Thomassie v. Amedisys La Acquisitions, LLC
| Decision Date | 18 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | 2019 CA 0173, 2019 CA 0174 |
| Citation | 312 So.3d 595 |
| Parties | Michael L. THOMASSIE and Linda A. Thomassie v. AMEDISYS LA ACQUISITIONS, LLC d/b/a Metro Preferred Home Care, an Amedisys Company |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
312 So.3d 595
Michael L. THOMASSIE and Linda A. Thomassie
v.
AMEDISYS LA ACQUISITIONS, LLC d/b/a Metro Preferred Home Care, an Amedisys Company
2019 CA 0173, 2019 CA 0174
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
JUDGMENT RENDERED: AUGUST 18, 2020
Rehearing Denied September 28, 2020
Richard A. Cozad, Michael L. McAlpine, New Orleans, Louisiana Kristin Hendricks, Chelsea, Iowa, ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS PLAINTIFFS—Michael L. Thomassie, through his legal representative Linda A. Thomassie, and Linda A. Thomassie
William C. Rowe, Jr., Joseph S. Manning, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE INTERVENOR—Louisiana Patient's Compensation Fund and the Louisiana Patient's Compensation Fund Oversight Board, through nominal defendant, Amedisys LA Acquisitions, L.L.C., d/b/a Metro Preferred Home Care, an Amedisys Company
BEFORE: MCDONALD, MCCLENDON, WELCH, HOLDRIDGE, AND CHUTZ, JJ.
WELCH, J.
In this medical malpractice action, the plaintiffs, Michael L. Thomassie and Linda A. Thomassie, appeal the trial court's judgment sustaining a peremptory exception raising the objections of prescription, no right of action, and no cause of action filed by the intervenor, the Louisiana Patient's Compensation Fund and the Louisiana Patient's Compensation Fund Oversight Board (collectively, "PCF"), which resulted in the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ case. The plaintiffs also appeal the trial court's judgment denying their motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether payments of Mr. Thomassie's medical expenses made through TRICARE, the government-provided insurance plan of the Military Health Care System, were a collateral source. For the reasons below, we reverse in part, affirm in part, and affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 20, 2010, Mr. Thomassie, who was then a 62-year-old disabled Navy veteran, fell at his home and suffered a spiral fracture of his left fibula (i.e., calf or leg bone).1 After treatment in the emergency room, he was put in a soft cast, discharged, and orders were placed for Amedisys LA Acquisitions, L.L.C. d/b/a Metro Preferred Home Care, an Amedisys Company ("Amedisys"), to provide skilled home nursing care and physical therapy to Mr. Thomassie, as he was wheelchair and bedbound. During this time, Mr. Thomassie developed multiple pressure wounds that were not properly addressed by the Amedisys home health nurses, including a large ulcer on Mr. Thomassie's coccyx. On February 17, 2010, Mr. Thomassie was admitted to the hospital and diagnosed with a large sacral decubitus ulcer, i.e., a bed/pressure sore on the tailbone, and sepsis. Mr. Thomassie required emergency surgery to debride the ulcer, which postponed his other previously scheduled surgeries.
The Thomassies filed suit against Amedisys on February 16, 2011, seeking damages for Amedisys’ alleged negligence in failing to provide adequate care and supervision to Mr. Thomassie, which resulted in his injuries.2 Pursuant to a consent judgment, the trial court dismissed that suit on June 17, 2011, without prejudice, as premature pending the outcome of a properly convened medical review panel ("MRP").3
Also on February 16, 2011, the Thomassies filed a medical malpractice complaint. A MRP convened on August 27, 2015, and concluded that Amedisys failed to comply with the appropriate standard of care as charged in the Thomassies’ medical malpractice complaint and that its conduct was a factor of Mr. Thomassie's resultant damages.
