Ledoux v. ChandrasekaranLedoux v. Chandrasekaran
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Garrison
Plaintiff, Leonard Ledoux as curator of his mother, Ludovine Ledoux, brought a medical malpractice suit against defendants, F. Edward Hebert Hospital and Dr. N. Chandrasekaran. A jury trial commenced, and at the conclusion of plaintiff’s case, defendants motioned for a directed verdict. This motion was granted as to thе doctor and denied as to the hospital. The jury concluded that the hospital was not guilty of fault which was the cause in fact
In late July of 1984, Mrs. Ledoux suffered a- cardiovascular hemorrhage (stroke). She was taken to River Parish Hospital, an acute care facility. While at River Parish Hospital, a craniotomy and tracheostomy were performed, the plaintiff remaining in the intensive care unit for sevеral days. She was totally bedridden and could not communicate with others.
Upon stabilization of plaintiffs condition, she was moved at her treating physician’s rеcommendation to F. Edward Hebert Hospital, a skilled nursing facility, for rehabilitation. While at the hospital, the plaintiff developed a large decubitus (bedsore). Plaintiff was then transferred to East Jefferson Hospital in order to rehabilitate her to a condition whereby she would be strong enough to undergo corrective plastic surgery for the bedsore.
Mrs. Ledoux, through her son, now claims that F. Edward Hebert Hospital failed to timely discover and treat the bedsore, treated her negligently, and that Dr. Chandrasekaran failed to properly supervise the hospital staff to ensure the correct treatment of the plaintiff. It sеts forth the burden of proof in medical malpractice suits.
A. In a malpractice action based on the negligence of a physician licensed under R.S. 37:1261 et seq., a dentist licensed under R.S. 37:751 et seq., or а chiropractic physician licensed under R.S. 37:2801 et seq., the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving:
1.The degree of knowledge or skill possessed or the dеgree of care ordinarily exercised by physicians, dentists or chiropractic physicians licensed to practice in the state of Louisiana and actively practicing in a similar community or locale and under similar circumstances; and where the defendant practices in a particular specialty and where the alleged acts of medical negligence raise issues peculiar to the particular medical specialty invоlved, then the plaintiff has the burden of proving the degree of care ordinarily practiced by physicians, dentists, or chiropractic physicians within the involved medical specialty.
2. That the defendant either lacked this degree of knowledge or skill or failed to use reasonable care and diligenсe, along with his best judgment in the application of that skill, and
3. That as a proximate result of their lack of knowledge or skill or the failure to exercise this dеgree of care the plaintiff suffered injuries that would not otherwise have been incurred.
The plaintiff contends that the jury was manifestly erroneous in finding F. Edward Hebert Hospital not guilty of fault which was the cause in fact of the plaintiff’s injury.
The plaintiff in a medical malpractice suit against a hospital has the burden of showing that hospital personnel negligently departed from the recognized standard of care afforded by the hospitals in the area for the particular malady involved. It is also the plaintiff’s burden to establish the measure of care skill and diligence each hospital employee, such as nurses, owеd the patient. Matranga v. Sara Mayo Hospital,
Dr. Rothschild, the plaintiff’s expert medical witness, stated that it was his opinion that the appropriate standard of care with respeсt to a hospital requires that the hospital personnel discover the existence of a stage 1 or initial stage bedsore and, advise the treating рhysician in order to receive the appropriate orders. The hospital records indicate that Dr. Chandrasekaran ordered Tegaderm, а treatment commonly used for bedsores, on the 5th of September, approximately a week after being admitted to F. Edward Hebert. Two days later the records indicate that the treatment was changed to “wet/dry dressing”, also a common treatment for bedsores.
We may not disturb the lower court’s ruling in this case unless we find it to be manifestly еrroneous. Watson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co.,
Plaintiff’s second assignment of error is that the trial court erred in granting the directed verdict in favor of Dr. Chandrasek-aren. We believe the trial court was correct in its ruling for the following reasons.
Under Louisiana law, physicians are not negligent if they exercise that degreе of skill and care which is usually possessed and exercised by those in the same field of the profession within the community. Hemingway v. Ochsner Clinic,
At no time did any of the testifying doctors state that Dr. Chandrasekaran either lacked the degree of knowledge or skill employed by other physicians or that hе failed to use reasonable care in treating the plaintiff. As previously stated by Dr. Rothschild, the acceptable treatment for a bedsore was good nutrition, turning the patient, and cleanliness. The nursing notes confirm that the patient was turned every two hours from admission.
The plaintiff claims that the directed verdiсt was inappropriate because the plaintiff’s family testified that they rarely saw the doctor. However, this is not sufficient to carry the plaintiff’s burden of proof as set out in L.S.A.-R.S. 9:2794. Plaintiff’s expert witness stated that the doctor does not have to see the patient on a daily basis as treatment of bedsores is limited once the diagnosis has been established. Furthermore, the only statement made on the adequacy of Dr. Chandrasekaran’s performance was made by Dr. Lutz who deemed it acceptable.
For the reasons above this court does not find error in the trial court’s judgment granting directed verdict in favor of the defendant physician.
AFFIRMED.