 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Halle v. Our Lady of the Lake Hospital12/22/2000
Plaintiffs, Harold Halle and Rita Halle, appeal a trial court judgment dismissing their claim for damages. This court amends the judgment and affirms for the reasons expressed below.
In 1978, Harold Halle received blood transfusions at Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, Inc. (OLOL). In 1994, Mr. Halle was diagnosed with Hepatitis "C" virus. Mr. and Mrs. Halle filed a lawsuit against OLOL on March 7, 1995, within one year of discovery of the virus. Following a trial on the merits, the jury concluded that the blood was defective and that it had caused Mr. Halle's hepatitis. The jury, however, awarded no damages. Plaintiffs filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and an alternative motion for new trial. These motions were denied by the trial court.
The Halles appeal the judgment of the trial court, and they allege the following assignments of error:
(1) The trial court erred by not granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
(2) The trial court erred by allowing testimony of Dr. Kerry Howell and Dr. Adrian McInnis, Jr. concerning treatment that was given to Harold Halle.
(3) The jury committed manifest error by not awarding damages after finding the blood supplied by OLOL was defective and caused plaintiff's injuries.
OLOL has answered the appeal with the following assignments of error:
(1) The trial court erred in its denial of OLOL's exception of prescription.
(2) The trial court erred in instructing the jury on the law applicable to plaintiffs' strict products liability claims.
LAW
After the trial court judgment had been rendered in this case, the Louisiana Supreme Court handed down a decision that directly impacts the resolution of this appeal. Boutte v. Jefferson Parish Hospital Service District No.1, 99-2402 (La. 4/11/00), 759 So.2d 45, provides the courts with guidance in the interpretation of the applicability of the prescriptive provisions of the Medical Malpractice Act. It is particularly germane to the instant appeal because the pertinent facts in Boutte essentially parallel those set forth in the case before this court. Both lawsuits involve a strict liability claim for defective blood transfusions that were performed after the 1976 amendments to the Medical Malpractice Act.
At all times pertinent to this case, La. R.S. 9:5628 has provided in pertinent part:
A. No action for damages for injury ... against any ... hospital duly licensed under the laws of this state, or community blood center ... whether based upon tort, or breach of contract, or otherwise, arising out of patient care shall be brought unless filed within one year from the date of the alleged act, omission, or neglect, or within one year from the date of discovery of the alleged act, omission, or neglect; however, even as to claims filed within one year from the date of such discovery, in all events such claims shall be filed at the latest within a period of three years from the date of the alleged act, omission, or neglect. (Emphasis supplied.)
In Boutte, the court expressly held that the prescriptive period delineated in the Medical Malpractice Act pertains to allegations based on damages arising from defects in blood provided to patients by transfusion, including claims based on strict liability. Boutte, 99-2402 at pp.5-6, 759 So.2d at 49.
At the time of Mr. Halle's transfusion, the Medical Malpractice Act defined "Malpractice" as follows:
"Malpractice" means any unintentional tort or any breach of contract based on health care or professional services rendered, or which should have been rendered, by a health care
Page 1 2 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|