115 So. 3d 675
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Santiago filed a PCF complaint against Barrack, an unidentified x-ray tech, and TUHC for a fall during hip replacement recovery in 2003; panel found no breach by Barrack or TUHC, with mixed findings on employer liability.
- Santiago filed a district court petition on July 21, 2006 naming Barrack, TUHC, and the unidentified tech; the petition mirrored PCF claims.
- A First Supplemental and Amending Petition (Feb. 7, 2007) added University Healthcare System, L.C. as employer of Barrack; TUHC denied employment.
- A Second Supplemental and Amending Petition (May 14, 2007) added Drs. Adams, Montgomery, Shah, Rogers and Administrators (as employer), plus other techs/nurses, with wholly new negligence theories.
- Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the four new doctors from district court in Sep. 2007; in Feb. 2012, Administrators and the five doctors moved for peremption dismissal; trial court granted the motion; on appeal, issues centered on prescription vs peremption and relation back.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 9:5628 is peremptive or prescriptive for medical malpractice actions. | Relation back should apply; 9:5628 is prescriptive. | 9:5628 is peremptive and blocks amendments after 3 years. | 9:5628 is prescriptive; relation back does not extend it. |
| Whether relation-back principles apply to add new defendants after 3-year window. | Original timely action relates to amended claims. | Relation back cannot save new, late claims under 1153. | Relation back does not salvage wholly new late claims against new defendants. |
| Whether the original Barrack claims were timely, and amended Barrack claims were prescribed. | Original Barrack claims timely under PCF and 2006 petition. | Amended Barrack claims filed after 3 years; prescribed. | Original Barrack claims timely; amended Barrack claims prescribed (not perempted). |
| Whether new doctors and Administrators claims were prescribed or perempted. | New claims timely via PCF/relate back? | New claims beyond 3 years; prescribed; peremption sought. | New doctors and Administrators claims prescribed; not salvaged by relation back. |
| Proper scope of PCF/suspension under the Medical Malpractice Act to toll prescription. | Panel suspension tolled prescription. | Suspension applies only to prescription, not to discovery; 9:5628 governs timing. | Suspension tolling limited to prescription; 9:5628 governs timing; claims prescribed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Borel v. Young, 989 So.2d 42 (La. 2008) (3-year deadline is prescriptive due to Medical Malpractice Act suspension)
- Warren v. Louisiana Medical Mut. Ins. Co., 21 So.3d 186 (La. 2009) (Relation back not available to medical malpractice actions; 9:5628 prescription stands)
- LeBreton v. Rabito, 714 So.2d 1229 (La. 1998) (Suspension provisions in the MS Act govern prescription in medical malpractice)