Johnson v. Tucker, 243 So. 3d 1237

On June 13, 2011, Robert Johnson presented to Richland Parish Hospital ED with chest pain, shortness of breath, and right leg pain; initial workup (CBC, EKG, chest X‑ray, cardiac enzymes, BNP, TSH) was largely normal and a second set of cardiac enzymes was negative. Dr. Tucker diagnosed costochondritis/polyarthritis, administered symptomatic treatment, and discharged him the same day.
About an hour after discharge, Mr. Johnson collapsed at home; he was resuscitated briefly but pronounced dead at the hospital. Autopsy showed multiple peripheral pulmonary emboli and a large saddle embolus.
Plaintiff (Mrs. Johnson) sought a medical review panel; a panel unanimously found no breach by Dr. Tucker. Plaintiff later sued and at trial called Dr. Thoma and other experts who testified PE/DVT should have been suspected and that a D‑dimer and/or ultrasound should have been ordered.
Defendants presented testimony from the three medical panelists and another expert who concluded Dr. Tucker acted within the standard of care because PE was low probability and further testing was not required.
The jury unanimously found Dr. Tucker breached the applicable standard of care and that breach proximately caused Mr. Johnson’s death, awarding $500,000. Defendants appealed, raising (1) exclusion of credibility evidence about Dr. Thoma’s medical‑panel oath and (2) that the jury was manifestly erroneous in crediting Dr. Thoma over other experts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by excluding cross‑examination about Dr. Thoma’s medical‑panel oath	Exclusion was proper because probative value was outweighed by prejudice and risk of confusion	Excluding the oath prevented impeachment of Dr. Thoma’s credibility regarding bias	Any error was harmless; exclusion did not affect a substantial right given the full record and conflicting expert testimony
Whether the jury was manifestly erroneous in crediting Dr. Thoma and finding breach/causation	Dr. Thoma and other testifying experts (e.g., Dr. Happle) showed PE/DVT should have been investigated (D‑dimer/ultrasound) and that failure caused death	Panelists and other defense experts testified PE was low probability and further testing was not required; trial testimony supported reasonableness	Not manifestly erroneous; jury permissibly credited plaintiff’s experts over defendants’ and reasonably found breach and proximate cause

Simmons v. Christus Schumpert, 71 So.3d 407 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2011) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for effect on substantial rights under La. C.E. art. 103)
Buckbee v. United Gas, 561 So.2d 76 (La. 1990) (harmless error and definition of prejudicial error)
Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (appellate standard: manifest error/clearly wrong and deference to factfinder credibility choices)