 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Robertson v. West Carroll Ambulance Service District1/26/2005
t of the motion, West Carroll submitted copies of the petitions, the medical review panel opinion, an affidavit of one of the physicians serving on the panel, the deposition of Kenneth's expert, Debra Braun, R.N., and her report concluding that the nursing staff fell below the standard of care in its pre-accident treatment of Robertson.
In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Kenneth contended that his pleadings should be read to include the "pre-accident" negligence of the West Carroll nursing staff because no time frames were alleged and the allegations were broad enough to include such claims. Kenneth also pointed out that the medical review panel ruling addressed pre-accident negligence. On these grounds, Kenneth argued that his expert evidence of pre-accident negligence was adequate to support his cause of action against the hospital based upon inadequate nursing care. In support of his argument, Kenneth also attached a copy of the medical review panel opinion and the depositions of two nurses who rendered pre-accident treatment to Robertson.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of West Carroll, finding that the petition failed to mention pre-accident events and only referred to the three-hour post-accident treatment. The court found plaintiff's expert report, which addressed only pre-accident treatment, to be irrelevant and insufficient to show a breach of the standard of care after the accident. It is from this ruling that Kenneth has appealed.
Discussion
A motion for summary judgment will be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. C.C.P. art. 966B. Once the motion for summary judgment has been properly supported by the moving party, the failure of the non-moving party to produce evidence of a material factual dispute mandates the granting of the motion. Racine v. Moon's Towing, 01-2837 (La. 5/14/02), 817 So. 2d 21. Appellate courts review summary judgments de novo under the same criteria that govern the district court's consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate. Gray v. Investment Cars Unlimited, Inc., 36,691 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1/29/03), 836 So. 2d 1184, writ denied, 03-0670 (La. 5/2/03), 842 So. 2d 1108.
In a medical malpractice action the plaintiff has the burden of proving the applicable standard of care, the breach of the standard of care, and the causal connection between the breach and the resulting injuries. Belt v. Wheeler, 36,585 (La. App. 2d Cir. 12/18/02), 833 So. 2d 1256; Edwards v. Rains, 35,284 (La. App. 2d Cir. 10/31/01), 799 So. 2d 1184. Generally at trial, a plaintiff must prove the applicable standard of care through expert medical testimony unless, the physician does an obviously careless act from which a lay person can infer negligence. Davis v. Atchison, 37,832 (La. App. 2d Cir. 10/29/03), 859 So. 2d 931. Expert testimony is especially necessary where the defendant in a medical malpractice action has filed a motion for summary judgment supported by expert opinion evidence that the treatment met the applicable standard of care. Id. The opinion of the medical review panel may be considered by the court when ruling on a summary judgment motion. Edwards v. Rains, supra; Hinson v. Glen Oak Retirement Home, 34,281 (La. App. 2d Cir. 12/15/00), 774 So. 2d 1134.
In this case, the parties' dispute focuses upon the issue of whether the pleadings are sufficient to allege claims relating to both the pre-accident negligence of the nurses and post-accident negligence of the doctor. In the i
Page 1 2 3 4 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|