Schultz v. Guoth
2011 La. LEXIS 101
La.2011Background
- Plaintiff Leanne Brow, then a minor, alleged medical malpractice by Dr. Rabie for death of her fetus after transfer from Oakdale to RWCH.
- Transfer occurred after initial examinations showed labor with breech presentation and fetal distress; fetal heart tones fluctuated during transfer.
- Medical review panel unanimously concluded Dr. Rabie did not breach the standard of care and that earlier intervention would not have changed the outcome.
- Trial court denied summary judgment, finding issues of fact and relying on Pfiffner v. Correa to permit proof without expert testimony.
- Court of Appeal initially denied writs; on remand, majority held Pfiffner allowed patient proof without expert testimony, denying summary judgment.
- Louisiana Supreme Court granted review to determine whether expert testimony is required where the standard of care and causation hinge on complex medical issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pfiffner allows proof without expert testimony | Brow may prove negligence without expert testimony under Pfiffner. | Pfiffner does not apply; issues are complex medical ones needing expert proof. | Pfiffner does not apply; expert proof required to prove breach and causation. |
| Whether the defendant is entitled to summary judgment on lack of expert evidence | Lay evidence suffices under Pfiffner to show obvious negligence. | Uncontradicted expert opinions show no breach or causation; summary judgment appropriate. | No genuine issue of material fact; defendant entitled to summary judgment. |
| Whether the medical records/evidence create a factual dispute about viability and timing | Disputed heartbeat findings imply possible viability; jury should decide. | Panel and expert consensus show deceased fetus on arrival; no breach causally linked. | Factual disputes insufficient to overcome expert evidence supporting no breach or causation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pfiffner v. Correa, 643 So.2d 1228 (La. 1994) (expert testimony not always necessary; obvious negligence can be inferred in some cases)
- Samaha v. Rau, 977 So.2d 880 (La. 2008) (summary judgment burden and evidence standards in medical malpractice)
- Duncan v. U.S.A.A. Ins. Co., 950 So.2d 544 (La. 2006) (summary judgment criteria and de novo review)