 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stett v. Greve2/27/2002
therapy to Stett over the next 30 days. Greve also stated that she did not send a "final" bill to Stett until August 21, 1995. Up until this point, Stett could have maintained an expectation that her therapy with Greve would resume as had happened in the past.
Furthermore, Greve's letter to Stett on September 22, 1995 regarding the termination of the treatment raises the issue of the exact date when the patient-therapist relationship was terminated. Thus, Stett's testimony is essential to a determination of whether the action had prescribed and the record should have been held open for receipt of this evidence. Such an outcome would not have surprised or unduly prejudiced the defendant and is consistent with prior cases in which this court has stated that a court should not hesitate to reopen or leave open a case for additional evidence when no injustice would be done. See Brown v. Hobson, 30,131 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1/21/98), 706 So.2d 1030, writ denied, 98-479 (La. 4/3/98), 717 So.2d 1132; Antley v. Brantly, 28,049 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2/28/96), 669 So.2d 685.
Consequently, I must conclude that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to hold open the case to allow Stett to testify, essentially depriving the plaintiffs of their day in court. Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment and remand for receipt of Stett's testimony.
|