Brandi A. Barze

Louisiana courts traditionally have ruled claims of administrative negligence fell outside of the purview of the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (LMMA). Courts found the LMMA applied strictly to cases “arising from medical malpractice.” In cases where Plaintiffs argued medical administrative failure, courts applied general tort law. This meant that the LMMA’s key protections— the statutory cap on damages and the requirement for a pre-suit medical review panel— did not apply to claims based on alleged administrative failures.

The following cases illustrate this point:

• In LaCoste v. Pendleton Methodist Hosp., Plaintiff alleged a hospital failed to maintain its life-support equipment and implement emergency evacuation plans.^
• In Blevins v. Hamilton Med. Ctr., Inc., Plaintiff alleged the hospital failed to provide him with equipment in proper working condition, to keep his bed in lowest position with wheels locked, and to properly instruct him on proper use and safety of his bed.*
• In Scio v. University Med. Mgmt. Corp., Plaintiff alleged the defendant failed to implement policies to ensure that follow up appointments were properly communicated.^^
• In Billeaudeau v. Opelousas Gen. Hosp. Auth., Plaintiff alleged the hospital was negligent in its credentialing of a doctor in the emergency department.**

The Louisiana Supreme Court used the “Coleman factors” established in Coleman v. Deno^^^ to determine whether the alleged conduct in these cases could constitute “malpractice.” These factors assess (1) whether the alleged conduct is treatment-related, (2) whether expert testimony is required to examine the claim, (3) whether assessment of the patient’s condition was involved, (4) whether it involves a physician-patient relationship, (5) whether the injury would have occurred absent treatment, and (6) whether the act was intentional. Considering these factors in each of the cases outlined above, the Court found the LMMA did not apply.

However, recent legislative amendments expanded the LMMA’s scope and raise questions about how these cases would be decided now. Effective August 1, 2025, new amendments broaden the definitions of “health care” and “malpractice” under La. R.S. 40:1231.1 to include administrative and managerial actions that are necessary for delivering medical care. While the full text of the new statute should be considered when evaluating any pending or potential claims, a summary is provided here.

Under the amended statute:

“Health care” now includes any act, treatment, “administration, service, or care related to policies and procedures and the administration thereof, staffing, custodial services by licensed or certified staff…” Further, the amendment expressly provides that the definition of health care “includes all acts associated with the medical treatment of an individual, whether directly related to clinical care or performed in an administrative or managerial capacity necessary for the delivery of such care.”

Additionally, under the amendment, the definition of “malpractice” now explicitly covers all acts tied to staffing and expressly includes “all acts associated with the medical treatment of an individual, whether directly related to clinical care or performed in an administrative or managerial capacity necessary for the delivery of such care.”

These amendments suggest the cases outlined above may have been decided differently if they were filed today. However, it remains to be seen how courts will apply these changes moving forward.

References:

^ LaCoste v. Pendleton Methodist Hosp., LLC, 07-0008 (La. 9/5/07), 966 So. 2d 519.

* Blevins v. Hamilton Med. Ctr., Inc., 2007-127 (La. 6/29/07), 959 So. 2d 440, 442, 443.

^^ Scio v. University Med. Mgmt. Corp., 19-1319 (La. 10/21/19), 280 So. 3d 1135.

** Billeaudeau v. Opelousas Gen. Hosp. Auth., 2016-0846 (La. 10/19/16), 218 So. 3d 513, 515.

^^^ Coleman v. Deno, 2001-1517 (La. 1/25/02), 813 So. 2d 303, 316.

In Hawkins v. Hi Nabor Supermarket, LLC, the First Circuit recently affirmed summary judgment in favor of Hi Nabor finding that Hi Nabor could not be liable to the plaintiff for injuries she allegedly sustained when she tripped and fell over a stocking cart while she was shopping in its store.^

The plaintiff claimed the stocking cart created an unreasonably dangerous condition that was foreseeable to the defendant. Hi Nabor filed a motion for summary judgment in response and attached affidavits of its employees, the store’s surveillance video of the incident, and excerpts of the plaintiff’s deposition.

The plaintiff failed to timely oppose Hi Nabor’s motion and then filed a motion for leave to file a late opposition. However, she did not attach or file any documents or exhibits in support of her opposition. The trial court granted Hi Nabor’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed the decision. On appeal, the plaintiff argued (1) summary judgment was granted “solely because an opposition was filed late” and (2) there was in sufficient proof that movers were entitled to judgment.

