Court Addresses the Reach of the Louisiana Health Emergency Powers Act’s Immunity Provision for Claims Against Health Care Providers

In a previous blog, we outlined developing law in the Louisiana appeals courts, and federal district courts in Louisiana on the issue of whether a claimant may maintain a separate cause of action against an employer for independent negligence when it is stipulated that the employee was in the course and scope of employment.¹ Most courts held a claimant could not maintain a separate action against the employer under these circumstances, reasoning that the employee’s fault would impute to the employer, and therefore, additional inquiry was not appropriate. However, the Louisiana Supreme Court recently addressed the issue and stated:

“(A) plaintiff may pursue both a negligence cause of action against an employee for which the employer is vicariously liable and a direct claim against the employer for its own negligence in hiring, supervision, training, and retention as well as a negligent entrustment claim, when the employer stipulates that the employee was in the course and scope of employment at the time of the injury.” (Emphasis added) See Martin v. Thomas et al., 21-1490 (La. 12/21/21), 328 So. 3d 1164.

This holding notably overturned the 1^st Circuit Court of Appeal ruling in Elee v. White, - - So.3d - - (La. App. 1 Cir 7/24/20), 2020 WL 4251974 and other Louisiana 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals decisions. The Supreme Court in Martin reasoned that “the initial assessment of fault required by the law is not bypassed due to the employer-employee relationship” and “shielding a potential tortfeasor from liability is not compatible with a comparative negligence regime.” The Court further stated that the possibility that both the employee and employer may be at fault is not “subsumed” by the employer’s admission on course and scope. In fact, if the fault of the employee is shown, then the issue of whether there is also fault on the part of the employer remains and must be decided by the evidence on a case-by-case basis.

The consequences of this decision remain to be seen, but it is expected that claimants may also pursue employers separately on theories such as negligent hiring, supervision, and entrustment. The scope of such discovery will remain within the sound discretion of the trial judge.

By: John P. Wolff, III and Richard W. Wolff

¹Louisiana Appeal Courts Prohibit Direct Negligence Claims Against Employer; US District Court Uses Rule to Limit Discovery - Keogh Cox

The United States Supreme Court recently granted writs in a case that could affect the minimum contacts test used to find jurisdiction were a similar case brought in Louisiana. See Walden v. Fiore, 688 F. 3d 558 (2011). In Walden, the United States Supreme Court will decide whether to uphold the Ninth Circuit's ruling that a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant whose primary contact with the forum state was his knowledge that the plaintiffs had connections to that state.

In Walden, airline passengers sued a DEA agent who allegedly violated their Fourth Amendment rights in seizing $97,000.00 in cash. At least some of the cash was won on a gambling trip to San Juan, Puerto Rico. The plaintiffs boarded the plane in San Juan with a planned stop in Atlanta in route to Las Vegas.

Once in Atlanta, a drug-detection dog "alerted" to one of the plaintiff's bags. The bags were searched and the $97,000.00 was seized under suspicion of a connection to drug activity. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs were allowed to board their flight to Las Vegas and were promised return of the cash if they could establish its legitimacy.

It was alleged that one of the officers prepared and/or helped to prepare an allegedly false probable cause affidavit to facilitate the forfeiture of the cash to the government. Ultimately, the cash was returned.

The suit was filed in Nevada and was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. In refusing jurisdiction, the District Court cited to the fact that the agent's conduct was "expressly aimed" at Georgia.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, using a three-part test derived from Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802(9th Cir. 2004), held that the allegations were sufficient to satisfy the "forum-related conduct" prong of the test for specific jurisdiction. Therefore, Nevada jurisdiction was reasonable.

The Ninth Circuit agreed that the officer's seizure of the cash was "expressly aimed" at Georgia and did not support jurisdiction. However, the Ninth Circuit believed that the false probable cause affidavit aspect of the case supported jurisdiction in Nevada.

The Court reasoned that the officer was aware of the plaintiffs' significant connections with Nevada because: the plaintiffs had told the officer that they were going to Las Vegas; some of the funds originated from Las Vegas; and, background checks were run on the plaintiffs after they returned to Nevada. Under these facts, the Court concluded that the officer expressly aimed his conduct at Nevada when he prepared the affidavit and thus subjected himself to the jurisdiction of a Nevada Court.

The facts of Fiore set the stage for an important jurisdictional ruling.

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently held that failure to pay filing fees necessary to add a defendant does not invalidate the proceeding as to other defendants. Prior to the ruling, Louisiana courts held that a failure to pay for one defendant invalidated the entire proceeding.

In Kirt v. Metzinger 2019-C-1162 (La. 04/03/20), plaintiffs requested a medical review panel after the death of their mother due to complications after surgery. Plaintiffs named three defendants—two doctors and the hospital. A letter from the Patient’s Compensation Fund Oversight Board (PCF) was mailed to the plaintiffs, confirming that the defendants were qualified under the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act, and informing the plaintiffs that they were required by La. R.S. 40:1231.8 to pay a filing fee of $100 per named defendant within forty-five days of the mailing of the letter. Plaintiffs responded, requesting to add two additional defendants to the panel, one of whom was an unidentifiable nurse. Plaintiffs also included payment of $500.

The PCF responded that it was unable to add the nurse without proper identification. Three weeks later, plaintiffs notified the PCF they were also unable to identify the nurse. Upon request, Parish Anesthesia was added to the panel instead. Nearly five months later, plaintiffs provided the PCF with the identity of the nurse in question and requested she be added. The PCF sent confirmed the addition and requested another $100 filing fee which was never paid. Nevertheless, the medical review panel thereafter determined that none of the defendants, including the nurse, breached their standard of care. Suit followed against all defendants.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the failure to pay the additional filing fee invalidated the proceeding as to all defendants. The trial court granted this motion, and the appellate court affirmed. Reversing the lower courts, the Supreme Court found that the failure to pay the additional $100 filing fee did not invalidate the entire proceeding. The court observed that separate confirmation letters sent by the PCF provided a different forty-five day period during which to pay the filing fee tied to each individual defendant.

The Kirt court stated: “[t]he notion of ‘one filing fee’ for every panel proceeding cannot be reconciled with the different payment deadlines that arise when the PCF sends separate letters confirming defendants’ qualified status. A single filing fee cannot be subject to different payment deadlines.” The court dismissed only the nurse and remanded the remainder of case to the lower courts.

Chad A. Sullivan is a partner with Keogh, Cox & Wilson, Ltd. Prior to becoming an attorney, he worked as a licensed Registered Nurse. He utilizes his background in nursing on a daily basis in his law practice that primarily focuses on automobile liability, medical malpractice, nursing home litigation, healthcare professional licensure and discipline, and products liability.