On September 17, 2015, the Thomassies filed a petition for damages against Amedisys, based on the opinion of the MRP.4 As a result of the alleged negligence of Amedisys, the Thomassies sought all past and future medical costs and expenses and general and special damages. Mrs. Thomassie also made a claim for the loss of services and society of her husband. The Thomassies later filed a supplemental and amending petition for damages on September 19, 2016, adding the PCF as a defendant and alleging that Mrs. Thomassie was entitled to damages for the costs of her attendant care to Mr. Thomassie.5
The Thomassies and Amedisys ultimately settled. Following a hearing on the Thomassies’ petition for court approval of the agreed settlement of the Thomassies’ medical malpractice claim, the trial court signed a judgment on August 4, 2016, approving a settlement between Amedisys and the Thomassies in the amount of $100,000.00, the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act's ("MMA") liability damages cap for a single qualified health care provider. That judgment authorized the Thomassies to execute a receipt and release in favor of Amedisys and further provided that the Thomassies reserved their rights against the PCF for further damages (up to $400,000.00 remaining under the MMA cap). See La. R.S. 40:1231.4(B) and (C).6 The judgment also named Amedisys as a nominal defendant only to the extent necessary for the Thomassies to recover excess damages against the PCF.7
The PCF filed a motion for intervention and answer to the Thomassies’ petition for court approval of settlement on August 23, 2016. The PCF specifically objected to any payment of additional money over the amount of the settlement between the Thomassies and Amedisys without the benefit of an adequate opportunity to conduct
discovery, identify and retain expert witnesses, prepare a defense, and conduct a trial by jury in accordance with La. R.S. 40:1231.4(C)(5)(a).
The Thomassies answered the PCF's intervention, averring that their settlement with Amedisys for $100,000.00 conclusively established liability on the part of Amedisys and that they have the right to pursue damages in excess of $100,000.00 against the PCF without the need to prove liability on the part of Amedisys. If, following a jury trial, a jury finds that the negligence of Amedisys caused damages to the plaintiffs in excess of $100,000.00, the Thomassies argued that it would be the responsibility of the PCF to cover those damages.
On January 20, 2017, the Thomassies moved for partial summary judgment, seeking judgment in their favor that the collateral source rule precluded the admission of evidence of payments of Mr. Thomassie's medical expenses that were made through TRICARE, the government-provided insurance plan of the Military Health Care System. The Thomassies argued that the sum of $504,708.96 paid by TRICARE for Mr. Thomassie's medical expenses are subject to the collateral source rule and may not be deducted from the medical expense award. The plaintiffs claimed entitlement to damages in the amount of $992,999.59, the total of Mr. Thomassie's medical expenses incurred as a result of his injuries suffered due to the malpractice of Amedisys.
The PCF opposed the Thomassies’ motion for partial summary judgment. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the Thomassies’ motion and signed a judgment in accordance therewith on April 24, 2017. On June 5, 2017, the Thomassies filed a supervisory writ application seeking review of the trial court's denial of their motion for partial summary judgment. This court denied the writ application, finding that the criteria set forth in Herlitz Const. Co. v. Hotel Inv'rs of New Iberia, Inc., 396 So. 2d 878 (La. 1981) was not met. See Thomassie v. Amedisys La Acquisitions, LLC, 2017-0764 (La. App. 1st Cir. 10/2/17), 2017 WL 4350908 (unpublished writ action).
Prior to the scheduled trial, the PCF asserted a peremptory exception raising the objections of prescription, no right of action, and no cause of action. The PCF argued that the lawsuit was prescribed because the Thomassies failed to file their petition within the one and three-year prescriptive periods set forth for actions for medical malpractice. See La. R.S. 9:5628. The PCF contended that the complained of malpractice, as alleged in the Thomassies’ petition, occurred from January 23, 2010 through February 10, 2010,8 or alternatively, at the latest on February 17, 2010, when Mr. Thomassie was admitted to the emergency room. Because the Thomassies did not file their lawsuit until September 17, 2015, the PCF argued their claims were facially prescribed. The PCF also alleged that the Thomassies’ request for a MRP was not timely, and that Mrs. Thomassie's claims for attendant care costs were also prescribed. The PCF further contended that Mrs. Thomassie had no right of action to proceed against the PCF in an independent capacity because
she was never a "claimant" as defined by the MMA. The PCF also averred that Mrs. Thomassie had no independent cause of action to collect damages from the PCF for the costs of her attendant care of her husband, as alleged in the Thomassies’ supplemental and amending petition for damages, arguing that her claim does not relate back under the MMA.
The Thomassies opposed the PCF's exceptions. Following a hearing, the trial court sustained the PCF's peremptory exception and signed a judgment in accordance therewith on September 13, 2018. The trial court specifically found that the Thomassies’ petition for damages alleging a breach of the standard of care ending on February 10, 2010, and the claims of Mr. Thomassie and his surviving spouse...
To continue reading
Request your trial