224 So. 3d 1005
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- In 2008 Roland LeCompte, an employee of Terrebonne Parish School Board (TPSB), suffered injuries and an elbow laceration that became severely infected after treatment at Terrebonne General Medical Center by Dr. Michael Isabell.
- A medical review panel found Isabell breached the standard of care (failing to x-ray the elbow) but concluded that breach was not a factor in the resulting damages.
- LeCompte and his wife sued Isabell for medical malpractice, later voluntarily dismissing their claims with prejudice; intervenors TPSB and Midwest (workers’ comp carrier) sought subrogation/reimbursement for workers’ compensation benefits paid to LeCompte and intervened in the malpractice suit.
- Intervenors obtained a settlement with Isabell/insurer for $100,000 and asked to pursue excess damages against the Louisiana Patient’s Compensation Fund (PCF).
- The PCF filed exceptions of no right and no cause of action; the trial court sustained the exception of no right of action, ruling juridical persons (like TPSB and an insurance carrier) are not claimants under the LMMA and therefore cannot pursue excess damages from the PCF.
- The court of appeal affirmed, holding only natural persons (patients) can be claimants entitled to seek future medical benefits or excess damages from the PCF; PCF had standing to raise the exception and did not judicially admit liability to intervenors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether intervenors (TPSB and Midwest) qualify as “claimants” under the LMMA and thus may seek excess damages from the PCF | Intervenors argue the LMMA definition of claimant includes any person seeking recovery of damages, so juridical persons subrogated to the patient’s rights can pursue PCF excess | PCF contends LMMA protections for future medical benefits and claims against the PCF are limited to natural-person patients, not juridical persons | Court held LMMA’s patient-based scheme limits PCF claims to natural persons; intervenors are not claimants under LMMA and cannot seek excess from PCF |
| Whether intervenors’ independent subrogated cause of action under workers’ compensation survives after LeCompte’s dismissal of his personal claim | Intervenors claim their statutory subrogation/right to pursue third-party liability is independent and not extinguished by the plaintiff’s dismissal | PCF argues intervenors cannot continue to seek PCF excess after the plaintiff dismissed the underlying claim and because they aren’t LMMA claimants | Court rejected intervenors’ contention; emphasized LMMA’s scheme requires a qualifying patient judgment or settlement to trigger PCF remedies and that intervenors lack standing as claimants |
| Whether PCF had standing to raise exceptions after intervenors’ settlement with Isabell was approved | Intervenors argued PCF lacked standing to raise procedural exceptions after settlement approval under LMMA | PCF argued it is a statutory intervenor with an interest in excess-damage proceedings and may raise exceptions | Court held PCF had standing as a statutory intervenor to raise exceptions, including no right of action |
| Whether PCF judicially admitted liability to intervenors by acknowledging provider liability | Intervenors asserted PCF’s statutory acknowledgement of provider liability constituted a judicial admission of PCF liability to them | PCF replied it acknowledged provider liability under the LMMA but never expressly admitted liability to intervenors | Court found no judicial confession or express admission by PCF of liability to intervenors; no estoppel |
Key Cases Cited
- Hanks v. Seale, 904 So.2d 662 (La. 2005) (explains LMMA requirement that a finder of fact determine entitlement to future medical expenses before pursuing PCF excess)
- Kelty v. Brumfield, 633 So.2d 1210 (La. 1994) (discusses that LMMA grants special rights to malpractice victims and must be strictly construed)
- Khammash v. Clark, 145 So.3d 246 (La. 2013) (describes PCF as a statutory intervenor, not a co-obligor or insurer, with an interest when excess damages are pursued)
- St. Romain v. Luker, 804 So.2d 85 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2001) (settlement for $100,000 triggers PCF liability for excess damages)
- Badeaux v. Southwest Computer Bureau, Inc., 929 So.2d 1211 (La. 2006) (explains function of exception of no right of action as determining whether plaintiff belongs to class entitled to assert the claim)