 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McPherson v. Lake Area Medical Center5/24/2000
y as long as their testimony is limited to the question of whether or not the health care provider's admitted malpractice resulted in damages in excess of $100,000.00.
The summary judgment granted by the trial court was designated as a final judgment. An immediate appeal is available. As such, this Court declines to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.
McPherson v. Lake Area Medical Center, 99-585 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/24/99), writ denied, 99-1619 (La. 6/11/99), ___ So.2d ___ (emphasis added).
The case proceeded to trial by a jury, which found that the breach of the applicable standard of care by Dr. Lewis resulted in damages in excess of $100,000.00. The jury awarded Plaintiffs the following damages:
1)To Kirk McPherson: Physical Pain and Suffering (past, present and future) $100,000.00
Mental Pain and Suffering (past, present and future) $100,000.00
Loss of Enjoyment of Life $25,000.00
Medical Expenses (past) $2,479.00
Medical Expenses (future) $25,000.00
Permanent Disability $50,000.00
2) To Dianna McPherson: a total of $15,000.00 for mental anguish and loss of consortium.
3) To the McPherson children: a total of $5,500.00 for loss of consortium.
The LPCF appeals assigning the following as errors:
1. The trial court erred in excluding the opinion of the medical review panel from evidence.
2. The trial court erred in excluding the testimony of the medical review panelists.
3. The trial court erred in excluding the testimony of the defendant's neuro-ophthalmologist, Dr. Craig Smith.
4. The jury erred in finding causation of damages in excess of $100,000.00.
5. Alternatively, the amount of damages awarded was excessive.
LAW AND DISCUSSION
In its first three assignments of error, LPCF asks us to re-visit issues we previously considered in our ruling of May 24, 1999, in Appellant's writ application.
In Burkett v. UDS Management Corp., 99-82, pp. 4-5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/2/99); 741 So.2d 838, 841, writ denied, 99-1970 (La. 10/15/99); 748 So.2d 1150, this court reviewed the law applicable to the law of the case doctrine stating the following:
The supreme court has defined the doctrine of the law of the case as follows:
The law of the case principle relates to (a) the binding force of trial court rulings during later stages of the trial, (b) the conclusive effects of appellate rulings at the trial on remand, and (c) the rule that an appellate court will ordinarily not reconsider its own rulings of law on a subsequent appeal in the same case.
Petition of Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans, 278 So.2d 81, 83 (La.1973). This court has further explained the law of the case doctrine as follows:
The law of the case doctrine "recognizes the binding force of trial court rulings during later stages of the trial ..." Pitre v. Louisiana Tech University, 26,388, p. 1 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/10/95); 655 So.2d 659, 664, writs granted, 95-1466, 95-1487 (La.10/6/95), 661 So.2d 454, reversed on merits, 95-1466, 95-1487 (La.5/10/96), 673 So.2d 585; see also Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., 260 La. 325, 256 So.2d 105 (1971). The reasons for this doctrine are: (1) avoidance of indefinite litigations; (2) consistency of results in same litigation; (3) essential fairness between the parties; and, (4) judicial efficiency.
Johnson v. Acadiana Ry. Co., 96-263 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/16/97), 693 So.2d 226, 228-29. See also Louisiana Land and Exploration Co. v. Verdin, 95-2579 (La.A
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|