IN RE: Medical Review Panel Proceeding of Mae Ella ROBERTSON (2026)

Plaintiff, Mae Ella Robertson, submitted a request for a medical review panel. Defendant, Dr. Tommy Hillman, responded with an exception of prescription. The trial court sustained the exception and dismissed Ms. Robertson's claims with prejudice. Ms. Robertson appeals that dismissal. We affirm the trial court's judgment.¹

FACTS

Separate from but relevant to this appeal, Ms. Robertson filed a Clerk's Suit against Dr. Hillman in the Fifteenth Judicial District Court on December 14, 2023, alleging she consulted Dr. Hillman “to get two shakey [sic] teeth pulled and upper partial denture and lower partial denture.” Her suit further said, “In the process of making the impressions, Staff made four of my teeth shakey [sic] and refused to make dentures.” A letter to Dr. Hillman from Ms. Robertson was attached to the Clerk's Suit and alleged that, after more impressions were made on February 14, 2023, her “teeth were shaking and loose.” Dr. Hillman discontinued treatment and referred Ms. Robertson elsewhere. She claims she lost four more teeth due to the actions of Dr. Hillman and his staff on February 14, 2023.

When the Clerk's Suit was transferred to the regular docket of the Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Dr. Hillman responded to that action with an exception of prematurity. Ms. Robertson filed a motion to dismiss the exception, noting the date to safeguard her right to file a lawsuit was February 14, 2024. That date had already passed. The trial court sustained Dr. Hillman's exception and signed a judgment dismissing the action without prejudice on April 16, 2024.

In the meantime, Ms. Robertson filed a request for the formation of a medical review panel on February 22, 2024, that restated the allegations of malpractice.² Ms. Robertson's request for a medical review panel stated the “Date of Malpractice” as February 14, 2023. It said, “When impressions were made for the purchase of upper and lower partial dentures, my teeth became shaking and loose.” Ms. Robertson alleged Dr. Hillman discontinued his services and referred her elsewhere. She said she “was abandoned after [her] teeth was [sic] found to be shaking and loose.” The request named “Tommy Hillman Dentist and owner of: DDS Dentures + Implant Solutions” as the health care provider.³

Ms. Robertson's opposition to Dr. Hillman's exception of prescription argued she “did not accuse Tommy Hillman, the defendant[,] of medical malpractice.” Rather, she believed “her injury was caused by acts performed by inexperienced workers hired to work in D.D.S. Dentures + Implant Solutions, a denture making business owned by” Dr. Hillman. The opposition claimed Ms. Robertson “did not know about the professional fault of medical malpractice until she read” Dr. Hillman's exception in which he argued he was a qualified health care provider entitled to a medical review panel prior to litigation. She did not know he was a health care provider until February 28, 2024, when she received the Patient's Compensation Fund letter. But Ms. Robertson had already mailed her request for a medical review panel to review Dr. Hillman's alleged malpractice eleven days before she received that letter.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

As we recently noted in Longino v. Lejeune, 25-348, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/19/25 (unpublished opinion) 2025 WL 3229640:

The peremptory exception of prescription allows “a defendant to obtain dismissal of a claim because it is time-barred.” Emery v. Ben, 24-18, p. 11 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/13/24), 390 So.3d 952, 962. We review exceptions of prescription under the manifest error standard of review when, as here, evidence is presented at the hearing of the exception. McCall v. Louisiana Right of Way Servs., Inc., 20-351 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/16/20), 310 So.3d 248.

However, “even when evidence is introduced, when there is no dispute regarding material facts, the reviewing court is to apply a de novo standard of review, and give no deference to the trial court's legal conclusions.” Mitchell v. Baton Rouge Orthopedic Clinic, L.L.C., 21-61, p. 5 (La. 10/10/21), 333 So.3d 368, 373; La.Code Civ.P. art. 931.

The transcript of the hearing on the exception shows Dr. Hillman offered, introduced, and filed eight exhibits into the record, and Ms. Robertson indicated she had no objection to their introduction. Court minutes verify Dr. Hillman's counsel “moved to offer, file, and introduce the previously filed exception and all exhibits attached, in globo, as evidence.” Minutes then state, “After reviewing all that was presented, the Court stated its reasons for ruling and [sustained] the exception.”

The exhibits attached to the exception are the same documents counsel set out in the transcript. Although the exhibits are not identified in the record as “exhibits,” they are included in the record as attachments to Dr. Hillman's exception, and they were properly introduced and placed before the trial court at the hearing. As such, we may consider them here. See Denoux v. Vessel Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 07-2143 (La. 5/21/08), 983 So.2d 84.

DISCUSSION

“The burden of proof lies with the party bringing the exception.” Longino, 25-348, p. 2,. “However, if it is apparent from the face of the pleadings that prescription has occurred, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that the action has not prescribed.” Allain v. Tripple B Holding, LLC, 13-673, pp. 9-10 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/11/13), 128 So.3d 1278, 1285.

Ms. Robertson's request for the formation of a medical review panel states “Date of Malpractice: February 14, 2023[.]” The request describes how her “teeth became shaking and loose” after “impressions were made for the purchase of upper and lower partial dentures[.]” Ms. Robertson sent her request for the panel by regular mail in an envelope postmarked February 17, 2024, and received by the Department of Administration on February 22, 2024. The request stated Ms. Robertson did not know she needed to “file a complaint with the Division of Administration/Patien[t]’s Compensation Fund until February 15, 2024,” when she received Dr. Hillman's exception of prematurity in the earlier action.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 40:1231.8(A)(2)(b)(i) governs the filing of a complaint. It says the request for a medical review panel is considered filed on the date it is received by the Department of Administration when, as here, regular mail is used to file the complaint.

We find that Ms. Robertson's medical malpractice claim arose on February 14, 2023. Her claim was filed with the Division of Administration/Patient's Compensation Fund on February 22, 2024. Thus, it was not filed within one year of the date of the alleged malpractice and, therefore, was untimely. La.R.S. 9:5628.

DECREE

We affirm the trial court's judgment sustaining the peremptory exception of prescription filed by Dr. Tommy Hillman. All costs of this appeal are assessed against Mae Ella Robertson.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Although Ms. Robertson's appellant brief fails to comply with most of Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2–12.4, we opt to consider the merits shown by the record rather than simply dismiss the appeal for rule violations.

2.   The envelope containing the undated request was postmarked February 17, 2024. The Commissioner's Office of the State's Division of Administration stamped the letter as received on February 22, 2024.

3.   DDS Dentures & Implant Solutions, according to Dr. Hillman, “is a trade name only,” and is not a legal entity.

DAVIS, Judge.