Hutchinson v. Patel
| Decision Date | 08 July 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92,92 |
| Citation | 626 So.2d 368 |
| Parties | Nelita M. HUTCHINSON v. Navin P. PATEL, M.D. and Parkland Hospital. 1 CA 1502. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Richard M. Upton, Baton Rouge, for Nelita M. Hutchinson.
Donald Phelps, Jay Mitchell, Baton Rouge, for Navin P. Patel, M.D.
Before LOTTINGER, C.J., and FOIL and FOGG, JJ.
In this tort action, the defendant physician appeals the denial of a dilatory exception raising the objection of prematurity based on the contention that, pursuant to the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (LMMA), the claim was required to be submitted to a Medical Review Panel prior to being filed in district court. We affirm.
Nelita M. Hutchinson filed a petition for damages in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court on November 18, 1991, alleging the Dr. Navin Patel and Parkland Hospital (Parkland), breached the duty owed to warn or to take other reasonable precautions to protect her from the violent behavior of her husband. Dr. Patel filed a dilatory exception raising the objection of prematurity, seeking to have the district court action dismissed as premature on the grounds that LMMA required that the claim be submitted to a Medical Review Panel prior to being filed in district court. The trial court denied the exception, finding the claim asserted in the petition did not fall under LMMA.
Dr. Patel appeals that judgment, contending a claim alleging that a psychiatrist or psychologist breached the duty to warn a third person or take reasonable precautions to protect a third person against a threat of violent behavior by a patient is a claim for malpractice. La.R.S. 40:1299.41 A(8) defines malpractice as follows:
'Malpractice' means any unintentional tort or any breach of contract based on health care or professional services rendered, or which should have been rendered, by a health care provider, to a patient, including failure to render services timely and the handling of a patient, including loading and unloading of a patient, and also includes all legal responsibility of a health care provider arising from defects in blood, tissue, transplants, drugs and medicines, or from defects in or failures of prosthetic devices, implanted in or used on or in the person of a patient. (Emphasis added)
Under the statute, the tort must be based on health care or professional services that were rendered or should have been rendered to a patient. The instant case makes the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hutchinson v. Patel
...A. Marvin, C.J., Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, sitting in place of Justice James L. Dennis.1 La.R.S. 40:1299.41-1299.48.2 626 So.2d 368 (La.App. 1st Cir.1993).3 629 So.2d 374 (La.1993).4 By Act 764 of 1993, the Louisiana Legislature amended La.R.S. 9:2800.2 to read as follows:A. When a p......
-
Perry v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...issue here is whether Mr. Perry's non-patient claims against defendants arise from injuries to or the death of Ms. St. Blanc–Champagne. In Hutchinson , the non-patient plaintiff sued a hospital and psychiatrist for the injuries she sustained as a result of their alleged failure to warn or t......
- Hutchinson v. Patel