Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; October 7, 1987; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Hilda Cudges filed a medical malpractice suit against Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, alleging negligent and intentional acts by the hospital's employees that resulted in her injuries. The hospital, classified as a qualified health care provider, raised an exception of prematurity, arguing that Cudges failed to seek review from a medical review panel before filing the lawsuit. The court partially upheld this exception, agreeing that the negligence claims fell under the medical malpractice act, but allowed the intentional tort claims to proceed without prior review.
Cudges claimed she suffered an overdose of Heprin during her hospital treatment in October 1985, leading to a loss of blood pressure and pain. Additionally, she alleged that hospital staff ignored her warnings and caused a venopuncture that necessitated surgery. Although her petition included allegations of both negligent and intentional actions by the hospital staff, she did not assert that the staff intended the harmful outcomes of their actions.
The trial court's ruling allowed the intentional tort claims to move forward, prompting the hospital to seek supervisory relief regarding this decision. The relevant statutes, LSA-R.S. 40:1299.47 and LSA-R.S. 40:1299.41 A.(8), mandate that malpractice claims against health care providers must be reviewed by a medical panel, which typically includes only unintentional torts. The central legal question is whether Cudges' allegations sufficiently constitute an intentional tort, allowing her claims to circumvent the medical malpractice review requirement.
Paragraph IV of the plaintiff's petition alleges an intentional tort due to the actions of Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital personnel during a blood draw, claiming that the staff ignored the plaintiff's protests, resulting in pain from a venopuncture. The Louisiana Supreme Court case, Bazley v. Tortorick, provides a definition of "intentional tort," indicating that intent refers to the actor's desire for a specific result or knowledge that a result is substantially certain to follow from their conduct. The plaintiff's petition does not meet the two criteria established in Bazley, and the facts do not support the claim of an intentional tort as defined in LSA-R.S. 40:1299.41 A.(8). The trial court found that continued probing after the plaintiff's withdrawal of consent constituted battery, relying on similar cases; however, those cases involved clear acts of unauthorized procedures or physical harm, which are not analogous to the situation at hand. The court concludes that the hospital actions were standard procedures, potentially negligent but lacking intentionality regarding the alleged harms. Consequently, the writ is made peremptory, reversing the trial court's partial overruling of the exception of prematurity, sustaining the exception for all of the plaintiff's demands, and dismissing her suit without prejudice. Costs are assessed against the plaintiff. The court also finds that the case of Caudle v. Betts is not relevant to this matter.
