328 So.3d 504
La. Ct. App.2021Background
- In 2012 Reddick had a right hemi-thyroidectomy; pathology reportedly showed a small cancerous lesion on the right lobe.
- At a 4/29/2013 visit physicians recommended removal of the left thyroid; Reddick signed a consent form in which the "reasonable alternatives" section was left blank.
- On 5/15/2013 Reddick underwent a complete (left) thyroidectomy; left-side pathology allegedly showed no malignancy.
- Reddick filed a medical review panel and later suit alleging lack of informed consent (physicians failed to disclose reasonable therapeutic alternatives such as ultrasound observation) and negligence based on the reported cancer diagnosis.
- At summary judgment the trial court denied Reddick’s motion for partial summary judgment (finding a factual dispute whether ultrasound observation was a reasonable alternative) but granted the State’s cross-motion, concluding Reddick had not produced expert medical evidence of the applicable standard of care; the trial court dismissed all claims with prejudice.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed denial of Reddick’s MSJ, reversed the grant of the State’s cross-MSJ, and remanded because a genuine issue of material fact exists about whether ultrasound observation was a reasonable therapeutic alternative that should have been disclosed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper on the informed-consent issue (failure to disclose reasonable therapeutic alternatives) | Reddick: consent was vitiated because physicians never disclosed reasonable alternatives (e.g., ultrasound observation) | State: ultrasound observation was not a reasonable/feasible alternative; therefore no duty to disclose | Trial court denial of Reddick’s MSJ affirmed: genuine issue of material fact exists whether ultrasound observation was a reasonable alternative |
| Whether plaintiff’s failure to present expert medical testimony requires dismissal on summary judgment | Reddick: depositions of treating physicians show alternatives existed and create fact issue | State: plaintiff must produce expert evidence that the alternative was reasonable and met the standard of care | Appellate court reversed grant of defendants’ cross-MSJ; because the threshold question of reasonableness is disputed, summary judgment was improper; the court did not resolve the expert-proof issue on the merits and remanded |
| Whether trial court properly dismissed other claims not expressly addressed in the summary-judgment motions | Reddick: trial court improperly dismissed claims not directly adjudicated by the parties’ motions | State: argued summary disposition was proper | Appellate court declined to resolve those claims now (pretermitted) and remanded given the error in granting defendants’ cross-MSJ |
Key Cases Cited
- Chatelain v. Fluor Daniel Const. Co., 179 So.3d 791 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2015) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Hondroulis v. Schuhmacher, 553 So.2d 398 (La. 1988) (foundational articulation of informed consent doctrine)
- Green v. Buell, 215 So.3d 715 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2017) (elements of informed consent restated)
- Taylor v. Louisiana Mut. Med. Ins. Co., 158 So.3d 900 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2015) (no duty to disclose alternatives that are not accepted or feasible)
- Morris v. Ferris, 669 So.2d 1316 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1996) (plaintiff must show alternative is an accepted treatment)
- Babin v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., 764 So.2d 37 (La. 2000) (summary-judgment burden-shifting principles)