Royer v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc.
| Decision Date | 22 February 2019 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2017 CA 1764,2017 CA 1764 |
| Parties | ROBERT L. ROYER v. OUR LADY OF THE LAKE HOSPITAL, INC., OUR LADY OF THE LAKE PHYSICIAN GROUP, LLC, KEITH BRIAN HODGE, M.D., LURA LABORDE WIGHT, M.D., AND LOUISIANA CARDIOVASCULAR SPECIALISTS, LLC D/B/A LOUISIANA CARDIOLOGY ASSOCIATES |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana
The Honorable Todd Hernandez, Judge Presiding
Robert Layne Royer
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Counsel Pro Se for Plaintiff/
Appellant, Robert L. Royer
Douglas K. Williams
Druit G. Gremillion, Jr.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, Inc.
Ann M. Halphen
Amy C. Lambert
L. Adam Thames
Ne'Shira Millender
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Counsel for Defendants/Appellees
Robert L. Royer appeals the Nineteenth Judicial Court's dismissal of his claims due to his failure to comply with a court order requiring him to post bond. For the following reasons, we affirm.
The instant dispute derives from Robert L. Royer's decision to seek heart care treatment at Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, Inc. ("OLOL"). On March 16, 2011, Royer began experiencing symptoms of an apparent heart attack, including chest pain, shortness of breath, and weakness. Royer first presented with these symptoms to the office of his primary care physician. Upon his primary care physician's advice and encouragement, Royer drove to OLOL's emergency room ("ER") for further treatment. Royer arrived at OLOL between 1:30 and 1:45 p.m.
On March 16, 2012, Royer filed a "Petition for Fraud, Rescission of Contract, Reimbursement of Medical Expenses, Damages and Attorney Fees for Fraudulent Advertisements and Other Conduct," against OLOL, Our Lady of the Lake Physician Group, LLC ("OLOLPG"), Keith Brian Hodge, M.D. ("Dr. Hodge"), Lura LaBorde Wight, M.D. ("Dr. Wight"), and Louisiana Cardiovascular Specialists, LLC ("LCS"). Through amended petitions filed on January 29, 2013, and November 19, 2013, Royer added Professional Emergency Physician Associates, LLC ("PEPA") and Shammi R. Kataria, M.D. ("Dr. Kataria") as named defendants. Royer subsequently voluntarily dismissed LCS and OLOLPG from the suit.2
Through his original and amended petitions, Royer presented fraud claims against OLOL, OLOLPG, Dr. Hodge, Dr. Wight, LCS, PEPA, and Dr. Kataria (collectively "defendants"). Royer alleged the defendants falsely advertised and misrepresented the nature of OLOL's medical services. Essentially, Royer argued that the defendants had misrepresented OLOL's staff to be "completely committed to medical excellence" and that OLOL's Heart Center had been advertised as the highest rated in south Louisiana for the treatment of chest pain.
On May 1, 2012, Dr. Hodge and Dr. Wight jointly filed a dilatory exception of prematurity; both alleged that Royer's claims against them fell within the legal definition of medical malpractice set forth in La. R.S. 40:1231.1(A)(13).3 Dr. Hodge and Dr. Wight averred that both were qualified health care providers, which meant that Royer's medical malpractice claims had to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act ("LMMA"), La. R.S. 40:1232.1, et seq. Prior to a hearing on this issue, Royer, Dr. Hodge, and Dr. Wight collectively reached an agreement regarding the dilatory exception of prematurity. Subsequently, on September 26, 2012, the trial court signed a consent judgment on the exception of prematurity, thereby dismissing Royer's medical malpractice claims against Dr. Hodge and Dr. Wight as premature, but maintaining Royer's fraud claims against Dr. Hodge and Dr. Wight in the trial court for further proceedings. Additionally, prior to OLOLPG's dismissal from the suit, OLOL and OLOLPG jointly filed their own dilatory exception of prematurity. Royer reached an agreement, which was similar to his agreement with Dr. Hodge and Dr. White, with OLOL andOLOLPG. Thus, on June 11, 2013, the trial court signed a consent judgment which dismissed as premature Royer's medical malpractice claims against OLOL and OLOLPG, but maintained Royer's fraud claims against OLOL and OLOLPG for further proceedings.
