134 So. 3d 176
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- In June 2010 Michelle Dore Reinke underwent a laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy performed by Dr. Stanley Kordisch; intra‑ and post‑operative bleeding and multiple transfusions followed.
- Reinke required multiple returns to the OR (June 16–19, 2010), consultations (general and vascular surgeons), ligation of the left internal iliac artery, and ongoing transfusions; she ultimately improved and was discharged.
- Reinke filed a medical malpractice complaint and obtained a medical review panel (MRP), which unanimously found that Dr. Kordisch met the applicable standard of care.
- Reinke sued timely; defendants moved for summary judgment asserting Reinke had no expert medical testimony to refute the MRP and thus could not meet her statutory burden under La. R.S. 9:2794(A).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Dr. Kordisch, finding no genuine issue of material fact and that res ipsa loquitur did not apply; Women and Children’s Hospital was dismissed earlier with prejudice.
- On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed, holding Reinke failed to present expert evidence showing breach and causation and that the complications were not of a kind that allow lay inference of negligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reinke presented sufficient expert proof to establish standard of care, breach, and causation in malpractice suit | Reinke argued res ipsa loquitur applies and relied on her affidavit to create a material factual dispute | Kordisch relied on unanimous MRP opinion and treating-surgeon affidavit to show no breach; argued statute requires expert proof and MRP opinion supports summary judgment | Court held Reinke failed to present expert medical testimony to refute MRP; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether res ipsa loquitur negates the expert-testimony requirement | Reinke asserted negligence was obvious under Pfiffner and thus lay inference sufficed | Kordisch argued complications were known, consented to, and not the kind where negligence is obvious to laypersons | Court held res ipsa loquitur did not apply; complications were not so obvious that a layperson could infer negligence |
| Whether the MRP opinion is dispositive at summary judgment | Reinke contended her affidavit and factual disputes should survive summary judgment | Kordisch argued the MRP unanimous finding and affidavit establish absence of material factual support for claim | Court treated the MRP opinion and supporting affidavit as sufficient prima facie showing; burden shifted to Reinke, who failed to produce contrary expert evidence |
| Whether Reinke’s affidavit alone can defeat summary judgment | Reinke relied on her affidavit to oppose summary judgment | Kordisch argued affidavit of lay plaintiff cannot substitute for required medical expert testimony | Court held plaintiff’s affidavit insufficient where expert testimony is required; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Morehouse Gen. Hosp., 63 So.3d 87 (La. 2011) (outlines elements plaintiff must prove in medical malpractice and expert‑testimony requirement)
- Pfiffner v. Correa, 643 So.2d 1228 (La. 1994) (discusses res ipsa loquitur and exceptional circumstances where lay inference may suffice)
- Palombo v. Bacque, 931 So.2d 1226 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2006) (MRP opinion may be considered on summary judgment; favorable MRP and treating‑physician affidavit can show lack of factual support)
- Hutchinson v. Knights of Columbus Council No. 5717, 866 So.2d 228 (La. 2004) (summary judgment burden‑shifting principles)
- Schultz v. Guoth, 57 So.3d 1002 (La. 2011) (expert testimony generally required in medical malpractice cases)
- Samaha v. Rau, 977 So.2d 880 (La. 2008) (reinforces expert testimony necessity except in obvious negligence cases)