Medical Malpractice

Class Action Rules Difficult to Understand, Important for Successful Litigation

Published on: April 10, 2012 | By Berniard Law Firm

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 was passed in an effort to prevent class action lawsuit abuse. CAFA changed the practice of class action litigation in state and federal courts. This change was accomplished by CAFA’s jurisdictional alterations in both the diversity and removal components of the traditional framework of class action practice, i.e. Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In Williams v Homeland Insurance, the Fifth Circuit applied the “local controversy” exception of CAFA to the facts of the case, determining that a class arbitration is not, nor does it preclude a class action. Williams provides a lesson in the application of the elements of CAFA and an understanding of CAFA’s features. The decision also demonstrates yet another unique feature of Louisiana law that distinguishes it from the law of all of the other jurisdictions in the United States: the Louisiana Direct Action Statute.

CAFA changed the rules for federal diversity jurisdiction and removal. The Act enables large class action law suits to be filed in and/or removed to federal court. CAFA changed the numerosity requirement of Rule 23 from by raising the requirement from 40 class members to more than 100 class members; the citizenship requirement of Rule 23 by relaxing the diversity criteria, i.e. any class member must be diverse from any defendant; and the amount-in-controversy (from one named plaintiff having a claim of more than $75,000) to the total of $5 million. In addition, CAFA incorporated looser removal rules: in diversity cases any defendant can remove the case (including in-state defendants); any defendant can remove without the unanimous consent of the other defendants; there is no 1 year limit on the timing for removal of the case to another court’s jurisdiction; and the decision to grant or deny a remand is subject to appellate review.

Happy Holidays from the Berniard Law Firm

Published on: April 8, 2012 | By Berniard Law Firm

On behalf of the Berniard Law Firm, we hope that all of our friends and followers have had a relaxing and restful holiday. Posting will resume on Tuesday

Tort or Medical Malpractice? Insurance Companies Battle Over Coverage in Ouachita Parish Injury Case

Published on: March 23, 2012 | By Berniard Law Firm

On June 27, 2008, Betty Jean Russell went to see her eye doctor at Eye Associates of Northeast Louisiana. Russell, 78, who required a wheelchair to get around, was driven to the apppointment by her granddaughter, Ashley Dixon. While Dixon remained in the waiting room, an Eye Associates employee wheeled Russell back to an examination room. There, Russell was required to move to one of the facility’s wheelchairs in order to access one of the examination machines. Then, in order for her to look into a different machine, Russell was required to return to her own wheelchair. In the process of moving back to her own wheelchair unassisted, Russell fell, injuring her shoulder and breaking her thighbone. The Eye Associates employees did not call an ambulance, but rather helped Russell off the floor and back into her wheelchair. Dixon immediately drove her grandmother to the ER where Russell underwent surgery to set her broken leg. Although Russell was able to walk from time to time prior to her injuries, she was no longer able to walk at all. Russell filed suit against Eye Associates and Hanover Insurance Co., its general liability insurer. She also filed a petition for a medical review panel under the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act. The Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Company (LAMMICO), the professional liability insurer for Eye Associates, intervened in the action. Hanover filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Russell was injured while Eye Associates employees were delivering professional services, and therefore Russell’s claim was one of medical malpractice. LAMMICO, on the other hand, argued in its own motion for summary judgment that Russell’s fall was “not treatment-related” or “caused by a dereliction of professional skill,” which meant that LAMMICO was not liable for coverage for her injuries.

