Richard Dupuy and His Wife, Melissa Dupuy v. Nmc Operating Company, L.L.C. D/B/A the Spine Hospital of Louisiana, Formerly, the Neuromedical Center Hospital
187 So. 3d 436
| La. | 2016Background
- Richard and Melissa Dupuy sued The Spine Hospital of Louisiana after Richard developed post‑operative osteomyelitis from Mycobacterium fortuitum following spine surgery. Plaintiffs alleged the hospital failed to properly sterilize instruments and/or maintain sterilization equipment.
- Hospital filed a dilatory exception of prematurity under the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (MMA), arguing the claims required submission to a medical review panel before suit.
- The district court granted the exception as to the original petition but denied it in part as to a supplemental pleading (paragraph 2A) alleging failure to maintain sterilization equipment; the court of appeal denied relief.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court granted supervisory writs to decide whether allegations about maintenance/service of sterilization equipment fall within the MMA.
- The Supreme Court analyzed the complaint under the six Coleman v. Deno factors and concluded the sterilization‑equipment allegations are "treatment related," require expert proof, and fall within activities a hospital is licensed to perform.
- The court reversed the district court and held the hospital’s prematurity exception should have been granted in full (claims subject to MMA panel requirement).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to maintain/service sterilization equipment is "medical malpractice" under the MMA | Dupuy: Claims are not within MMA’s scope; MMA must be strictly construed and Coleman factors favor general tort | Hospital: Allegations are treatment‑related and therefore within MMA; case must be sent to medical review panel | Held: Allegations fall within MMA — treatment‑related, require expert proof, within hospital’s licensed activities; prematurity exception should have been granted |
| Whether expert medical evidence is required to prove breach of standard for sterilization equipment | Dupuy: Some facts may be within lay understanding; no MMA panel necessary | Hospital: Proof will require expert medical testimony about sterilization protocols, contamination pathways | Held: Expert evidence is required; this factor supports MMA coverage |
| Whether the alleged conduct occurred within scope of physician‑patient relationship or hospital activities | Dupuy: Maintenance may be performed by non‑medical plant staff and thus not "treatment related" | Hospital: Hospital actions (including staffing/sterilization) are part of health care and hospital licensing duties | Held: Sterilization procedures are within activities a hospital is licensed to perform; factor supports MMA coverage |
| Whether injury would have occurred absent treatment | Dupuy: N/A | Hospital: Injury likely would not have occurred but for surgery at the hospital | Held: Factor favors MMA (injury tied to seeking treatment) |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. Deno, 813 So. 2d 303 (La. 2002) (sets six‑factor test for determining whether conduct is "medical malpractice")
- Williamson v. Hospital Service Dist. No. 1 of Jefferson, 888 So. 2d 782 (La. 2004) (distinguishes non‑treatment acts from MMA coverage)
- Blevins v. Hamilton Med. Ctr., Inc., 959 So. 2d 440 (La. 2007) (analyzes scope of treatment‑related acts under MMA)
- Cashio v. Baton Rouge Gen. Hosp., 378 So. 2d 182 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1979) (clean/sterile environment held treatment‑related)
- McBride v. Earl K. Long Mem. Hosp., 507 So. 2d 821 (La. 1987) (surgical‑acquired infection subject to medical malpractice rules)