 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. Notami Hospitals of Louisiana11/4/2005
s, but that the chart had been reviewed and they were advised that the nurses were negligent in not having the bed rails up and/or the bed alarm on.
On February 7, 2003, LRMC filed a motion for summary judgment, together with supporting exhibits, alleging that there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and that LRMC was entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against it. Specifically, LRMC alleged that the plaintiffs failed to produce an expert witness who could testify that LRMC and/or its employees had breached the applicable standard of care in treating Mr. Williams or contributed to his injuries, and that the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence indicating that the failure to monitor the bed alarm and/or failure to respond to the bed alarm signal was a breach of the standard of care constituting negligence on the part of the LRMC. On August 29, 2003, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment, with supporting exhibits.
At the hearing on September 8, 2003, the trial court allowed the plaintiffs sixty days within which to name an expert, and upon their failure to do so, the case would be dismissed. On September 19, 2003, the trial court signed a written judgment granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and further providing that upon the failure of the plaintiffs to properly identify an expert witness to establish the standard of care within sixty calendar days of September 8, 2003, judgment would be entered dismissing the matter with prejudice at the plaintiffs' costs. Thereafter, the plaintiffs identified Carolyn Easley, Ph.D., R.N., C. and Harley McElroy, CRN, CLNC, as their expert witnesses.
On February 5, 2004, the plaintiffs filed their first supplemental and amended petition for damages. In response, LRMC filed a dilatory exception raising the objection of prematurity, contending that the claims set forth therein were never presented to a medical review panel, and therefore, those claims were premature and should be dismissed. The plaintiffs opposed the exception, contending that the medical review panel did consider the claims set forth in the supplemental and amended petition. In support of their respective positions on the dilatory exception, both parties submitted: (1) a copy of the plaintiffs5 complaint filed with the Commissioner of the Division of Administration, and (2) a copy of the plaintiffs' submission of evidence/position paper to the medical review panel.
At the hearing on the dilatory exception, the trial court overruled the exception, relying on Perritt v. Dona, 2002-2601, 2002-2603 (La. 7/2/03), 849 So.2d 56. The trial court signed a written judgment overruling LRMC's dilatory exception raising the objection of prematurity on May 11, 2004, and it is from this judgment that the defendant has appealed. On appeal, LRMC's sole assignment of error is that the trial court erred in overruling its dilatory exception raising the objection of prematurity.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The facts are not in dispute with respect to this appeal. Therefore, the issue before this court is whether the trial court correctly interpreted and applied the law. Appellate review of questions of law is simply a review of whether the trial court was legally correct or incorrect. Dunn v. Bryant, 96-1765 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/19/97), 701 So.2d 696, 698-99, writ denied. 97-3046 (La. 2/13/98), 709 So.2d 752.
PREMATURITY
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 926(A)(1) provides for the dilatory exception raising the objection of prematurity. The exception raising the objection of prematurity may be utilized in cases where the a
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|