240 So. 3d 251
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- In July 2012 Richard Turner fell after a clinic visit; initial x‑rays were taken and he was discharged by Dr. Rabalais; the next day ER imaging at Ochsner revealed two broken leg bones.
- Turner was treated at Ochsner (removable long‑leg splint per records) and later by orthopedics and vascular surgery; complications included sores, clots, osteomyelitis, hyperbaric treatments and eventual above‑knee amputation.
- Appellants sued Dr. Rabalais (and insurer) in 2013 and later added Ochsner, alleging negligent imaging/reading and negligent casting led to amputation and loss of consortium.
- A medical review panel unanimously found no breach of the standard of care.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiffs lacked the expert proof required in medical malpractice cases; plaintiffs argued exceptions (obvious negligence, res ipsa, and disputed whether a hard cast or removable splint was applied).
- Trial court granted defendants’ motions and denied plaintiffs’ motion; this appeal challenges those summary judgment rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony was required to prove medical malpractice | No expert needed because Dr. Rabalais committed an "obviously careless act" (Pfiffner exception) and his admissions show breach | Expert testimony is required because the facts/causation are medically complex and plaintiffs identified no retained experts | Expert testimony required; Pfiffner exception not met; summary judgment proper for defendants |
| Whether genuine factual dispute (hard cast vs removable splint) precluded summary judgment for Ochsner | Disputed evidence (family affidavits) that a hard cast was used; if cast caused injury, res ipsa loquitur applies | Medical records and staff testimony show a removable long‑leg splint was used; plaintiffs presented no expert linking casting to injury | Dispute over cast type insufficient without expert proof of breach/causation; summary judgment for Ochsner affirmed |
| Whether Dr. Rabalais’s deposition admissions proved breach (failure to order CT) | His testimony amounted to an admission that he would have ordered CT in hindsight—thus nonexpert proof of breach | Deposition shows he would order CT only if clinical picture warranted; not an admission of negligence | Court finds plaintiffs mischaracterize testimony; no automatic breach shown; summary judgment for Rabalais affirmed |
| Whether plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted | Plaintiffs asserted defendants lacked expert support and that evidence established negligence as a matter of law | Defendants opposed, pointing to medical complexity and absence of plaintiffs’ experts | Plaintiffs’ motion denied—medical complexity and absence of expert proof fatal to their motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Pfiffner v. Correa, 643 So.2d 1228 (La. 1994) (lays out limited ‘‘obviously careless act’’ exception to expert requirement)
- Samaha v. Rau, 977 So.2d 880 (La. 2008) (burden in medical malpractice summary judgment: defendant need only show plaintiff cannot meet proof at trial)
- Schultz v. Guoth, 57 So.3d 1002 (La. 2011) (standard of review for summary judgment is de novo)
- Fagan v. LeBlanc, 928 So.2d 571 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2006) (general rule that medical expert testimony is required in malpractice suits)