The trial court held a hearing on the motions for summary judgment, during which it determined that this was not a medical malpractice case. The court granted summary judgment in favor of LAMMICO and denied Hanover’s motion. Hanover appealed on the basis that “the undisputed facts
and evidence establish that the plaintiff’s injuries occurred as a result of a ‘medical incident,’ as defined by the LAMMICO policy.” On appeal, the Second Circuit reviewed that “[w]hen determining whether a policy affords coverage for an incident, the insured bears the burden of proving that the incident falls within the policy’s terms.” Furthermore, “summary judgment declaring a lack of coverage under an insurance policy may not be rendered unless there is no reasonable interpretation of the policy, when applied to the undisputed material facts shown by the evidence supporting the motion, under which coverage could be afforded.” The court noted that the definition of malpractice under Louisiana law includes “unintentional torts by healthcare providers and their employees based on health care or professional services rendered.” The LAMMICO policy maintained by Eye Associates provided professional liability coverage for “incidents arising out of the rendering or failure to render professional services.” The policy defined professional services to include treatment, diagnosis, rendering medical opinions or advice, or performing management or administrative duties by Eye Associates employees. LAMMICO argued that no doctor (or other health care provider) was involved in the accident, as “no assessment of [Russell’s] condition had taken place” at the time of her fall. However, the court noted that Russell testified that the Eye Associates employee involved in her accident had already used one type of machine to examine her eyes and was attempting to
position her in order to use another machine; this move from one wheelchari to another was necessary in order to continue Russell’s eye examination. This point, in the court’s view, created “a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the accident constitutes a medical incident which occurred in connection with the rendering of professional services, satisfying the statutory definition of malpractice and meeting the terms of the LAMMICO policy for coverage.” Accordingly, the court found that the trial judge erred in granting summary judgment in favor of LAMMICO. It reversed the trial court’s judgment an remanded the case for further proceedings.

This case shows how seemingly simple claims can turn complex in litigation. Much of the Second Circuit’s decision rested on a review of the insurance policies themselves, as contracts, to determine the potential for coverage for Russell’s claims. As with any personal injury case, it was essential for the plaintiff to retain experienced counsel to ensure that all potential defendants were brought into the litigation.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Finds Missing Health Information Not a Bar to Life Insurance Recovery

Published on: March 19, 2012 | By Berniard Law Firm

When individuals apply for life insurance, several application forms must be submitted. Amongst these forms is a history of the applicant’s medical history. Based on this history, and a variety of other factors, insurance companies will either accept the application and set a premium that must be paid to obtain the insurance, or deny the application for pre-existing conditions. However, errors, omissions, and accidents occur during this application process and can cause several legal issues to arise when a life insurance policy needs to be paid out.

This situation arose in Foster v. United of Omaha. In that case, an individual sought to change her life insurer, but when the paperwork was arranged and sent to her, the medical history page was absent. The individual signed all of the paperwork and sent it back to the insurance company. Without any red flags regarding the individual’s medical history, United extended $1 million worth of life insurance to her. No physical health examination of the individual took place and the policy was extended based on the blank medical history paperwork.

The individual, after discovering that she was at high risk for cardiovascular disease, sought an addendum to the insurance policy to raise the payout to $2 million. To complete the policy change, the individual had to sign additional paperwork stating that her health condition had not changed since the issuance of the original policy. Because the individual never signed anything for the original policy claiming poor health, she signed the addendum stating that her health had not changed.

After some time, the individual passed away of lung cancer. United conducted an investigation and discovered that, prior to the issuance of the original coverage, the individual had been treated for heart disease, chest pain, and lung ailments. Based on these findings, coupled with the fact that the addendum stated that the individual’s health hadn’t changed, United refused to pay the policy out. The individual’s trustee brought suit against United, seeking payment of the policy.

Several insurance forms, including the one in Foster’s case, contain language that states “incorrect or misleading information may void this policy from its effective date.” Thus, courts have established that an insurance company, in order to rescind a policy on these grounds, must establish that statements made in the form were false, that those misrepresentations were made with an actual intent to deceive, and that the false statements materially affected the insurance company’s acceptance of risk. The most difficult of these elements to establish is the insured’s intent when making false statements. In these types of cases, courts often look to the attending circumstances to determine whether or not the insured had knowledge of the falsity.

In the Foster case, United failed to carry its burden of proof in establishing that the insured intended to deceive United. Though the individual did not claim her medical ailments in the policy application, the paperwork for the original policy was never made available to her. Thus, the insured could not be held responsible for claiming no change in her health when, in fact, it had not changed since the issuance of the original policy. The insured thought she was telling the truth, and therefore could not be held to have intended to deceive the insurer. This finding places responsibility on the insurer to ensure that all paperwork is provided and explained in a clear, reasonable manner. This avoids consumer confusion and creates an efficient market.

