Cooper v. Sams
Docket: 87-805
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; October 5, 1988; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Darrell Cooper and others (plaintiffs-appellants) appealed a judgment favoring Dr. John C. Sams and others (defendants-appellees) concerning a medical malpractice claim. The plaintiffs contended that the Medical Malpractice Act, which requires claims to be submitted to a Medical Review Panel before litigation, was unconstitutional. They raised two assignments of error, primarily arguing that the Act violates equal protection by classifying malpractice victims based on physical condition, differentiating their access to a Review Panel. The court found no merit in the plaintiffs' arguments, stating that La. R.S. 40:1299.47 applies uniformly to all malpractice claimants, regardless of physical condition or damages. The ruling cited the precedent in McClean v. Hunter, which upheld that the statute does not infringe on equal protection rights, substantive due process, or the right to confrontation. It emphasized that the classification based on treatment by healthcare providers does not pertain to categories outlined in the Louisiana Constitution's equal protection clause. The trial court's judgment was affirmed. The court determined that the Medical Malpractice Act meets the equal protection requirement by advancing an appropriate state interest, specifically by reducing frivolous claims and promoting settlements, which ultimately lowers litigation costs for defendants and their insurers. This reduction in costs is expected to lead to lower malpractice insurance premiums and decreased medical treatment costs for patients. The court upheld the lower court's conclusion that the statute fulfills this standard. In the plaintiffs' second assignment of error, they argued that the trial court failed to ensure that malpractice victims have equal access to the courts and adequate remedies under the Louisiana Constitution, citing potential bias among Medical Review Panel members who have roles as both peer reviewers and defendants. They referenced statistics indicating that 92% of Medical Review Panels favor health care providers and likened the situation to a hypothetical biased review board. The court dismissed this argument, stating that the cited statistics do not demonstrate actual bias and that there are various explanations for the high percentage of favorable opinions. The court also rejected the analogy to Klan members, deeming it absurd, and noted that the Louisiana Supreme Court has previously declined to generalize bias against the medical profession. Consequently, the court found the plaintiffs' assignment of error without merit and affirmed the lower court's judgment, with all costs assigned to the plaintiffs/appellants.