Conner v. Stelly

Decision Date30 January 2002
Docket NumberNo. 2002-CC-0280.,2002-CC-0280.
Citation807 So.2d 827
PartiesJerrilyn and Jerome CONNER v. Dr. Howard STELLY, et al.
CourtLouisiana Supreme Court

807 So.2d 827

Jerrilyn and Jerome CONNER
v.
Dr. Howard STELLY, et al

No. 2002-CC-0280.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 30, 2002.

Dissenting Opinion February 7, 2002.


Dissenting Opinion of Chief Justice Calogero, February 7, 2002.

PER CURIAM.

Granted in part. Although payment of $100,000 in settlement establishes proof of liability for the malpractice and for damages of at least $100,000 resulting from the malpractice, at the trial against the Fund, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the admitted malpractice caused damages in excess of $100,000. Graham v. Willis-Knighton Med. Ctr., 97-0188 (La.9/9/97), 699 So.2d 365. Accordingly, that portion of the trial court's judgment prohibiting the PCF from arguing or presenting evidence before the jury that victim or thirdparty fault caused any of the damages in this case is reversed. In all other respects, the application is denied. Case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

JOHNSON, J., dissents.

CALOGERO, C.J., dissents and will assign reasons.

WEIMER, J., dissents from the order, believing relator has an adequate remedy on appeal.

807 So.2d 828
CALOGERO, Chief Justice dissents and assigns reasons

I dissent from the majority's determination that Graham v. Willis-Knighton Med. Ctr., 97-0188 (La.9/9/97), 699 So.2d 365, allows the patient's compensation fund to argue and present evidence of victim or third-party fault when the health care provider admits liability and tenders payment of $100,000. In Graham, this court held as follows:

[t]he legislative intent of "liability" in Section 1299.44 C(5) was that the payment of $100,000 in settlement establishes proof of liability for the malpractice and for damages of at least $100,000 resulting from the malpractice, which is a very significant benefit to the medical malpractice victim. However, at the trial against the Fund, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the admitted malpractice caused damages in excess of $100,000.

Graham does not address whether the Patient's Compensation Fund (PCF) should be allowed to introduce evidence of victim and third party fault when the health care provider has admitted liability and tendered $100,000. That issue is res nova in this court and the matter should be granted and docketed for this court's careful consideration.

In this case, there is a strong argument against allowing the PCF to introduce victim or third party fault. Under the medical malpractice act, the total...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Arrington v. Er Physicians Group, Apmc., 04-1235.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • 27 Septiembre 2006
    ...Act by requiring that liability now be proven again as to third party fault and fault of a sole defendant. Conner v. Stelly, La. Supreme Court [sic][2002,] 807 So.2d 827. These new requirements above were not contemplated in the Act which was part of the "quid pro quo" given to the plaintif......
  • Hall v. Brookshire Brothers Ltd.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • 21 Agosto 2002
    ... ... More recently, in the per curiam opinion of Conner v. Stelly, 02-280 (La.1/30/02); 807 So.2d 827 (emphasis added), the supreme court stated the following regarding the quantification of victim and ... ...
  • Hall v. Brookshire Bros., Ltd.
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • 27 Junio 2003
    ...$100,000.00 and statutorily admitted liability. Relying on Graham and a recent per curiam opinion from this court, Conner v. Stelly, XXXX-XXXX (La.1/30/02), 807 So.2d 827, in which we reversed a district court ruling prohibiting the Fund from arguing or presenting evidence before the jury t......
  • Hanks v. Seale
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • 17 Junio 2005
    ...damages in excess of $100,000." Graham v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 97-0188 (La.9/9/97), 699 So.2d 365, 372; Conner v. Stelly, 02-0280 (La.1/30/02), 807 So.2d 827; Hall v. Brookshire Bros., Ltd., 02-2404 (La.6/27/03), 848 So.2d 559. In Hall, we explained the rationale for this rule as......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT