRP not a civil judicial proceeding; malicious prosecution claim fails as a matter of law |
| Whether defamation claim was timely (prescription accrual date) | Jeansonne: Accrual delayed until MRP termination (90 days after claimant received opinion) or at least until Jan 16, 2014, so the Jan 7, 2015 suit is timely | Bonano: Prescription begins when plaintiff had knowledge of the publication (Dec 3, 2013) | Held: Prescription began when Jeansonne knew of the publication (Dec 3, 2013); defamation claim prescribed |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Papania, 207 So.3d 566 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2016) (standards for reviewing exception of no cause of action)
- Lemoine v. Wolfe, 168 So.3d 362 (La. 2015) (elements of malicious prosecution action)
- Jones v. Soileau, 448 So.2d 1268 (La. 1984) (malicious prosecution elements articulated)
- McGlothlin v. Christus St. Patrick Hosp., 65 So.3d 1218 (La. 2011) (purpose and effect of Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act and MRP opinions)
- Derouen v. Kolb, 397 So.2d 791 (La. 1981) (MRP issues nonconclusive expert opinion; panel lacks adjudicatory power)
- Everett v. Goldman, 359 So.2d 1256 (La. 1978) (MMA advantages to providers; MRP purpose)
- Perritt v. Dona, 849 So.2d 56 (La. 2003) (MRP as screening mechanism; opinion admissible but not conclusive)
- Clark v. Wilcox, 928 So.2d 104 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2005) (defamation prescription accrues on plaintiff's knowledge of publication)