Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; May 28, 1992; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Plaintiff Patricia Reeb appeals the trial court's summary judgment favoring Dr. Timothy Kern, which the appellate court reverses. Reeb filed a petition for damages against Dr. Kern, Dr. James Shoemaker, and Kern Accident and Injury Clinic, alleging negligence in treatment, including failure to properly diagnose, causing spinal injuries, treating outside their expertise, and not referring her to a qualified physician. Dr. Kern's defense asserted that Reeb had only received treatment from Dr. Shoemaker and an intern chiropractor, arguing that this precluded liability as Kern had never treated her. The trial judge ruled there were no genuine issues of material fact, stating it was impossible for Kern to be negligent since he did not treat Reeb, and cited La.R.S. 12:1057(C) to support that only the attending chiropractor (Dr. Shoemaker) could be liable.
La.R.S. 12:1057 outlines the liability of shareholders in a professional chiropractic corporation, emphasizing that shareholders are not personally liable for corporate debts (paragraphs A and B). However, paragraph C clarifies that rights to sue for breaches of professional duty or negligent acts remain intact, allowing for potential claims against individuals like Dr. Kern for their professional conduct. The court underscores that while corporate liability is limited, personal liability for professional negligence persists.
The trial court mistakenly conflated the limited liability protections for shareholders with the potential liabilities of incorporators, shareholders, and corporate officers for professional duty breaches under Louisiana Civil Codes. As a result, Dr. Kern was improperly granted summary judgment. The trial judge failed to identify genuine issues of material fact that necessitated a trial. Appellate review of summary judgments is conducted de novo, adhering to criteria that require no genuine issue of material fact for such judgments to be granted. The burden lies with the moving party to demonstrate the absence of material factual issues, with all inferences favoring the opposing party. Allegations made by Mrs. Reeb must be accepted as true, and any doubts must lean toward a trial rather than summary judgment. The record contains substantial evidence warranting further exploration, including undisclosed qualifications of an examiner, an insurance form assigning proceeds to Dr. Kern, a cash receipt from him, and documentation of his corporate roles. Notably, an 'Associate Doctor Agreement' between Dr. Kern and Dr. Shoemaker outlines training commitments, suggesting a potential basis for examining operational standards and vicarious liability in a trial setting.
A trial will determine if the 'intern chiropractor' who treated Mrs. Reeb was a qualified professional capable of advising her on chiropractic care and whether appropriate instructions were provided. Despite Dr. Kern not directly treating Mrs. Reeb, his lack of involvement may suggest negligence in his duty to the patient. There's a need to evaluate if the 'detailed orthopedic and neurological exam' mentioned in an advertisement complied with accepted medical standards. Additionally, the corporate structure's responsibilities regarding patient care must be clarified, particularly concerning the 'Associate Agreement' with Dr. Shoemaker, which lasted one year. The issue of whether Dr. Kern owes a distinct duty to Mrs. Reeb is a critical question to be addressed at trial. The plaintiff's allegations of negligence are sufficiently supported by the record. Consequently, the trial court's judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. The advertisement highlights a policy of discussing patient issues at no charge and conducting thorough examinations if necessary, with financial discussions before any procedures. The agreement specifies that the Associate is recognized as a salaried chiropractor and must adhere to the corporation's directives, performing all assigned tasks competently.
