Arrington vs. E.R. Physicians Group

LA Supreme Court - 06-2968, 06-2944 & 06-2923

The plaintiffs filed suit in the 14^th Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu, seeking to have the limitation of liability provision of the Medical Malpractice Act declared unconstitutional and to recover damages without limitation from the medical center. The trial court declared the limitations was constitutional. The plaintiffs appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal.

On September 27, 2006, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision and set aside its judgment. The Court of Appeal entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, granting their motion for summary judgment and finding the $500,000.00 cap on medical malpractice damages unconstitutional as failing to provide the plaintiffs an "adequate remedy" as guaranteed under the provisions of La Const. Art. 1 Sec. 22. The Court of Appeal remanded the case back to the trial court for the consideration of what constitutes adequate damages. Shortly after the opinion was issued, an application for rehearing was filed and denied by the Court of Appeal on November 15, 2006.

Shortly thereafter, the parties filed writs with the Supreme Court seeking a review by the Supreme Court regarding the ruling of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court consolidated the writs and was asked to determine if La R.S. 40:1299.42(B) (statute on limitation to recovery in medical malpractice cases) is unconstitutional pursuant to La Const. Art. I, § 22. On February 2, 2007 the Supreme Court granted the writs filed and vacated the Court of Appeal's judgment of unconstitutionality and remanded the case back to the Court of Appeal for consideration of the remaining issues in the case. The Supreme Court, in its ruling, stated that litigants must bring a constitutional challenge before the trial court and the appellate courts and the challenge must be "specifically pleaded and the grounds for the claim particularized." Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the Constitutional challenge to the statutory cap on medical malpractice damages could not be decided for first time on appeal. The Judgment of the Court of Appeal is vacated and the case is remanded back to the Court of Appeal to consider the remaining issues in this appeal.

Taylor vs. Clement

LA Supreme Court - 06-2518, 06-2581 & 06-2600

The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's judgment denying their motion for summary judgment which sought to have the limitations on recovery for damages imposed by the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act declared unconstitutional. The trial court, instead, granted the Louisiana Patient's Compensation Fund's, a defendant in this matter, motion for summary judgment upholding the constitutionality of the limitation on recovery or "cap" provisions of the act. The issues on appeal were similar to those in the Arrington appeal also filed before the Third Circuit. The Court of Appeal held that the $500,000.00 cap on medical malpractice damages were unconstitutional and reversed the trial court's decision. The Court of Appeal also remanded the case back to the trial court so that it could consider what constitutes adequate damages in this case. The parties have filed writs with the Louisiana Supreme Court since the ruling by the Third Circuit Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court consolidated the writs and was asked to determine if La R.S. 40:1299.42(B) (statute on limitation to recovery in medical malpractice cases) is unconstitutional pursuant to La Const. Art. I, § 22. On February 2, 2007 the Supreme Court granted the writs filed and vacated the Court of Appeal's judgment of unconstitutionality and remanded the case back to the Court of Appeal for consideration of the remaining issues in the case. The Supreme Court, in its ruling, stated that litigants must bring a constitutional challenge before the trial court and the appellate courts and the challenge must be "specifically pleaded and the grounds for the claim particularized." Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the Constitutional challenge to the statutory cap on medical malpractice damages could not be decided for first time on appeal. The Judgment of the Court of Appeal is vacated and the case is remanded back to the Court of Appeal to consider the remaining issues in this appeal.

The Court of Appeal, on July 6, 2007, issued a ruling on the remaining issues on appeal including the equal protection issue. The Court of Appeal indicated in its ruling that the State complained that the Plaintiffs did not specifically raise the equal protection issue in their Summary Judgment motion; however, the equal protection issue was raised in the Plaintiffs' Fifth Amending and Supplemental Petition, as well as the trial court's ruling which reflects that the issue was reviewed on its merits. The Court of Appeal has elected to remand the case back to the trial court to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to "particularize all grounds for their claim that "La R.S. 40:1299.42(B) is unconstitutional and to afford the State, the PCF and all parties in interest an opportunity to fully address and litigate the grounds so alleged." In addition, the Court of Appeal's ruling instructs the trial court to "re-examine all of the issues raised and to determine whether the statute is constitutional after permitting the parties to amend the pleadings, to conduct full discovery, to file additional motions and briefs, to introduce additional evidence and to fully argue the issues advanced in all the pleadings pursuant to a contradictory hearing."