Louisiana Supreme Court Sets New Standard for Review of General Damage Awards

Under the Louisiana Health Emergency Powers Act (“LHEPA”), a plaintiff must establish a medical provider’s gross negligence in a medical malpractice case when the treatment at issue occurred during a declared state of public health emergency.^ However, the Louisiana Supreme Court recently ruled that a medical review panel shall not consider gross negligence when the medical treatment occurred during a declared state of public health emergency.

In Sebble v. St. Luke’s, the plaintiff instituted a medical review panel for a medical malpractice claim related to medical treatment provided from June 17, 2020 to June 24, 2020. This treatment was received during a declared state of public health emergency. Sebble asked the court for a declaratory judgment to state that the gross negligence standard, usually applied during a state of public health emergency, should not be considered or applied in medical review panel proceedings conducted pursuant to the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (“LMMA”).

In response, the health care provider also sought a declaratory judgment that LHEPA’s standard of gross negligence applied and that the medical review panel must consider and analyze the claim under the gross negligence standard. The trial court ruled in favor of Sebble declaring that the gross negligence standard shall not be considered or applied in the medical review panel proceeding. The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed.

The Louisiana Supreme Court examined provisions of the LMMA and the LHEPA and affirmed the trial court and court of appeal. The court agreed there is a distinction between a medical standard of care (considered by the medical review panel) and a legal standard of care (dictated by the LHEPA). The panel of medical experts is only qualified to render an opinion based on the medical standard of care. The panel’s opinion is then considered by the trier of fact in making a judicial determination.

Medical review panels include an attorney chairperson. However, the Supreme Court stated that the attorney chairperson is not authorized to instruct the panel on gross negligence. The Supreme Court also rejected a proposed two-step process where the panel would first determine whether the medical provider breached the standard of care; and only if the panel found a breach would it consider whether there was gross negligence. The Court rejected this proposal because the legislature did not provide for this process in the statute.

Although the Court agreed that the LHEPA is an immunity statute, it made clear that immunity is an affirmative defense that can only be plead in civil litigation. The statute provides for two defenses at the panel stage: right of action and prescription. Therefore, immunity provided under the LHEPA may not be invoked until a civil action is instituted district court.

However, Sebble was 4-3 decision, with a dissent by Justices Weimer, Cain, and McCallum, which may suggest this issue could resurface in the future. For now, under Sebble, gross negligence is not to be considered by the medical review panel.

References:

Sebble v. St. Luke’s, 2023-C-00483 (La. 10/20/23), 379 So.3d 615.

^ La. R.S. 29:766(A).

Recently, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued a significant ruling in a class action case handled by Keogh Cox partners Chris Jones and Nancy Gilbert. The case involved tax credits for solar panels. The Court’s ruling overturned a lower court decision that held an Act of the Legislature unconstitutional. After the plaintiffs’ Application for Rehearing was denied, the Court’s decision is now final.

In Ulrich, et al. v. Kimberly Robinson, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Revenue, 2018-0534 (La. 3/26/19), 2019 WL 1395316, the class action plaintiffs were persons who purchased and installed residential solar panel systems in their homes. When they claimed the solar electric system tax credits on their 2015 state tax returns pursuant to La. R.S. 47:6030, the tax credits were denied by the Louisiana Department of Revenue, based on Act 131 of the 2015 legislative session. Act 131 capped the maximum amount of solar panel tax credits to be granted by the Department of Revenue, and the plaintiffs’ claims were made after the cap was exhausted.

When their claims for the tax credits were denied, plaintiffs filed a declaratory judgment action seeking to declare Act 131 unconstitutional. During the pendency of the suit in the district court, the Louisiana Legislature enacted Act 413 which provided additional funding for solar tax credits. Under Act 131, all taxpayers whose solar panel tax credit claims were previously denied would receive the entirety of their tax credits over installments. The district court declared Act 131 unconstitutional and concluded that Act 413 did not moot the controversy.

Because the district court declared Act 131 unconstitutional, the Department directly appealed the decision to the Louisiana Supreme Court. Oral arguments occurred in October of 2018. In the Court’s recent opinion, it concluded that Act 413 mooted the controversy. According to the Court, the plaintiffs no longer maintained a “justiciable controversy” because Act 413 provided for the payment of the entirety of the previously denied tax credits. Accordingly, the Court overruled the district court’s judgment that declared Act 131 unconstitutional. Plaintiffs filed an Application for Rehearing and that request was recently denied, making this decision final.

Chris Jones is a partner with Keogh Cox in Baton Rouge, LA. He focuses his practice on class actions and mass torts, and handles these matters in courts throughout the country. He is a life-long resident of Baton Rouge, where he lives with his wife and four children.

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently upheld as constitutional two statutes requiring the registration of sex offenders even when applied to a person who was found not guilty by reason of insanity. See State of Louisiana v. Isaiah Overstreet, Jr., 12 - 1854 (La. 3/19/13). While an ultimate resolution of this issue would cause the Court to measure the asserted personal interests of the defendant against the public's interest in safety, the defendant's challenges were rejected because he failed to properly raise and brief the constitutional issues.

In Overstreet, it was factually established that the defendant attempted to force himself upon co-eds at two universities. After his arrest, he was diagnosed as schizophrenic and consistently denied any recollection of the crimes. Overstreet was found not guilty by reason of insanity and continued in state-run mental facilities for over a decade until filing a Motion to be Released in 2010. The motion was denied as a consequence of his refusal to participate in sex offender treatment.

When he inquired about the potential release to a group home, he was advised that he would have to register as a sex offender. He then moved to declare LSA-R.S. 15:541(7) and 15:542 (the sex offender registration statutes) unconstitutional.

The Trial Court struck down the statutes as an affront to the Louisiana Constitution, giving conflicting oral and written reasons in support of the ruling. The Trial Court later explained in a per curiam opinion that the primary concern is one of capacity and that it would be unjust to require registration from one lacking capacity to do so.

At the Supreme Court, the defense attorney argued that an application of the registration statutes to Overstreet would violate due process and equal protection because he had not been convicted as a sex offender. In response, the State argued that a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity is not equivalent to an acquittal and that the registration statutes are not punitive but instead are designed to protect the public. The State contended that the defendant was a "sex offender" irrespective of the not guilty by reason of insanity defense.

The Louisiana Supreme Court did not address the merits of these positions. Instead, the Court held that the defendant had not sufficiently particularized the grounds for a constitutional challenge. The Court reasoned that legislation is presumed constitutional. As a result, if a party desires to challenge the constitutionality of a statute, that party must raise the unconstitutionality and specifically plead the basis of the alleged unconstitutionality.

The Overstreet Court reversed the Trial Court because it is the challenger's duty to sufficiently raise the constitutional objections. In so doing, the Court disregarded the Trial Court's sua sponte ruling ("on its own motion") that the sex offender registration statutes were unconstitutional because the Trial Court did not have the authority to raise these challenges.

While Overstreet did not resolve the ultimate issues of the constitutionality of the sex offender statutes in this setting, it did define the issues which would likely guide its decision should the issue ever be properly raised before the Court.