276 So.3d 564
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Plaintiffs Kevin Lawrence and Denise Jordan Lawrence sued individually and as representatives of their deceased son, Kevin Jordan, alleging medical malpractice from inpatient psychiatric treatment at Community Care Hospital (CCH) in August 2012, centered on administration of Invega Sustenna and the facility’s emergency response.
- Plaintiffs initiated a Medical Review Panel (MRP) proceeding; in December 2015 a unanimous three-psychiatrist MRP opinion found no deviation from the standard of care by CCH or the physicians (Drs. Barnes and Ismail).
- Plaintiffs filed suit in state court in March 2016; both physician and hospital defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground plaintiffs had no expert proof (a “no-expert” motion), relying on the MRP opinion.
- Plaintiffs produced an affidavit saying they had retained an expert, but did not produce any expert report or testimony before the court-imposed deadline; plaintiffs also missed the final hearing date.
- Trial court granted defendants’ summary judgment after giving plaintiffs an extension and a firm deadline to file expert proof; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert medical testimony is required in medical-malpractice claims | Lawrence: statute doesn’t expressly require experts and res ipsa loquitur or Pfiffner’s exception may apply | Defendants: experts are generally required in medical-malpractice cases; MRP opinion negates factual support for plaintiffs’ claims | Court: expert testimony is required in most malpractice cases; Pfiffner exception is narrow and inapplicable here |
| Whether the obvious-negligence (Pfiffner) exception applies | Lawrence: hospital’s apparent failure to provide on-site emergency care (only calling 911) allows lay inference of negligence | Defendants: medical decisions (drug use, monitoring, transfer) and causation are not within lay knowledge | Held: exception does not apply; issues require expert proof, including causation |
| Whether plaintiffs created a genuine factual dispute by alleging they had retained an expert | Lawrence: Mr. Lawrence’s affidavit shows an expert was retained (Dr. Fann/Dr. Davidson) | Defendants: naming/retaining an expert without an affidavit, report or testimony is insufficient to oppose a properly supported summary judgment motion | Held: mere retention or identification of an expert without a report or sworn testimony does not create a genuine issue of material fact |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying additional continuances or failing to give reasons | Lawrence: summary judgment came prematurely; court granted a time extension but then entered judgment during the extension; also court failed to issue written/oral reasons | Defendants: long procedural history, multiple resets, court set firm deadline, plaintiffs failed to meet it; reasons were explained on the record at prior hearing | Held: no abuse of discretion; plaintiffs had adequate discovery opportunity and deadline; reasons were discussed on the record and plaintiffs did not timely request written reasons |
Key Cases Cited
- Winding v. Bryan, 148 So.3d 956 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (summarizes expert requirement and no-expert motion procedure in medical malpractice)
- Pfiffner v. Correa, 643 So.2d 1228 (La.) (recognizes narrow obvious-negligence exception to expert requirement)
- Samaha v. Rau, 977 So.2d 880 (La.) (MRP report admissible and can support no-expert summary judgment)
- Deruise-Pierce v. Univ. Healthcare Sys., L.C., 258 So.3d 150 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (distinguishable decision reversing no-expert summary judgment where treating physician testimony supported inference of breach)
- Cangelosi v. Our Lady of the Lake Reg’l Med. Ctr., 564 So.2d 654 (La.) (res ipsa loquitur in medical malpractice requires caution and generally expert proof)