 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Armand v. State Department of Health and Human Resources6/21/2002
GUIDRY, J., concurs.
This appeal places at issue the constitutionality of Louisiana Revised Statute 40:1299.39, which limits the liability of state health-care providers in a medical-malpractice action for general damages and lost wages to a $500,000 statutory cap.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter has been before us previously on different issues. The facts are detailed in a prior opinion and will not be repeated here. In Armand v. State (Armand I), we affirmed the district court's finding of liability against Earl K. Long Hospital for negligence in rendering medical treatment to Derek Armand, including a failure to properly diagnose meningitis. However, we found the district court erred in concluding that the matter involved "administrative negligence" to which the medical-malpractice-damages cap did not apply. Accordingly, that portion of the judgment was reversed, rendering plaintiffs' recovery subject to the statutory cap of $500,000 provided for in Revised Statute 40:1299.39. Consequently, the district court's total damage award of almost $7,000,000 was amended to limit the general damages award to $500,000 to comply with the statute.
In plaintiffs' first supplemental and amending petition, they asserted as a "second cause of action" that the statutory provisions restricting their right to recover full damages, Revised Statutes 40:1299.39, et seq., and 13:5101, are unconstitutional. Plaintiffs' petition sought a declaratory judgment regarding their constitutional challenges, requested that a trial on this issue be held separate from the main demand, and specifically moved the court for an order severing the second cause of action. By order of the court, the constitutional challenge was severed from the main demand and made the subject of a declaratory action "to be heard at a date to be set by the Court."
Trial was held on the main demand on September 15, 1997, and judgment was rendered on October 14, 1997. The district court did not address the issue of the constitutionality of the statutory liability limits at the time of its original decision. As noted earlier, that judgment was appealed; we affirmed in part, reversed and rendered in part, amended in part, and as amended, affirmed in part. That decision became final when the Supreme Court denied certiorari in May 1999.
In September 1999, plaintiffs filed a motion and order for a status conference with the district court regarding the previously severed claims raising the issue of constitutionality, and asserting that those issues were now "ripe for resolution." In October 1999, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of constitutionality. In March 2000, plaintiffs filed a cross motion for summary judgment, asserting that Revised Statute 40:1299.39 was unconstitutional as a matter of law.
The motions for summary judgment were heard on March 13, 2000, following which the district court issued oral reasons for judgment. A judgment denying plaintiffs' motion and granting defendants' motion was rendered and signed on March 23, 2000, dismissing plaintiffs' action. Plaintiffs appeal that judgment.
EXCEPTION OF RES JUDICATA
On July 18, 2000, defendants filed an exception of res judicata in this court asserting that the judgment assigning liability and quantum, which became final and definitive when the state supreme court denied certiorari, foreclosed further litigatio n of the issue of the constitutionality of the limitation of liability imposed by Revised Statute 40:1299.39. We find no merit to this argument. Plaintiffs asserted the challenge to the constitutionality of Revised Statute 40:1299.39 in their first supplementa
Page 1 2 3 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|