Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the plaintiff appealed a trial court judgment that dismissed her medical malpractice claims against a physician due to prescription. Between 2008 and 2010, the plaintiff underwent bunionectomy surgeries performed by the defendant, resulting in complications. The plaintiff consulted other physicians, leading to a diagnosis in July 2011 of excessive bone removal during the surgeries. She filed a malpractice complaint against another doctor in October 2014 and later substituted the defendant. The trial court upheld the defendant’s exception of prescription, determining the claims were filed beyond Louisiana's one-year prescriptive period and three-year repose period for medical malpractice actions. On appeal, the plaintiff contended that the prescriptive period was suspended due to an ongoing doctor-patient relationship and delayed discovery of the malpractice. However, the court found no evidence of continuous treatment after November 2010. Furthermore, the discovery rule did not apply, as the plaintiff had knowledge of the malpractice in July 2011, yet filed the claim over three years later. The judgment dismissing her claims was affirmed, underscoring the importance of timely filing under La. R.S. 9:5628(A).
Legal Issues Addressed
Commencement of Prescription Periodsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The prescription period began when Ms. Wilkerson had sufficient knowledge of the malpractice, which was determined to be in July 2011.
Reasoning: In Campo v. Correa, the Louisiana Supreme Court established that the prescription period for a medical malpractice claim begins when a plaintiff gains actual or constructive knowledge of facts that would alert a reasonable person to potential tortious harm.
Continuing Treatment Exceptionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that the continuing treatment exception did not apply as there was no evidence of a continuous treatment relationship with Dr. Dunham after November 2010.
Reasoning: The records indicated that Ms. Wilkerson's treatment with Dr. Dunham ceased in November 2010, undermining her claim for the continuing treatment exception.
Discovery Rule in Medical Malpracticesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The discovery rule did not suspend the prescription period as Ms. Wilkerson was aware of the malpractice issue more than three years before filing the claim.
Reasoning: Ms. Wilkerson was aware of the excessive bone removal from her foot as of July 29, 2011, following an x-ray, yet her complaints were not filed until October 23, 2014.
Doctrine of Contra Non Valentumsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that neither the continuing treatment exception nor the discovery rule under this doctrine applied to Ms. Wilkerson's case.
Reasoning: The doctrine of contra non valentum may permit claims to proceed after the prescriptive period under specific conditions. In this case, Ms. Wilkerson invoked two categories of this doctrine: the continuing treatment exception and the discovery rule.
Prescription of Medical Malpractice Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied Louisiana's one-year prescriptive period and three-year repose period to dismiss the plaintiff's claims as untimely.
Reasoning: Louisiana law stipulates a one-year prescriptive period for medical malpractice claims, alongside a three-year repose period that limits the time frame for filing claims regardless of discovery.