 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Scales v. Rapides Regional Medical Center2/6/2002
he was, also, aware that a potential claim existed against the hospital; therefore, the claim prescribed after one year. The hospital fails to distinguish between prescription, concerning a negligent credentialing or supervision claim against a hospital and prescription, affecting a routine surgical malpractice claim against a physician. Various complications from an operative procedure may be sufficient to trigger prescription against a surgeon; however, Mrs. Scales' ignorance of RRMC's secret investigation, probation, and suspension falls within the doctrine of contra non valentem. While standard medical procedure dictates that patients be informed of the risk of infection from surgery, an infection, per se, does not, necessarily, suggest malpractice. And, it most certainly does not automatically implicate the hospital. To rule, otherwise, would be to invite patients, who acquire an infection after a surgical procedure to immediately sue the physician and hospital.
The information, regarding Dr. Rogers' investigation, remained concealed for several years. As such, Mrs. Scales was not aware, nor could she have possibly known, of anything untoward concerning the hospital until she discovered an impending investigation against him, almost two years after her surgery. Therefore, she did not have sufficient information to incite curiosity, to excite attention, or to put her on guard and call for inquiry until that time. Consequently, the facts and cause of action were not reasonably known to her for purposes of the one year prescriptive period, and her inaction for more than one year under such circumstances was reasonable. Notwithstanding, she and her husband filed suit in March 1998, well within the three year statutory period under La.R.S. 9:5628.
Accordingly, we find that the trial court erred in sustaining the exception of prescription.
Because the hearing which initiated this appeal was a hearing for an exception of prescription, many documents were not admitted into evidence, as they were irrelevant or immaterial to the issue, then, at bar. Without their submission, we cannot rule on any of the issues regarding negligent supervision or credentialing.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand for a trial on the merits.
CONCLUSION
On April 10, 1996, Dr. Rogers performed surgery on Mrs. Scales, who later developed a post-operative infection. RRMC concealed the investigation and suspension proceedings against Dr. Rogers for several years. Consequently, she did not know that she had a claim against the hospital until Dr. Rogers sued RRMC, and it revealed results of the secret investigation. Therefore, she did not know of her cause of action for purposes of the one year prescriptive period, and her inaction for more than one year under such circumstances was reasonable.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
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.
|
|