Many insurance companies claim that truthfulness is a condition precedent to policy coverage. This means that the policy will only extend its coverage upon the fulfillment of truthful statements required by the applicant. However, whether or not something is a condition precedent is a matter of contract interpretation. In the Foster case, for example, the court held that the language in the addendum that stated “incorrect or misleading information provided herein may void this policy from its effective date” was permissive. The use of “may” in this type of contract suggests that misleading information provided by the applicant might void the policy, but on the other hand, it might not. Such permissive language will never be held to be a condition precedent in insurance disputes.

With these rules at hand, the court in the Foster case found that United was not entitled to withhold the policy payment. Such a finding solidifies courts’ standing in placing responsibility on insurance companies to provide accurate assessment of insurance coverage and risk. Placing this burden on insurance applicants would carry market chilling potential. In addition, search costs could rise and those who were inexperienced with insurance applications would be prone to making mistakes that would stifle courts with insurance interpretation disputes.

Longterm Treatment for Terminally Ill Patient Called into Question

Published on: January 3, 2012 | By Berniard Law Firm

Longterm treatment and care can oftentimes be difficult and emotionally taxing for all involved. What’s more, when an already arduous process is muddled by improper actions by the medical staff, legal resolutions do exist but are unlikely to remedy the problems caused.

After what seemed like a never-ending nap, an individual who will not be named was transferred to Our Lady of Lourdes Regional Medical Center in Lafayette, Louisiana, where she spent the last nineteen days of her life. Her family, including her husband and three children, brought a medical malpractice case against her treating and diagnosing physicians as well as their insurance carrier. After a grant of summary judgment and a denied motion to continue, the decedent’s family followed with an appeal against the treating neurologist, Dr. Steven Snatic, and his medical malpractice insurance provider, Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter “LAMMICO”), claiming the denial of appropriate care, misdiagnosis and resultant death. Upon further analysis of the underlying issues, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment and the matter was remanded to the trial court.

An expert witness testified to the medical review panel that the decedent was properly diagnosed and treated, despite the fact that she was treated for a condition she did not have. The basis for this argument was that the treatment for the misdiagnosis of cryptococcal meningitis was supportive for her true condition, cerebritis. Simply stated, this is a bit like saying if you have a headache and take an aspirin, which happens to also cure the pain in your back, then you’re covered. While this seems to be a difficult legal argument, the expert explained that because the decedent had lupus, it was difficult to make an accurate diagnosis.

The appellate court reviews appeals of summary judgments de novo, basically starting from scratch, with an eye toward determining three issues: (1) whether the decision of the lower court was appropriate; (2) whether there was a genuine issue of material fact; and (3) whether the appellant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Verbatim, the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 966(C)(2) states: “the movant’s burden on the motion [for summary judgment] does not require him to negate all essential elements of the adverse party’s claim, action or defense, but rather to point out to the court that there is an absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to the adverse party’s claim, action, or defense.” Additionally, in a medical malpractice case, a plaintiff is required under Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:2794(A) to prove the three following elements: “(1) the standard of care applicable to the defendant; (2) that the defendant breached the standard of care; and (3) that there was a causal connection between the breach and the resulting injury.”

The real questions that remained included if there a genuine issue as to material fact and is the family entitled to judgment as a matter of law? It is safe to speculate that a person without an advanced degree in medicine can see a problem with a patient being misdiagnosed and treated for an ailment she did not have. Under these details, it is probably safe to go one step further and conclude that summary judgment was not rightfully granted. Doubt and questions as to material fact are dripping all over this case.

So, why was the summary judgment motion granted? In this case the decedent’s family had the burden to prove that there was a breach in the standard of care administered by the physician. In order to accomplish this task, it was necessary to present an affidavit from an expert. It turns out the decedent’s family was not able to obtain an expert neurologist in time to draft an opinion. After two failed attempts with motions to continue, the decedents engaged a cardiologist, who was also a board certified internist, for a supporting affidavit. However, the court looked right through the substance of the documents, or lack thereof, and granted the summary judgment motion, which brings us to the present.

