Rivera v. Bolden's Transportation Service, Inc.
97 So. 3d 1096
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Rivera was transported from Forest Manor to a medical facility in a Bolden’s van; the driver braked abruptly, causing Rivera to fall from her wheelchair and hit the floor; she was not strapped in and the wheelchair was not secured to the van.
- Rivera sued Bolden’s and related parties, later adding Forest Manor as a defendant alleging Forest Manor failed to provide a wheelchair with a seatbelt and allowed transport in an inadequately equipped chair.
- Forest Manor filed a dilatory exception of prematurity, asserting it is a qualified health care provider and Rivera’s claim was premature under the Medical Malpractice Act (MMA).
- The district court sustained the prematurity exception and dismissed Rivera’s claims without prejudice; on supervisory review, this court allowed Rivera to appeal the judgment.
- The central issue on appeal is whether Rivera’s allegations against Forest Manor constitute medical malpractice under the MMA, such that a medical review panel was required; the court reviews prematurity de novo.
- The court ultimately holds Forest Manor failed to prove the claim fell within the MMA; because the incident occurred during transport in a vehicle, not during medical care, the Act does not apply, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Rivera’s petition allege medical malpractice under the MMA? | Rivera contends the allegations concern equipment safety, not medical treatment. | Forest Manor contends the claims fall under MMA and require a medical review panel. | Prematurity not proven; not within MMA; remanded for proceedings outside MMA. |
| Are the alleged failures to provide a seatbelt or secure wheelchair within the scope of MMA as malpractice? | The safety equipment issue is a general negligence matter, not treatment-related. | The nursing home’s actions during transport could implicate health care services under MMA. | Not malpractice; act not governed by MMA; no medical review panel required. |
| Should the case be dismissed or remanded given lack of MMA applicability and evidence? | Case should proceed outside MMA framework. | MMA framework governs such claims; prematurity dismissal is proper. | Prematurity not established; reverse and remand for non-MMA proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williamson v. Hospital Service District No. 1 of Jefferson, 888 So.2d 782 (La. 2004) (six-factor Coleman test; transportation-related negligence may fall outside MMA)
- Richard v. Louisiana Extended Care Centers, Inc., 835 So.2d 460 (La. 2003) (nursing home falls; need to determine whether alleged negligence occurred during medical care)
- Blevins v. Hamilton Med. Ctr., Inc., 959 So.2d 440 (La. 2007) (general negligence not necessarily within MMA; healing of equipment cases may be outside act)
- Munson v. Lakewood Quarters, LP, 965 So.2d 448 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2007) (remanded for evidentiary determination of MMA applicability)
- Houghton v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 859 So.2d 103 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2003) (treatment-related issues; medical review panel prerequisites)