Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Romeros filed a medical malpractice suit against Dr. Haile and others in August 1996 alleging negligence in failing to diagnose their daughter's hydrocephalus and spina bifida. They settled for $100,000 with Dr. Haile on December 17, 1998, reserving rights to seek excess damages from the Louisiana Patients' Compensation Fund (PCF). After a period of inactivity spanning from 2000 to 2006, the Romeros filed motions seeking summary judgment. The trial court dismissed their claim against the PCF as abandoned pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art. 561. The appellate court reversed, holding that the Romeros followed proper procedures under La.R.S. 40:1299.44(C) and their claim against the PCF had not been abandoned.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in granting the peremptory exception of abandonment to the Louisiana Patients' Compensation Fund. The Romeros argue that the PCF has a continuing duty to compensate them for damages from Dr. Haile's negligence and that the PCF's bad faith in failing to comply with the trial court's mediation order should not result in dismissal of their suit.
Holdings
The appellate court reversed and remanded the trial court's judgment because the trial court erred in finding that the Romeros' claim had been abandoned. The plaintiffs, Peter and Hope Romero, individually and as the administrator of their minor daughter, appealed the dismissal of their claims against the Louisiana Patients' Compensation Fund (PCF). The court held that the PCF lacks standing to raise exceptions after the limitation of liability has been satisfied, and the trial court incorrectly determined the suit was abandoned. The Romeros followed the procedures set out in La.R.S. 40:1299.44(C), and the trial court erred in finding their claim had been abandoned.
Remedies
- Pursuant to La.R.S. 13:5112, the costs of this appeal were assessed to the Louisiana Patients' Compensation Fund in the amount of $9,591.66
- The court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the matter for further proceedings
Legal Principles
- The court held that the Romeros did not abandon their suit against the Louisiana Patients' Compensation Fund because they followed the procedures set out in La.R.S. 40:1299.44(C) and obtained a judgment reserving their rights against the PCF. A judgment prescribes in ten years under La.Code Civ.P. art. 2031, and the time limit had not run when the Romeros attempted to enforce their judgment.
- The Louisiana Patients' Compensation Fund lacks standing to raise exceptions of prescription or any other exceptions once a health care provider has settled for its maximum liability under the Medical Malpractice Act. A settlement at the maximum liability amount constitutes an admission of liability by the health care provider. La.R.S. 40:1299.44(C) does not specify a time limit for litigating claims for excess damages against the PCF. The Medical Malpractice Act must be strictly construed as it is in derogation of tort victims' rights, but provisions regarding the Fund must be liberally construed.
- La.R.S. 40:1299.44(C) provides procedural steps for plaintiffs when settlement is reached with a health care provider and damages exceed the statutory cap of $100,000. These include filing a petition against the health care provider, serving the petition on the PCF and health care provider's insurer, allowing the PCF to file objections, and a hearing on the petition. If parties cannot agree on the amount to be paid by the PCF, a subsequent trial is required to determine excess damages.
Precedent Name
- Horil v. Scheinborn
- Kelty v. Brumfield
- Rey v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co.
- Weeks v. Louisiana Patient's Compensation Fund
- McGrath v. Excel Home Care, Inc.
- Deano v. Akkaraju
- St. Romain v. Luker
Cited Statute
- Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 561
- Medical Malpractice Act
- Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 2031
Judge Name
- Billy H. Ezell
- Charles Lee Porter
- Glenn B. Gremillion
- Michael G. Sullivan
Passage Text
- Accordingly, we find that the trial court erred in finding that the Romeros' claim had been abandoned. They followed the procedures set out in Section 1299.44(C), up to receiving a determination on their excess damage claim. The PCF was put on notice that this claim was filed and could have taken any necessary steps to protect itself financially concerning the potential amount of this claim.
- Thus, we find that the PCF cannot raise the exceptions at this time. The statutes and jurisprudence are clear that such payment is an admission of liability. The PCF does not stand in the shoes of the Defendant. It is a creature of the legislature created solely to pay the excess damages to an injured plaintiff who can prove that his excess damages were caused by the health care provider's malpractice.
- For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. Pursuant to La.R.S. 13:5112, the costs of this appeal are assessed to the Louisiana Patients' Compensation Fund in the amount of $9,591.66.