McGlothlin v. Christus St. Patrick Hospital
2011 La. LEXIS 1579
| La. | 2011Background
- McGlothlin plaintiffs submitted a medical malpractice claim to a medical review panel under La. Rev. Stat. § 40:1299.47(G); the panel rendered a unanimous opinion in favor of the hospital with redacted credibility language.
- District Court admitted the panel opinion with credibility language redacted; jury thereafter returned verdict for the hospital.
- Court of Appeal reversed, holding the panel opinion was inadmissible and that the district court erred by admitting an edited version.
- Appellate de novo review concluded plaintiffs proved malpractice and awarded general and special damages.
- Louisiana Supreme Court granted the writ to resolve whether the MMA permits admission of a panel opinion that invades the jury’s factfinding, and whether admission was harmless or reversible error.
- Court reinstates district court judgment and reverses Court of Appeal; panel opinion inadmissible but harmless error due to redaction; ultimate manifest error review supports the jury’s verdict against finding breach of the standard of care.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of the MRP opinion when panel exceeds authority | McGlothlin argued the MRP opinion, based on credibility, is inadmissible | Hospital argued the MRP opinion is admissible under §40:1299.47(H) | Panel opinion inadmissible; but error deemed harmless |
| Whether the panel’s credibility determinations improperly invaded the jury’s province | Panel relied on credibility to resolve material facts | Panel intended to express expert opinion on standard of care | Panel exceeded authority by resolving credibility; findings reserved to jury remained proper to review for harmless error |
| Effect of redacting credibility language on admissibility | Redaction cures admissibility issue | Redacted opinion remains prejudicial | Redaction rendered error harmless; admissibility issue largely moot for outcomes |
| Impact on appellate review after admissibility ruling | De novo review appropriate if MRP opinion tainted trial | Manifest error review governs if trial evidence adequate | Appellate de novo review was improper; judgment reviewed for manifest error; no reversible error in verdict |
| Standard of review for jury's factual findings in medical malpractice | Jury’s credibility-based findings support verdict of liability | Jury can credit hospital witnesses over plaintiffs | Jury findings not manifestly erroneous in light of conflicting credible evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Galloway v. Baton Rouge General Hosp., 602 So.2d 1003 (La. 1992) (admissibility of the MRP under MMA; general framework for MRP duties)
- Samaha v. Rau, 977 So.2d 880 (La. 2008) (MRP opinion admissible as expert evidence but not conclusive; review allowed)
- Evans v. Lungrin, 708 So.2d 731 (La. 1998) (when legal errors require de novo review of fact findings)
- Buckbee v. United Gas Pipe Line Co. Inc., 561 So.2d 76 (La. 1990) (harmless error when evidentiary issues are prejudicial but not outcome-determinative)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (two-step manifest error standard for reviewing factual findings)