Basically, by the structure of law, the defendants had to show that factual evidence exists to adequately establish there is no genuine issue of material fact in order to be successful with the motion. Here, it is not readily apparent that the healthcare and insurance providers were able to complete such a weighty task. The defendants argued that the expert’s opinion failed to identity his training or experience, as required under the statute, since he did not specialize in the desired field of neurology. However, Hebert v. Podiatry Ins. Co. of America determined that the particular field of specialty is not the crucial point, but instead the knowledge of the subject matter, such that the individual possesses the capacity to testify as to the matter at hand in satisfying the plaintiff’s burdens. Due to the fact that the cardiologist was not a neurologist, the lower court determined that he was not credible. However, it was strictly stated in the doctor’s opinion that “the standards of care ‘are common to both the specialties and are equivalent and known’ to him.” The doctor also discussed how it was obvious that the misdiagnosis combined with the complications of lupus dramatically reduced the decedent’s chance of survival.

Accordingly, it was determined that the lower court got it wrong. The cardiologist was in fact capable of testifying as to the standard of care that should have been given to the decedent. This leads to the conclusion that an expert witness need not have the exact same training or specialty in order to testify as to the burdens a plaintiff must meet in a medical malpractice case, so long as they are equipped with the knowledge and experience to competently answer the questions. The grant of summary judgment in favor of Dr. Snatic and LAMMICO was reversed.

A Happy Holidays to All Friends of the Berniard Law Firm

Published on: December 25, 2011 | By Berniard Law Firm

The Berniard Law Firm would like to wish everyone a Happy Holiday.

Regular posting will resume in 2012! Have a happy, and SAFE, holiday season!

The Delicate Nature of Lawyer Malpractice

Published on: September 17, 2011 | By Berniard Law Firm

Lawyers are professionals and are held to a certain standard of care by the law due to the delicate nature of their work. A lawyer is not required to win every case he or she takes – such a standard would be impractical and impossible to maintain. However, a lawyer must advocate to the best of his or her ability for a client at all times. This includes a myriad functions such as filing documents, arguing before judges and tribunals and negotiating on behalf of clients. If a lawyer fails to live up to a client’s expectations of professionalism and conduct, that client may file suit for malpractice.

To be successful in such a suit the client must prove that the lawyer’s conduct breached the standard of care for an attorney practicing within the jurisdiction. Once malpractice has been alleged and proven, it falls to the attorney to prove that even if he or she had been operating under the standard of care, the client would have lost his or her case. This second burden ensures that clients only collect when they suffer an actual loss.

In Semmes v. Klein, a legal malpractice case originating in St. Tammany Parish, Mr. Klein, the attorney, originally filed a suit on behalf of the wrong person. He realized this error and partially corrected it by withdrawing that suit. However, Mr. Klein failed to file a new suit on behalf of the correct party. Mr. Klein was fortunate because the potential plaintiffs in this case no longer possessed the legal interests that they thought they did by the time the case would have begun.

The facts of this case are confusing at best as they involve corporations and individuals comingling in all manner of contracts and deals. No party in this matter can be held truly blameless because all had a part in gumming up the legal framework in which they were all operating. Due to this confusing legal climate, the trial court did not render a verdict entirely favorable to either party. The trial court dismissed the malpractice claims of the plaintiffs at the defendant’s cost and both parties appealed. On appeal, the trial court’s decision was affirmed.

As professionals must be held accountable for their actions, attorneys are no different and are meant to act on behalf of their clients. This case showcased the type of situation that can arise when an attorney fails to do his or her due diligence. Through a full disclosure of information it could be found that the true interests of the clients may not have been upheld by the attorney in question. In this case, according to the filing of misconduct, Mr. Klein failed to make even the slightest inquiry into the situation in which he was becoming involved. As a result, his clients continued to operate under false assumptions until it was too late.

