Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, a group of plaintiffs filed medical malpractice claims against a physician and a hospital, alleging injuries from the use of an unapproved spinal fixation device. The trial court granted a peremptory exception of prescription, dismissing the claims as they were filed beyond the statutory period established under La. R.S. 9:5628. This statute requires claims to be filed within one year of discovery of the malpractice or within three years of the act. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, noting the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any interruption or suspension of the prescriptive period, particularly as they could not substantiate claims of concealment or fraud by the healthcare provider. Additionally, the plaintiffs' attempt to challenge the constitutionality of the statutory prescription period was rejected due to procedural deficiencies, including the failure to serve the Attorney General and properly plead the issue at the trial level. The court emphasized that prior rulings have upheld the statute's constitutionality. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the claims, assessing all costs against the plaintiffs.
Legal Issues Addressed
Concealment or Fraud in Medical Malpracticesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found no evidence of concealment or fraud by Dr. Akins that would interrupt the prescription period, as his testimony regarding the FDA status of the implants was unchallenged.
Reasoning: Plaintiffs failed to show that any actions by Dr. Akins constituted concealment or fraud necessary to stop prescription. Dr. Akins testified that he had no knowledge of any issues with the FDA status of the implants, and this testimony was unchallenged.
Constitutional Challenge Proceduresubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court declined to address the constitutionality of La. R.S. 9:5628 because the constitutional challenge was not properly presented, lacking a plea at the trial level and the involvement of the Attorney General.
Reasoning: Additionally, the plaintiffs raised a constitutional challenge to La. R.S. 9:5628, but this argument was not properly presented to the court, as constitutional questions must first be raised at the trial level.
Constructive Knowledge and Prescriptionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court emphasized that prescription does not begin unless the plaintiff reasonably should have linked the condition to the treatment, but noted that prescription cannot be delayed beyond three years under La. R.S. 9:5628.
Reasoning: Constructive knowledge necessary to begin the prescription period requires more than a mere suspicion of wrongdoing. A plaintiff's ignorance of essential facts can prevent prescription from running, provided that ignorance is not willful, negligent, or unreasonable.
Contra Non Valentem Doctrine Limitationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that the doctrine of contra non valentem does not apply after three years under the Louisiana statute, thus barring the plaintiffs' claims filed beyond this period.
Reasoning: However, Louisiana Revised Statutes § 9:5628 specifies that the concept of contra non valentem (prescription not running against someone unable to act) does not apply after three years from the alleged act of malpractice.
Prescription of Medical Malpractice Claims under La. R.S. 9:5628subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed that the plaintiffs' medical malpractice claims were prescribed as they were filed more than three years after the alleged negligent acts occurred.
Reasoning: The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to comply with these time limits, and noted that on appeal, the plaintiffs only pursued their medical malpractice claims, abandoning all other claims.
Role of the Attorney General in Constitutional Challengessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court noted that the failure to serve the Attorney General and include them as a party precluded the review of the statute's constitutionality.
Reasoning: The Attorney General must be served and is an indispensable party when the constitutionality of a statute is challenged, as per La. C.C.P. art. 1880.