217 So. 3d 1240
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- Minor children filed wrongful-death/medical-malpractice suit after their mother, Monica Hickman, died at Earl K. Long Medical Center in 2010; plaintiffs allege death from a meperidine overdose.
- A medical review panel convened and issued an expert opinion finding the hospital did not deviate from the standard of care and that meperidine dosing was adjusted and monitored.
- Plaintiff (Sylvia Smith, tutor for the minors) filed suit in 2015 under the Medical Malpractice Act against the State/LSU/Earl K. Long Medical Center.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment based on the medical review panel opinion and an affidavit from one panel member; plaintiff submitted a pharmacist affidavit quoting drug-label information but no medical expert tying care to the death.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendant; plaintiff appealed claiming genuine issues of material fact and improper admission of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether genuine issues of material fact exist to defeat summary judgment on breach and causation | Hickman died of a meperidine overdose caused by the hospital; negligence can be inferred without expert testimony | Medical review panel opinion and affidavit show no breach; plaintiff lacks expert evidence to prove breach or causation | Summary judgment affirmed — plaintiff failed to produce expert evidence on complex medical causation; negligence not so obvious to dispense with experts |
| Whether expert testimony is required or negligence is obvious enough for lay inference | Pfiffner allows lay inference in rare, obvious negligence cases; plaintiff argues this is one | Defendant contends the issues are medically complex and require experts; panel found drug use not contraindicated and dosing adjusted | Court held this was not obvious negligence; expert proof required and absent |
| Whether evidence attached to defendant’s motion was properly considered by the court | Plaintiff contends attachments must be formally admitted at the hearing and were not | Defendant argues the attachments were deemed admitted under La. C.C.P. art. 966(F)(2) (then in effect), and defense counsel offered the file at the hearing | Court deemed the attachments admitted for the motion (no timely objection/motion to strike) and relied on them |
Key Cases Cited
- Hutchinson v. Patel, 637 So.2d 415 (La. 1994) (medical review panel requirement under Medical Malpractice Act)
- Samaha v. Rau, 977 So.2d 880 (La. 2008) (medical review panel opinion admissible as expert evidence)
- Pfiffner v. Correa, 643 So.2d 1228 (La. 1994) (expert testimony not always required where negligence is obvious to layperson)
- Hines v. Garrett, 876 So.2d 764 (La. 2004) (summary judgment role: determine triable issues, not weigh evidence)
- Le-Blanc v. Bouchereau Oil Co., Inc., 15 So.3d 152 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2009) (mover’s burden on summary judgment)
- Kirby v. State of Louisiana ex rel. LSU Bd. of Sup’rs, 174 So.3d 1 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2014) (elements plaintiff must prove in malpractice claim against the state)
- Smith v. State through Dep’t of Health & Human Res. Admin., 523 So.2d 815 (La. 1988) (hospital duties and negligence elements)
- Miller v. Tulane Univ. Hosp., 38 So.3d 1142 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2010) (need for temporal link and expert proof of causation in malpractice claims)