In response to the plaintiff’s first argument, the Court addressed the plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition to the defendants’ motion. See our prior blog for analysis of the impact of a party’s failure to timely oppose a motion for summary judgment here. The Court noted that a failure to timely oppose a motion for summary judgment does not automatically require that the motion be granted. However, if the mover meets its burden in its motion, and the plaintiff fails to file an opposition, the motion should be granted.

The court examined whether the defendant met its burden to support its motion in response to the plaintiff’s second argument. The Court found the defendant produced evidence to show that the stocking cart did not present an unreasonably dangerous condition such that liability could not attach.

The Court found that “stocking carts are necessary and useful in grocery stores to restock shelves, and that their common use and obviousness to a shopper make any risk slight.”* Further, surveillance video showed the size of the stocking cart (its’ tall sides were approximately the height of the plaintiff), the placement of caution cones around the stocking cart and the Plaintiff's interactions with the cart prior to the accident.

In light of the evidence filed in support of its motion, the Court found Hi Nabor met its burden of proof to show that plaintiff could not establish the stocking cart presented an unreasonable risk of harm that was reasonably foreseeable. When the plaintiff failed to produce evidence to meet her burden of showing genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the cart presented an unreasonable risk of harm, summary judgment was properly granted. The Court's decision highlights the importance of procedural requirements and reaffirms the principle that mere allegations of danger are insufficient and cannot defeat summary judgment without substantive proof.

References:

^Hawkins v. Hi Nabor Supermarket, LLC, 2023-0978 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/23/24), 2024 WL 743080.

*Citing Russell v. Morgan's Bestway of Louisiana, LLC, 47,914 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/10/13), 113 So. 3d 448, 453.

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently ruled that a co-defendant who pleads comparative fault as an affirmative defense may appeal a summary judgment that dismisses a co-defendant, even when the plaintiff did not file an appeal. The Court’s decision in Amedee v. Aimbridge Hospitality resolved a circuit split among the Louisiana Courts of Appeal regarding this issue.

The Amedee plaintiff filed a personal injury suit against multiple defendants including the City of New Orleans and Premium Parking of South Texas, LLC. After discovery, the City of New Orleans filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking dismissal from the suit. The plaintiff did not oppose the city’s motion. Premium Parking was the only party to file an opposition. The trial court granted the city’s motion and dismissed it from the suit. Premium Parking appealed the court’s judgment.

The Fourth Circuit did not address the merits of Premium Parking’s appeal. Instead, the court dismissed the appeal because it found Premium Parking did not have a legal right to appeal the city’s dismissal when the plaintiff did not appeal the judgment.

The Supreme Court disagreed and reversed the appellate court’s ruling. The Court noted that “to prohibit appellate review of a summary judgment by a co-defendant, even where a plaintiff did not appeal, diminishes the search for truth—the object of a lawsuit—and denies a defendant the ability to fully defend itself.” To reach this conclusion, the Court first asked, who may appeal a judgment?

To answer this question, the Court looked to La. C.C.P. art. 2082 and observed the article makes no restriction regarding what party may appeal a final judgment. Further, the Court noted that the right to an appeal is even extended third parties, not involved in the suit, when that third party is allegedly aggrieved by the judgment. See La. C.C.P. art. 2086.

The Court also considered a defendant’s right to appeal in the context of Louisiana’s pure comparative fault system and summary judgments. Under La. C.C. art. 2323, Louisiana’s comparative fault statute, the fault of all parties is to be quantified. La. C.C.P. art. 966(G), provides that when summary judgment is granted in favor of a party or non-party to a suit, the fault of the dismissed party may not be considered in any subsequent allocation of fault in the matter.

The Court noted that while art. 966(G) precludes an allocation of the fault of a party dismissed under the statute, it does not limit the right of a defendant to appeal the dismissal of a co-defendant. No statute limited a defendant’s right to appeal a summary judgment only to those situations where a plaintiff also filed an appeal. Therefore, a defendant who hopes to keep a co-defendant in the case so that fault still may be allocated to the dismissed party at trial now may appeal the co-defendant’s dismissal, even when the plaintiff fails to do so.

Case Reference: Amedee v. Aimbridge Hosp. LLC, 2021-01906 (La. 10/1/22), --- So.3d ---, 2022 WL 12338929.