157 So. 3d 1142
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Amy Tepper, a boarding‑school student at Red River Academy (RRA), developed an ingrown toenail in Oct. 2010 and was treated by RRA’s medical attendant, Alicia Hall, who coordinated care with Woodworth Family Medicine.
- Nurse practitioner Kimberly Bostick‑Field prescribed the antibiotic Cleocin on Nov. 4, 2010; Amy experienced diarrhea and later vomiting after the antibiotic course and was eventually diagnosed with C. difficile colitis and toxic megacolon on Dec. 20, 2010.
- Amy underwent emergency surgery (total colectomy and ileostomy) after admission to Rapides Regional; she and her guardians (Eric and Leni Tepper) sued RRA for negligence, alleging delayed/insufficient medical response and supervision.
- RRA moved for summary judgment on liability; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed all claims with prejudice; the Teppers appealed.
- The court of appeal reviewed the record de novo, found numerous conflicts in testimony and medical records about timing of symptoms, when RRA was notified, and what care was administered, and concluded genuine issues of material fact existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given factual disputes about symptom onset, notice, and RRA’s response | Tepper: factual conflicts (medical records, logs, testimony) preclude SJ; issues of when symptoms were known and care given | RRA: record showed no genuine dispute on liability; SJ appropriate | Reversed—genuine issues of material fact exist; SJ improper |
| Applicable standard of care for a boarding school vs. public school custody/time distinctions | Tepper: boarding school (24/7 custody) owes higher duty than public school (limited hours) | RRA: same standard applies (argued to trial court) | Moot after reversal on primary factual issues; court did not decide the substantive standard |
| Whether RRA breached duty by failing to obtain timely medical treatment for ~2 weeks of symptoms | Tepper: delay in escalating care, inconsistent administration of meds, and lack of physician supervision show breach | RRA: followed protocols and liaison procedures; no breach as a matter of law | Not decided on merits—genuine factual disputes preclude SJ |
| Whether one defendant’s motion may dismiss all plaintiffs’ claims under La. C.C.P. art. 966 | Tepper: trial court misapplied Art. 966 by dismissing all claims on one party’s motion | RRA: dismissal appropriate based on record | Moot following reversal on factual grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonin v. Westport Ins. Corp., 930 So.2d 906 (La. 2006) (establishes de novo appellate review and summary judgment standard)
- Schroeder v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ., 591 So.2d 342 (La. 1991) (summary judgment principles)
- Hines v. Garrett, 876 So.2d 764 (La. 2004) (definition of material fact for summary judgment)
- Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 639 So.2d 730 (La. 1994) (limitations on credibility determinations on SJ)
- Smitko v. Gulf South Shrimp, Inc., 94 So.3d 750 (La. 2012) (summary judgment appellate standards)
- Phillips v. City of Crowley, 115 So.3d 1240 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2013) (courts cannot weigh evidence or judge credibility at summary judgment)