91 So. 3d 1097
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiffs allege River Oaks Hospital failed to prevent a sexual assault of H.P. while he was a patient in a psychiatric unit.
- River Oaks moved to dismiss on prematurity, arguing LMMA governs and requires medical review panel before suit.
- Trial court granted the prematurity exception, dismissing petition without prejudice, finding LMMA applicability to treatment-related conduct.
- Plaintiffs appeal arguing the claims are general torts, not medical malpractice, and not related to medical care.
- Court analyzes LMMA scope, Coleman factors, and whether alleged room assignment and supervision involve medical treatment and expert testimony.
- Court holds allegations fall under LMMA; prematurity properly applies and affirmatively grants the exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does LMMA apply to the alleged conduct? | Plaintiffs contend claims are general negligence, not malpractice. | River Oaks asserts claims implicate professional medical decision-making. | Yes; claims fall within LMMA scope and require a medical review panel. |
| Are the alleged acts treatment-related and requiring expert testimony? | Acts were not medical treatment; ordinary negligence. | Room assignments, supervision, and monitoring involve medical judgment and patient care. | Yes; acts are treatment-related and require expert evidence. |
| Should the action be barred for prematurity under LMMA before filing suit? | Prematurity not established; suit should proceed. | LMMA requires medical review panel prior to suit; prematurity proper. | Prematurity proper; case should be presented to medical review panel first. |
| Is La Children’s Code article 1409(T) applicable as negligence theory? | Code provisions could support general negligence theories outside LMMA. | Children's Code provisions apply to juvenile proceedings only. | Inapplicable; must pursue within LMMA framework. |
| Do cases on sexual abuse outside LMMA control the outcome? | Sexual abuse in care facilities should fall outside LMMA. | Distinguish these facts; here medical judgment and treatment-related issues predominate. | Previous cases cited are distinguishable; LMMA applies here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Delcambre v. Blood Systems, Inc., 893 So.2d 23 (La. 2005) (LMMA applies to medical malpractice claims and governs procedures)
- Coleman v. Deno, 813 So.2d 303 (La. 2002) ( Coleman factors for malpractice determination)
- Blevins v. Hamilton Med. Ctr., Inc., 959 So.2d 440 (La. 2007) (prematurity burden and medical review panel framework)
- LaCoste v. Pendleton Methodist Hosp., L.L.C., 966 So.2d 519 (La. 2007) (strict construction of LMMA provisions)
- Atkinson v. Lammico Ins. Co., 63 So.3d 1176 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2011) (definition of health care and patient under LMMA)
- Jure v. Raviolla, 612 So.2d 225 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1992) (sex with a health care professional outside LMMA scope)
- Reaux v. Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, 492 So.2d 233 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1986) (rape by outsider not within malpractice scope)
- Buford v. Williams, 88 So.3d 540 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2012) (affirmed prematurity under LMMA for hospital staff negligence)