142 So. 3d 14
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Alexis Woodard, a minor, received treatment at Our Lady of the Lake and was later transferred and died; her mother, Evorjia Woodard, sued the treating physician Dr. James Upp, Jr., and the hospital for malpractice on April 9, 2012.
- The original petition was styled as filed by Evorjia "for and on behalf of her deceased minor daughter" and sought wrongful death and survival damages.
- Defendants filed a dilatory exception contesting Mrs. Woodard’s procedural capacity to sue in a representative capacity and a peremptory exception of prescription as to claims later asserted by Alexis’s father, Ado Woodard.
- The trial court sustained the exceptions, found Mrs. Woodard lacked capacity to sue as representative (and had not qualified as a succession representative), and held the father’s claims had prescribed, dismissing all claims with prejudice.
- On appeal, the court held Article 683C (governing suits for living unemancipated minors) did not apply to a deceased minor; claims to enforce rights of a deceased person are governed by Article 685 (succession representative) and an heir may sue only if succession is not under administration and satisfactory evidence of inheritance is furnished.
- The appellate court affirmed dismissal of claims that Mrs. Woodard filed in a purely representative capacity but converted that dismissal to without prejudice; it reversed dismissal of Mrs. Woodard’s individual-capacity claims (including survival and wrongful death causes of action) and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article 683C (proper plaintiff for claims of unemancipated minor) bars Mrs. Woodard from suing on behalf of deceased minor | Mrs. Woodard argued Article 683C should not apply and suggested it might be unconstitutional | Defendants argued Article 683C made the father the proper plaintiff for claims of a child born of the marriage | Court: Article 683 governs living minors and does not apply to enforcement of rights of a deceased minor; Article 685 governs deceased persons’ claims |
| Whether Mrs. Woodard had procedural capacity to sue in a representative capacity for her deceased daughter | Mrs. Woodard attempted to proceed as representative without alleging an open succession or appointment as succession representative | Defendants argued she lacked procedural capacity because she was not the appointed succession representative | Court: She lacked procedural capacity to sue in a purely representative capacity (dismissal ordered), but dismissal must be without prejudice to allow compliance with succession requirements |
| Whether the trial court properly dismissed all plaintiffs’ claims (including Mrs. Woodard’s individual claims) | Mrs. Woodard asserted her petition also pled individual wrongful death and survival claims and she has capacity as a competent adult | Defendants treated the exception as to all plaintiffs and sought dismissal with prejudice | Court: Trial court erred to the extent it dismissed Mrs. Woodard’s individual-capacity claims; those claims survive and the dismissal is reversed |
| Whether father’s claims related back or had prescribed (prescription exception) | Plaintiffs argued amended petition related back so father’s claims were timely | Defendants argued amended petition did not relate back and father’s claims prescribed | Court: Appellate court did not review this portion (defendants’ exception of prescription and dismissal of Mr. Woodard’s claims is final because he did not brief the appeal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Vallo v. Gayle Oil Company, Inc., 646 So.2d 859 (La. 1994) (procedural rule barring belated constitutional challenge in some contexts)
- Warren v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Company, 21 So.3d 186 (La. 2008) (relation-back principles for amended petitions)
- Horrell v. Horrell, 808 So.2d 363 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2000) (distinction between lack of procedural capacity and lack of right of action)
- Lemoine v. Roberson, 366 So.2d 1009 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1978) (dismissal for failure to cure procedural-capacity defect must be without prejudice)
- In re Brewer, 934 So.2d 823 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2006) (clarifying nature of survival and wrongful-death actions and their beneficiaries)