Richardson v. Cotter, 245 So. 3d 136

In Aug. 2012 Steven Richardson presented with severe low back pain to Christus Schumpert ER (Dr. James Cotter); MRI without contrast and labs ordered; initial MRI read as acute L5-S1 herniation and radiologist found no evidence of discitis. Cotter gave IV narcotics/steroids and advised orthopedic follow-up.
Two days later Dr. Carl Goodman (orthopedist) examined Richardson, found no neurologic deficits, administered an injection, and recommended continued conservative care; no fever/night sweats reported to Goodman.
About two weeks later Richardson saw Dr. J. Hardy Gordon (pain specialist) reporting fever and night sweats; labs (CRP, sed rate) suggested infection and MRI then showed discitis/osteomyelitis; Richardson was hospitalized and later underwent cardiac surgery he attributes to the infection.
Plaintiffs sued Cotter and Goodman for failure to diagnose discitis. A medical review panel (MRP) unanimously found defendants met the standard of care. Defendants moved for summary judgment relying on the MRP.
Plaintiffs relied on Dr. Gordon’s deposition to oppose summary judgment; Gordon was a pain specialist, expressly disclaimed competence to testify about ER or orthopedic standards and acknowledged he would not give adverse opinions about Goodman.
Trial court granted defendants’ summary judgment after giving plaintiffs 60 days to produce experts on ER/orthopedics; plaintiffs did not produce additional experts and appealed. The appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dr. Gordon’s testimony sufficed to establish applicable standard of care and breach	Gordon’s opinions and facts suffice to create genuine issue; expert testimony not always required	Gordon was not qualified to opine on emergency or orthopedic standards; MRP and record show no breach	Court held Gordon’s testimony was inadequate; plaintiffs failed to produce qualified experts, so summary judgment affirmed
Whether expert testimony was required or negligence was obvious (lay inference)	Discitis detection is basic; no specialty overlap required; negligence inferable without a specialist	Discitis diagnosis is complex and rare; medical experts are ordinarily required	Court held expert testimony was required here because diagnosis was complex and not an obvious negligence case
Whether a specialist in one field may opine for another (overlap)	Pain specialist can testify about common diagnostic steps applicable across specialties	A witness must have special knowledge/experience in the specific procedure/process; Gordon disclaimed relevant ER/orthopedic expertise	Court held overlap did not save Gordon’s testimony; qualification must be shown case-by-case and was lacking here

Larson v. XYZ Ins. Co., 226 So.3d 412 (La. 2017) (standard for appellate de novo review of summary judgment)
Greemon v. City of Bossier City, 65 So.3d 1263 (La. 2011) (summary judgment review principles)
Dunn v. City of Kenner, 187 So.3d 404 (La. 2016) (summary judgment post-discovery standard)
Samaha v. Rau, 977 So.2d 880 (La. 2008) (summary judgment procedural requirements)
Fusilier v. Dauterive, 764 So.2d 74 (La. 2000) (elements plaintiff must prove in malpractice action)
Hastings v. Baton Rouge General Hosp., 498 So.2d 713 (La. 1986) (physician duty and standard of care articulation)
Pfiffner v. Correa, 643 So.2d 1228 (La. 1994) (instances where lay inference of negligence is permissible)
Schultz v. Guoth, 57 So.3d 1002 (La. 2011) (necessity of medical experts in malpractice cases)
Med. Review Panel for Claim of Murphy v. Bernice Cmty. Rehab. Hosp., 915 So.2d 354 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2005) (expert opinions ordinarily necessary to determine standard and breach)
Battaglia v. Chalmette Med. Ctr., Inc., 126 So.3d 524 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2012) (permitting specialist testimony where specialties overlap)
Harper v. Minor, 86 So.3d 690 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2012) (specialist’s subject-matter knowledge decides admissibility of testimony)