Taylor v. Clement

Decision Date09 March 2005
Docket NumberNo. 04-1069.,04-1069.
Citation897 So.2d 909
PartiesCharles Ray TAYLOR, Jr., et al. v. Richard J. CLEMENT, M.D., LPCF.
CourtLouisiana Supreme Court

Appeal from the Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu, No. 99-191, Honorable J. David Painter, District Judge.

Oliver Jackson Schrumpf, Schrumpf & Schrumpf, Sulphur, LA, for Plaintiffs/Appellants, Charles Ray Taylor, Jr. & Sharon Taylor.

Michael Keith Prudhomme, Lundy & Davis, Lake Charles, LA, for Intervenor/Appellee, Louisiana Patient's Compensation Fund.

Court composed of SYLVIA R. COOKS, ELIZABETH A. PICKETT, and BILLY HOWARD EZELL, Judges.

PICKETT, Judge.

Plaintiffs, Charles and Sharon Taylor, appeal a judgment of the trial court denying their motion for summary judgment seeking to have the limitations on recovery for damages imposed by the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act, La.R.S. 40:1299.41, et seq., declared unconstitutional and granting the motion for summary judgment filed by defendant, the Louisiana Patient's Compensation Fund, upholding the constitutionality of the limitation on recovery or "cap" provisions of the act.

FACTS

The procedural history of the case was set out by the trial judge in his written reasons for judgment as follows:

On June 22, 2001 following a trial on the merits there was a Judgment in favor of MR. and MRS. TAYLOR awarding damages in excess of the statutory limits on liability found in L.R.S. 40:1299.42. On April 23, 2003 the TAYLORS and the LOUISIANA PATIENT COMPENSATION FUND (THE FUND) entered into a partial discharge in satisfaction of said Judgment with the TAYLORS reserving their rights to challenge the constitutionality of The Act. Throughout these proceedings, the TAYLORS have reserved their right to contest the constitutionally of the limits of liability set forth in The Act or applicability to these facts.

Those issues were fixed for trial in this Court on November 24, 2003. THE FUND intervened in this action September 23, 2003. On August 21,2003 the TAYLORS filed a Second Supplemental and Amending Petition amending the previously filed petition to more specifically set out the constitutional grounds on which "the cap" on recovery was challenged. Subsequently, a Third Supplemental and Amending Petition was filed on October 6, 2003 to spell out with more specificity the constitutional grounds on which "the cap" on recovery was challenged.

The limitation of liability or "cap" is found in La.R.S. 40:1299.42(B), which states:

(1) The total amount recoverable for all malpractice claims for injuries to or death of a patient, exclusive of future medical care and related benefits as provided in R.S. 40:1299.43, shall not exceed five hundred thousand dollars plus interest and cost.

(2) A health care provider qualified under this Part is not liable for an amount in excess of one hundred thousand dollars plus interest thereon accruing after April 1, 1991, for all malpractice claims because of injuries to or death of any one patient.

(3)(a) Any amount due from a judgment or settlement or from a final award in an arbitration proceeding which is in excess of the total liability of all liable health care providers, as provided in Paragraph (2) of this Subsection, shall be paid from the patient's compensation fund pursuant to the provisions of R.S. 40:1299.44(C).

(b) The total amounts paid in accordance with Paragraphs (2) and (3) of this Subsection shall not exceed the limitation as provided in Paragraph (1) of this Subsection.

After considering the issues raised by plaintiffs, the counter-arguments of defendants, the law and jurisprudence, the trial judge upheld the constitutionality of "the cap" and issued judgment accordingly. This appeal followed.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

The Louisiana Constitution, Article V, Section 11 states: "A court of appeal may certify any question of law before it to the supreme court, and the supreme court then may give its binding instruction or decide the case upon the whole record."

Additionally, La.R.S. 13:4449 provides the following:

In any case pending before the courts of appeal in which the judges thereof may desire the instructions or opinion of the Supreme Court on any question of law arising therein, the judges of the intermediate appellate court shall submit to the Supreme Court, a clear and concise statement in writing signed by them of the points or propositions of law concerning which the opinion of the court is desired and solicited. Should the Supreme Court deem an examination of the records necessary to a proper decision of the question of law so certified and submitted to it, the judges of the court of appeals, on receipt of a written request therefor, shall forward the original record to the clerk of the Supreme Court for the latter's consideration. Thereupon the Supreme Court may give its opinion on the points or propositions of law so submitted, which opinion, with the original record, shall be transmitted by the clerk of the Supreme Court to the court of appeals. The Supreme Court's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Arrington v. Er Physicians Group, Apmc., 04-1235.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • September 27, 2006
    ...3/9/05), 897 So.2d 911. The sole issue raised in that appeal was the same issue raised in its companion case, Taylor v. Clement, 04-1069 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/9/05), 897 So.2d 909. At that time, we applied to the Supreme Court of Louisiana for instructions on the following question of law arisi......
  • Arrington v. Er Physicians Group
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • March 9, 2005
    ...different assignments of error, the sole issue raised in this appeal is the same issue raised in Taylor v. Clement, 04-1069 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/9/05), 897 So.2d 909, 2005 WL 545102, i.e., the constitutionality of the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act, La.R.S. 40:1299.41, et Accordingly, for t......
  • Taylor v. Clement
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • September 27, 2006
    ...HOWARD EZELL, and JAMES T. GENOVESE, Judges. PICKETT, Judge. HISTORY This case was previously before the court. Taylor v. Clement, 04-1069 (La. App. 3 Cir. 3/9/05), 897 So.2d 909. At that time we applied to the Supreme Court of Louisiana for instructions on the following question of law ari......

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