Robin v. Hebert
157 So. 3d 63
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Robin Robin died following an apparent Xanax overdose; Xanax was prescribed by Dr. Mounir and filled at Boyer’s Pharmacy.
- Plaintiffs, Robin’s children, sued Dr. Mounir, Boyer’s and its owner Hebert for medical malpractice and related claims.
- The medical review panel favored Dr. Mounir; Boyer’s and Hebert were dismissed as not qualified providers.
- The trial court granted Boyer’s/Hebert’s prescription defense and granted Mounir summary judgment for lack of expert evidence.
- Plaintiffs appealed, challenging whether expert proof was required and whether prescription was properly suspended under La. R.S. 40:1299.47(A)(2)(a).
- This opinion affirms the trial court’s rulings and dismisses the claims against Boyer’s/Hebert and Mounir.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony was required to oppose summary judgment on standard of care. | Plaintiffs contend labeling could define standard of care. | Mounir argues complex medical standard requires expert proof. | Expert proof was required; no causation evidence; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Whether prescription was suspended under La.R.S. 40:1299.47(A)(2)(a) against Boyer’s/Hebert. | Plaintiffs claim joint/solidary liability with Dr. Mounir suspends prescription. | There is no joint/solidary liability because Mounir is not liable; suspension fails. | No suspension; action against Boyer’s/Hebert prescribed. |
| Whether the trial court properly denied Plaintiffs’ claims against Boyer’s/Hebert after prescription analysis. | Boyer’s/Hebert should be liable as part of the malpractice action. | No liability established against Boyer’s/Hebert; prescription runs against them. | Affirmed dismissal of Boyer’s/Hebert; no joint obligation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pfiffner v. Correa, 643 So.2d 1228 (La. 1994) (establishes when expert testimony may not be required and negligence inferred in obvious acts)
- Terrebonne v. Floyd, 767 So.2d 758 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2000) (labeling can define standard of care; but complex issues may require expert proof)
- Schultz v. Guoth, 57 So.3d 1002 (La. 2011) (burden to prove all elements; causation crucial for summary judgment)
- Renfroe v. State, 809 So.2d 947 (La. 2002) (joint/solidary liability impact on prescription suspension)
- Williams v. Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans, 611 So.2d 1383 (La. 1993) (definition of solidary obligors; coextensive liability concept)
- Hoefly v. Gov’t Employees Ins. Co., 418 So.2d 575 (La. 1982) (foundation for solidarity and liability principles)
- Wright v. Louisiana Power & & Light, 951 So.2d 1058 (La. 2007) (prescription considerations in utility-related actions)
- Arabi e v. Nw. Mining Corp., 567 So.2d 783 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1990) (solidary liability principles in multi-party cases)