On November 27, 2012, Dr. Hodge and Dr. Wight jointly submitted a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of Royer's remaining fraud claims against them. Dr. Hodge and Dr. Wight argued they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law because they were not employees, agents, or representatives of OLOL during the events in question.
During the course of discovery and pendency of pre-trial motions, prior to judgment on Dr. Hodge's and Dr. Wight's motion for summary judgment, Royer, Dr. Hodge, Dr. Wight, PEPA, and OLOL submitted a joint motion for a stipulated protective order to the trial court. The parties stated the protective order was necessary to protect the confidentiality of certain documents and information produced during discovery. On March 11, 2013, the trial court signed the protective order and ordered it to remain in effect beyond the final conclusion of litigation between the parties to the agreement. In pertinent part, the protective order provided:
Following entry of the protective order, Royer filed motions to compel discovery of contracts and documents regarding the relationship between OLOL, Dr. Hodge, Dr. Wight, and PEPA. Specifically, Royer sought to compel discovery of documents and contracts entered into by these parties on August 1, 2005; July 14, 2006; August 1, 2007; and October 12, 2009. Royer argued the requested documents would prove Dr. Hodge and Dr. Wight were not independent contractors, had knowledge about OLOL's advertisements and representations, and were therefore not entitled to summary judgment. Additionally, on April 18, 2013, Royer filed a motion to vacate the protective order in its entirety, reasoning it was improperly being used to circumvent discovery.
On April 29, 2013, the trial court heard arguments on Dr. Hodge's and Dr. Wight's motion for summary judgment, and, on June 17, 2013, the trial court heard arguments on Royer's motions to compel discovery and vacate the protective order. At the hearing on Royer's motions to compel discovery and vacate the protective order, the trial court denied Royer's motion to vacate the protective order in open court. Thereafter, on September 12, 2013, the trial court issued and signed summary judgment in favor of Dr. Hodge and Dr. Wight and dismissed Royer's claims against them, with prejudice. The trial court's September 12, 2013 judgment also denied Royer's outstanding motion to compel discovery as moot. The trial court reasoned the uncontroverted evidence on record demonstrated that Dr. Hodge and Dr. Wight were independent contractors who could not be found liable for OLOL's advertisements and representations. Royer responsively filed motions for new trial on the granting of Dr. Hodge's and Dr. Wight's motionfor summary judgment and on the denial of his motions to compel discovery and vacate the protective order.
On January 17, 2014, OLOL individually filed a motion for summary judgment. OLOL argued that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to Royer's fraud claims and that OLOL was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OLOL asserted Royer could not present evidence sufficient to bear his burden of proving he relied upon its representations and advertisements in deciding to seek treatment at OLOL. Additionally, OLOL averred that, even if Royer could demonstrate he relied upon its representations and advertisements, he could not prove OLOL's representations and advertisements misrepresented, suppressed, or omitted truthful information.
On August 5, 2014, the trial court issued and signed summary judgment in favor of OLOL. The trial court found there were no genuine issues of material fact with regard to Royer's fraud claims against OLOL and dismissed Royer's remaining claims against OLOL, with prejudice. The trial court's August 5, 2014 judgment also denied Royer's September 24, 2014 motion for new trial on Dr. Hodge's and Dr. Wight's motion for summary judgment, as well as Royer's motion for new trial on the motion to vacate the stipulated protective order. On October 1, 2014, Royer appealed the trial court's September 12, 2013 and August 5, 2014 judgments. On December 11, 2015, this court affirmed the September 12, 2013 and August 5, 2014 judgments. See Royer v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 2015-0009 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/11/15); 2015 WL 8910533 (unpublished), writ denied, 2016-0298 (La. 4/8/16); 191 So.3d 587.
On October 14, 2015, the opinion of the medical review panel was rendered. The medical review panel found that there was no deviation fromthe appropriate standard of medical care by Dr. Hodge, Dr. Wight, PEPA, or OLOL.4
On February 22, 2016, Royer filed a third amending and supplemental petition which, in pertinent part, re-urged his medical malpractice claims and sought to vacate...
To continue reading
Request your trial