This case highlights the complexities of insurance litigation, as well. The owner of a particular piece of real property (real estate) insured the property. Then the owner gave the rights to collect the insurance proceeds to a separate entity. After Hurricane Katrina hit, the property was damaged and had to be repaired. Who would do the repairs? Who would actually collect the insurance payouts? Apparently, the answers to these questions were not the same. Enter Mr. Klein. According to his former clients, Klein made the situation worse by failing to behave according to the requisite standard of care. For this, his clients alleged to have suffered a bit of hardship and, in the end, was held accountable in the amount of their legal fees for the malpractice suit against him.

This case demonstrates not only the rules upon attorneys but also the need for clients to hire carefully. By being selective in who represents your case, you prevent not only having your case go poorly but also having to resort to such measures as suing your legal representative.

Court Finds No Insurance Coverage for Negligent Doctor After Medical Injury

Published on: August 1, 2011 | By Berniard Law Firm

As we have discussed previously on our blogs, Louisiana courts apply “ordinary contract principles” when interpreting insurance policies. “Words and phrases used in an insurance policy are to be construed using their plain, ordinary and generally prevailing meaning.” Cadwallader v. Allstate Ins. Co. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, applying Louisiana law, recently utilized this approach when reviewing an appeal in a case involving a tragic medical injury.

Dr. Robert Lee Berry, an anesthesiologist, was employed by Louisiana Anesthesia Associates (“LAA”), a practice that provided anesthesia services to hospitals throughout the state. In March, 2001, Berry’s employment was terminated by Dr. William Preau, a shareholder of LAA, when it was discovered that Berry had been abusing narcotics while on duty. Yet, less than four months later, Preau wrote an unqualified letter of recommendation on Berry’s behalf when Berry applied for a job at the Kadlec Medical Center in Richland, Washington. Preau did not disclose Berry’s known drug use at work or his employment termination from LAA. On November 12, 2002, Berry improperly anesthetized a patient, Kimberly Jones, at Kadlec while under the influence of drugs. As a result of Berry’s mistake, Jones suffered an anoxic brain injury and emerged from the surgery in a permanent vegetative state. Jones’s family sued Kadlec Medical Center and Berry in Washington, ultimately arriving at a settlment with Kadlec for $7.5 million. Kadlec then brought suit against LAA and Preau in the district court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. At that trial, the jury found that Preau had committed “intentional and negligent misrepresentation” by failing to disclose Berry’s drug abuse and employment termination in his recommendation letter. The jury awarded Kadlec damages of over $8 million. This amount reflected Kadlec’s settlement with the Jones family plus approximately $750,000 in attorney’s fees Kadlec incurred defending the suit.

In 2001 when Preau wrote the recommendation letter on Berry’s behalf, LAA was insured under a commercial general liability policy issued by the St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. The policy covered covered LAA’s shareholders, including Preau. When St. Paul declined coverage of the judgment against Preau in the Kadlec suit, Preau filed an action against St. Paul. Following cross-motions for summary judgment, and the district court entered judgment for Preau. The main issue on appeal was whether the damages that Preau was obligated to pay Kadlec were covered under the policy’s “bodily injury” provision, which defined the term as “any physical harm, including sickness or disease, to the physical health of other persons.” The Fifth Circuit held that characterizing the judgment against Preau as requiring him to pay Kadlec damages for “bodily injury” was inaccurate. Instead, the judgment required Preau to pay economic damages to Kadlec for the losses it suffered due to Preau’s misrepresentation. “The economic damages Kadlec sought for Preau’s tortious misrepresentation are distinct from the damages Jones or any other party might seek for her bodily injuries.” In the court’s view, even though the amount of the damages that Kadlec sought from Preau was directly related to the amount it had paid to defend and settle the Jones family’s claim, the damages were still of the economic variety, and therefore not of the type covered by the St. Paul policy. The court further explained the distinction by noting that Preau’s liability to Kadlec arose from his breach of an independent duty he owed to Kadlec–Preau did not become legally responsible to Kadlec Suit for Jones’s bodily injuries, but rather the losses Kadlec faced due to Preau’s breach. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of St. Paul.

