Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; October 3, 1990; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Susan Broussard appeals the dismissal of her medical malpractice claim against Dr. George P. Fink, an optometrist, based on a peremptory exception of prescription. The trial court ruled that LSA-R.S. 9:5628, which establishes a three-year prescriptive period for medical malpractice claims, applies to optometrists, interpreting its list of practitioners as illustrative rather than exclusive. Broussard argues that the statute does not apply to optometrists since they are not explicitly mentioned.
The court's decision was made without any testimony or evidence outside of the pleadings, focusing solely on the allegations in Broussard's petition. She claims to have visited Dr. Fink and Dr. Robert D. Sandefur multiple times from February 11, 1983, to September 11, 1986, for vision issues, which they allegedly failed to diagnose as glaucoma. Broussard did not learn of her condition until July 14, 1987, when another optometrist identified it, resulting in advanced glaucoma requiring extensive treatment that could lead to blindness. The trial court dismissed her claim against Dr. Fink, while the judgment did not address claims against the other defendants. The appellate court must first determine if optometrists fall under the purview of LSA-R.S. 9:5628, a matter contested by both parties. Fink argues that the statute should be interpreted alongside the Medical Malpractice Act to encompass optometrists.
LSA-R.S. 9:5628(A) establishes a one-year statute of limitations for bringing actions for damages related to patient care against licensed physicians, chiropractors, dentists, psychologists, and hospitals in Louisiana. Claims must be filed within one year from the date of the alleged act or its discovery, with an absolute cap of three years from the date of the act. Initially enacted in 1975 to address rising medical malpractice insurance costs, the statute originally applied only to physicians, dentists, and hospitals. Amendments in 1976 and 1987 expanded its coverage to include chiropractors and psychologists, respectively.
The First Circuit has interpreted the statute strictly, confirming that it does not apply to the Louisiana Department of Health and Human Resources or the State of Louisiana, as they do not fall under the definitions of the entities listed in the statute. The Medical Malpractice Act defines a "health care provider" broadly, encompassing various licensed individuals and institutions offering health care services. Optometry is specifically defined as the examination of the eye without drugs, with its practice historically evolving from opticians. Louisiana law restricts optometrists from performing medical functions traditionally reserved for physicians, including prescribing medication, and mandates that they cannot use the title "Doctor" without "Optometrist" being included to avoid confusion with medical doctors.
Optometry practice is defined as employing non-surgical means to measure and test the human eye's vision and refractive state, including fitting lenses and contact lenses to correct refractive errors. The scope does not include the use of drugs for disease treatment, except for diagnostic ocular agents by licensed optometrists. Louisiana courts recognize optometry's connection to public health but assert that the practice is not equivalent to medicine. The law, specifically LSA-R.S. 9:5628, does not include optometrists within its prescriptive protection for medical malpractice, as it explicitly covers only five designated healthcare providers. The legislature's choice to exclude optometrists indicates a deliberate limitation of coverage. The statute is clear and unambiguous, and courts must adhere strictly to its wording without speculating on legislative intent.
Broussard's claim must be assessed to determine if it has prescribed. Delictual actions have a one-year prescription period from the date of injury, but under the doctrine of contra non valentum, the timeframe can extend to one year from when the plaintiff discovers the cause of action. Broussard claims she was unaware of her glaucoma until July 14, 1987, when diagnosed by another optometrist.
Susan Broussard filed a suit for damages on May 3, 1988, related to medical negligence involving eye care providers, specifically George P. Fink and Robert D. Sandefur, at the Sears Optical Center from February 11, 1983, to September 11, 1986. Despite her ongoing complaints about her eyesight during this period, none of the defendants diagnosed her condition as glaucoma. On July 14, 1987, Broussard sought examination from a different optometrist, who promptly referred her to a medical doctor for emergency treatment due to severe glaucoma. Following this diagnosis, she underwent extensive medical treatment, which has left her permanent eyesight in jeopardy. Broussard alleges that the defendants’ failure to detect and properly diagnose her condition constitutes negligence, resulting in significant harm. The trial court's grant of an exception of prescription was found to be in error and has been reversed and remanded for further proceedings, allowing the defendant to reassert the exception if desired. Costs of the appeal are to be borne by George P. Fink.
The document outlines multiple allegations of negligence against Dr. Robert D. Sandefur regarding the inadequate care and treatment of a petitioner suffering from severe glaucoma. Key points of negligence include:
1. Failure to timely and accurately diagnose the petitioner’s eye condition.
2. Inadequate examination to determine the cause of the petitioner’s eye problems.
3. Use of improper equipment and failure to provide appropriate treatment or medication during eye examinations.
4. Insufficient qualifications of staff conducting procedures and examinations.
5. Lack of supervision over staff assisting in the petitioner’s care.
6. Employment of inadequately trained personnel for examinations and treatments.
7. Failure to meet the standard of care generally expected from professionals in optometry and related medical fields.
8. Delay in diagnosing and treating conditions, contributing to the petitioner’s severe glaucoma.
9. Inadequate monitoring of the petitioner’s ongoing eye issues.
10. Failure to refer the petitioner for independent consultation with an ophthalmologist when necessary.
11. Additional unspecified acts of negligence will be presented at trial.
The document asserts that the severity of the petitioner’s glaucoma was caused by Dr. Sandefur’s negligence and that of his staff. Additionally, it references a prior case, Chivleatto v. Divinity, misapplied by the trial court regarding the classification of health care providers under the Medical Malpractice Act.
