Jones v. Black
145 So. 3d 402
La. Ct. App. 5th2014Background
- Janie Jones sued Dr. Black and LAMMICO for medical negligence in Destinee Jones's birth, alleging improper forceps use and failure to inform of risks.
- Trial resulted in a jury verdict against Dr. Black for below-standard care with retrobulbar hemorrhage and eye injuries; judgment not withstanding the verdict modified damages downward.
- Appellate court found taint from trial court’s conduct and conducted de novo review, reversing the verdict and the JNOV; Supreme Court remanded for a new trial due to near-equal weight of evidence.
- Years later, defendants moved to dismiss on res judicata grounds, and sought to bar informed-consent evidence; trial court ruled in favor of res judicata and then granted a motion in limine to exclude expert testimony.
- Trial court ultimately granted summary judgment against Jones, precluding key expert testimony; Jones appeals raising three assignments of error.
- This court reverses the res judicata ruling, partially affirms and partially reverses the motion in limine ruling, reverses summary judgment, and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars informed consent claim | No final judgment exists; interlocutory denial cannot create res judicata. | Earlier trial ruling on informed consent constitutes final judgment under law of the case and issue preclusion applies. | Res judicata cannot bar; no final judgment on informed consent. |
| Whether trial court abused its discretion in excluding expert testimony on causation and standard of care | Drs. Cameron, Gonzalez, Kastl are qualified and their opinions关于 forceps, standard of care, and causation are admissible. | Experts were unqualified or used unreliable methods; Daubert/Cheairs standards require exclusion. | Court erred in excluding Gonzalez and Kastl; Cameron qualified but limited on causation; Daubert reliability satisfied for Gonzalez and Kastl; limit on Cameron causation affirmed. |
| Whether summary judgment was proper given expert testimony | Evidence from Rodriguez, Kastl, Cameron creates triable issue of causation and standard of care. | With experts excluded, no genuine issue of material fact remains; defendants entitled to judgment as a matter of law. | Summary judgment improper; remand for trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Black, 676 So.2d 1067 (La. 1996) (remand for new trial due to near-equal weight of evidence)
- Preis v. Standard Coffee Service Company, a Division of W.M. B. Reilly and Company, Inc., 545 So.2d 1010 (La.1989) (final judgment requirement for res judicata)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S.1983) (gatekeeping for expert reliability and admissibility)
- Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S.1999) (flexible Daubert considerations for technical and specialized testimony)
- Robertson v. Doug Ashy Building Materials, Inc., 77 So.3d 339 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2012) (Daubert factors applied to non-scientific expert testimony)
- Saizan v. Pointe Coupee Parish School Board, 49 So.3d 559 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2010) (interlocutory judgments not final judgments for res judicata)
- Breitenbach v. Stroud, 959 So.2d 926 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2007) (appellate review of admissibility of expert testimony)
- Suire v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government, 907 So.2d 37 (La. 2005) (Daubert-like gatekeeping and reliability in expert testimony)
- Welch v. Crown Zellerbach Corporation, 359 So.2d 154 (La.1978) (collateral estoppel discussion in res judicata context)