Watson v. Woldenberg Village, Inc.
203 So. 3d 317
| La. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- John Lee, a nursing-home resident, was assessed as a fall risk and placed on Woldenberg Village’s Fall Prevention Protocol, including a personal protective alarm (PPA) that has a sensor attached to the resident and a monitor fastened to the wheelchair.
- On April 15, 2014, Lee was found on the floor with the alarm monitor in his hand (not secured to the wheelchair), and he required hip surgery from injuries sustained in the fall.
- The administrator of Lee’s estate filed suit on September 8, 2014; plaintiff later filed a first amended petition on October 19, 2015.
- Woldenberg moved to dismiss as premature under the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (LMMA), arguing the claims sound in medical malpractice and require submission to a medical review panel; it also asserted prescription (statute of limitations) against the amended petition.
- The district court sustained the prematurity exception; the court of appeal reviewed whether the allegations sounded in malpractice (requiring LMMA) and whether the amended petition related back to the timely original petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims sound in medical malpractice (LMMA) or ordinary negligence | Claims allege ordinary negligence in failing to properly secure a simple device; no professional treatment issue | Claims arise from care during confinement at a health-care provider and thus fall under LMMA | Held: Ordinary negligence; LMMA does not apply (prematurity exception reversed) |
| Whether expert medical testimony is required to prove breach | No — securing a PPA is a routine, nonmedical task decidable by lay factfinder | Yes — as a nursing-home care issue, medical standard should apply | Held: No expert needed; common-sense fact issue |
| Whether the act involved assessment/treatment or physician-patient relationship | The installation failure was a routine custodial act after treatment plan already set | The incident relates to resident’s care and supervision, implicating medical care | Held: Not treatment-related; occurred during custodial/recreational time, not in physician-patient context |
| Whether the first amended petition (filed after 1 year) relates back to the original petition or is prescribed | Amended petition arises from same conduct/occurrence as original; relation back under La. C.C.P. art. 1153 saves it | Because the original petition was premature (per defendant), the amended petition cannot relate back and is time-barred | Held: Amended petition relates back to the timely original petition; prescription exception overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. Deno, 813 So.2d 303 (La. 2002) (six-factor test to determine whether claim sounds in medical malpractice)
- Williamson v. Hospital Service District No. 1 of Jefferson, 888 So.2d 782 (La. 2004) (LMMA prematurity and panel-submission requirement explained)
- LaCoste v. Pendleton Methodist Hosp. L.L.C., 966 So.2d 519 (La. 2007) (LMMA construed narrowly; ambiguity resolved for plaintiff)
- Richard v. Louisiana Extended Care Centers, Inc., 835 So.2d 460 (La. 2002) (distinguishing custodial care from medical treatment for LMMA coverage)
- Burandt v. Pendleton Memorial Methodist Hospital, 123 So.3d 236 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2013) (prematurity exception and burden on exceptor)
- Jordan v. Stonebridge, L.L.C., 862 So.2d 181 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2003) (routine mishandling in transfer held custodial, not malpractice)
- Giroir v. Southern Louisiana Medical Center, 475 So.2d 1040 (La. 1985) (purpose of prescription to protect defendants from stale claims)
- Baker v. Payne & Keller of La., Inc., 390 So.2d 1272 (La. 1980) (relation-back doctrine and notice rationale)