Patten v. Gayle
69 So. 3d 1180
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Charlotte Patten, patient of Dr. Christopher Gayle, underwent laparoscopic evaluation for ovarian lesion on August 14, 2001; second trocar punctured bowel during the procedure.
- An emergency repair by Dr. Bozeman followed the bowel injury; subsequent bowel perforation discovered five days later led to peritonitis and pneumonia, prolonging hospitalization.
- A medical review panel concluded there was no breach of care and that the perforation was likely due to microvascular damage or factors outside the surgeon’s control.
- Patten filed suit February 6, 2004; the jury found Dr. Gayle negligent but concluded that negligence did not cause injuries; verdict was 10-2 and later denied JNOV.
- The trial court and appellate court engaged in de novo review of causation for the initial trocar injury and eventually reversed in part, awarding specific damages to Patten.
- Judgment: appellate reversal in part, affirmation in part; damages awarded totaling $14,811 for special and general damages attributable to the negligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was causation for the initial trocar injury proven? | Patten asserts negligent trocar puncture caused injuries not otherwise incurred. | Gayle argues injuries were not caused by negligence; other necessary steps would have occurred anyway. | Initial trocar injury causally linked to damages; de novo reversal on causation. |
| Was the JNOV denial properly decided? | JNOV should have been granted because the evidence shows causation from negligence. | Veredict not manifestly erroneous; evidence supported trial court's ruling. | JNOV denial affirmed on grounds related to causation findings. |
| Are subsequent perforation injuries causally connected to the initial negligence? | Subsequent perforation and related complications stem from initial trocar injury. | Perforation likely not caused by initial injury; may be unrelated microvascular or unrelated adhesion issues. | Court found no manifest error establishing causation for the subsequent perforation. |
| Do consent forms shield physician liability for negligent injuries? | Consent cannot shield negligence; patient anticipated risks but not negligent harm. | Consent forms may reflect known risks of the procedure. | Consent forms do not exonerate negligent injury; negligence remains actionable. |
| What damages are recoverable for the negligence? | All damages tied to negligence should be compensated, including expenses and general damages. | Many expenses would have occurred without injury; only certain costs are recoverable. | Damages awarded: $4,811 in medical expenses and $10,000 in general damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lovelace v. Giddens, 740 So.2d 652 (La.App.2d Cir.2/24/99) (causation subject to manifest error; deference to medical expert testimony)
- Roberts v. Cox, 669 So.2d 633 (La.App.2d Cir.2/28/96) (consent forms and patient awareness of risks)
- Broadway v. St. Paul Ins. Co., 582 So.2d 1368 (La.App.2d Cir.1991) (consent and risk disclosures in medical treatment)
- Steinbach v. Bayfield, 428 So.2d 915 (La.App.1st Cir.1983) (reasonableness of informed consent and risk disclosure)
- McGee v. A C and S, Inc., 933 So.2d 770 (La. 7/10/06) (general damages framework in medical malpractice)