Although the courts claim reliance on “ordinary” contract principles when interpreting insurance policies, this case shows how a court’s analysis of a policy–which to most consumers is already a particularly dense and forbidding document–can be anything but straightforward and obvious. If you are in a dispute with an insurance company over coverage, seek counsel from an experienced attorney who can help you navigate the complexities of the policy language and Louisiana case law to determine the strength of your claim.

DePuy Settlements May Offer Spectrum of Opportunities for Recovery

Published on: March 27, 2011 | By Berniard Law Firm

Nearly ten years ago, consumers sued Sulzer Medica for producing defective hip and knee implants. The company ultimately settled with the affected parties. Although the underlying facts of the Sulzer Medica litigation are technically different from those of DePuy, the Sulzer Medica outcome is nevertheless instructive. If anything, the outcome of the Sulzer Medica recall may reflect the outcomes that will emerge in forthcoming DePuy litigation.

For those unfamiliar with the Sulzer Medica situation, here is a brief synopsis:

Sulzer Medica is a Swiss company that produces artificial joint replacements. It has since changed its name to Centerpulse. In December 2000, the company discovered that machinery oil had contaminated some of its knee and hip implant parts. Consequently, affected joint replacement units failed to adhere to the bone of recipients. Sometime in 2000, the company recalled the defective units. affecting approximately 32,000 people in the United States. Many had to undergo revision surgeries to remedy the problem.

Understanding Terms: Claims Based Insurance v. Occurrence Based Insurance

Published on: February 21, 2011 | By Berniard Law Firm

Insurance policy coverage can be very confusing regardless of how simple televisions commercials may claim it can be. Sometimes insurance companies limit their liability by setting a time period within which the policy applies. In other circumstances, insurance policies limit their liability by creating categories of actions that can be instituted against it. For example, if an insurance policy states that it protects a health care provider for one year after the policy begins, this may mean that 366 days later a patient is out of luck if the doctor performs malpractice. Some insurance companies create distinctions on the types of actions that fall under the policy. For example, coverage can extend either based on occurrence or claims.

The distinction here is important, especially as it relates to the time period to bring a claim. If an insurance policy begins on January 1 and ends on December 31, the malpractice occurs on November 10, and the plaintiff files suit in March of the next year, the definitional difference is important. If the policy is occurrence based, the plaintiff will likely have no problem. In an occurrence based policy, coverage extends to any malpractice which occurred within the policy period. In our set of facts, since the malpractice occurred on November 10, it is covered because it is within the policy period. In a claims based policy, coverage extends to any claim that is filed within the insurance coverage period. In this case, although the malpractice took place within the time period of the insurance policy, the claim was not filed until after the coverage period had extinguished. Thus, in out facts, if the policy was claims based, the insurance company would not be liable for the malpractice.

In a recent case, Dewayne Wright v. Willis-Knighton Medical, the plaintiff, Ms. Wright suffered cramps, a coma, insulin shock, and stroke as a result of medical malpractice. The mother of the plaintiff filed suit on behalf of Ms. Wright. She filed initial suit against the facility, Willis-Knighton Medical. At a later date she amended her brief and added the ER doctors to the suit as well. Later, the plaintiff discovered that the insurance policy did not include the health care facility and only included the medical practitioners who decided to join under the coverage. The doctors that she added under the amended brief were originally protected by the coverage.

The problem for the plaintiff begins, though, when the insurance company that she sued later based its policy with the doctors on a claims based basis. Only the claims that were filed within the insurance coverage period were covered. Unfortunately for Mr. Wright, the period ended the day before the brief was amended. Mr. Wright argued that because the doctors were employed by Willis-Knighton, they were solidary defendants. However, because the policy did not cover the medical facility there is no legal basis to extend the coverage of the policy more than the contract states. Thus, because the coverage period had expired by the time the claim was brought against the insurance company and doctor, the claim failed to meet the requirement within the policy’s scope and thus must fail in court to make the insurance provider liable for the alleged malpractice.

This case shows that if you feel that your rights have been violated or that you have been injured because of medical malpractice that you should seek legal counsel as soon as possible. By waiting before speaking to an attorney you increase the chance that time may run out on your ability to protect your rights.