 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Perritt v. Dona9/20/2002
Richmond ordering plaintiffs to respond to defendant's written interrogatories is reversed. Costs of the appeal in Perritt are assessed to the Perritts. Costs of appeal in Arnold and Richmond are assessed to the defendants in those cases.
AFFIRMED IN CASE NOS. 35,628-CW AND 35,724-CW; REVERSED IN CASE NO. 35,841-CW.
PEATROSS, J., CONCURRING.
In its per curiam opinion, the supreme court posed the following limited question to this court:
. . . whether a defendant in a case pending in the medical review panel may compel the plaintiff to respond to interrogatories requesting information on the standard of care allegedly breached by the defendant.
I concur with the portion of the opinion authored by Judge Caraway that answers this inquiry in the negative, as I believe that the only discovery permitted under the Medical Malpractice Act ("MMA") is deposition. See La. R.S. 40:1299.47(D). Since the MMA is in derogation of the general rights available to tort victims, its provisions must be strictly construed. Nowhere in the MMA is there a provision permitting written interrogatories. As noted by the writer, the supreme court also instructed this court to address the case of Solomon v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, 97-0783 (La. App. 4th Cir. 5/14/97), 694 So. 2d 1229. In light of the above conclusion, I agree with the position that the fourth circuit erred in its decision in Solomon, which held that a plaintiff could be compelled to answer interrogatories. These findings, in my opinion, fully answer the limited inquiry mandated by the supreme court.
I note, however, that any discussion of the above issues does not involve the issue(s) raised in the Perritt case because, as the writer points out, that case did not involve interrogatories. As such, any discussion of the issue(s) raised in Perritt is irrelevant to the inquiry of the supreme court and is, therefore, superfluous.
In summary, I concur with the portions of the opinion that conclude that interrogatories are not permissible discovery under the MMA and that disagree with the decision in Solomon, supra. I believe the further discussion in the opinion regarding the Perritt case, however, to be superfluous to the inquiry mandated by the supreme court. BROWN, C.J., Concurring and Dissenting in part.
These cases were consolidated and remanded by the supreme court for this court to address a common question of whether, in a case pending before a medical review panel, a plaintiff can be compelled to state "the standard of care allegedly breached by the defendant." This court is in agreement that a plaintiff does not have to articulate the standard of care as that is a question within the expertise of the panel members. We also agree that at this stage interrogatories are not allowed under the Medical Malpractice Act; however, we disagree on whether exceptions, other than one of prescription, are permitted under the act.
Because of the cost, in both time and money, associated with medical malpractice lawsuits, screening panels were mandated as a precondition to traditional litigation. These panels do not replace the litigation process but provide a quick and inexpensive way to separate valid from frivolous claims.
A medical review panel is assembled to provide expert opinions with the goal of encouraging prompt settlement of good claims and abandonment of bad ones. The panel consists of experts who consider only evidence submitted in written form. This evidence consists primarily of medical charts, lab tests, x-rays, affidavits and other evidence including in some cases depositions. This evidence is usually in the possession of
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.
|
|