IN RE: MEDICAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SHILA MYERS (2026)

Claimants/appellants, Michael Myers, Christopher J. Myers, Bobby Story, III, Bobby G. Myers, and Catherine Rushing, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Shila A. Myers, appeal a final judgment sustaining the peremptory exception raising the objection of prescription filed by defendants/appellees, St. Tammany Parish Hospital Service District No. 1 d/b/a St. Tammany Parish Hospital (St. Tammany Parish Hospital), Northlake Surgical Associates, Michael W. Carpenter, M.D., Lawrence L. Gensler, M.D., Dennis J. Booth, Jr., M.D., and Wendy R. Peterson, N.P., and dismissing their medical review panel proceeding with prejudice. For the following reasons, we reverse.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 27, 2022, Shila A. Myers was admitted to St. Tammany Parish Hospital with complaints of sharp and stabbing lower abdominal pain accompanied by other symptoms. She was diagnosed with colitis, ischemic bowel disease, and ischemic colitis. Thereafter, Ms. Myers underwent a series of procedures performed by Drs. Carpenter and Lawrence between December 7, 2022 and March 28, 2023 to treat her illness. These treatments proved unsuccessful, and Ms. Myers passed away on March 29, 2023, due to septic shock from E. coli resulting from a bowel perforation.

On or about February 6, 2024, the Estate of Shila A. Myers filed a complaint of medical malpractice and requested the formation of a medical review panel. The complaint identified each of the defendants and their actions allegedly contributing to the death of Ms. Myers. The complaint further contained the following paragraph:

XXII.

As a direct and proximate result of the above-described negligence and resulting damages, SHILA A. MYERS’ husband and children have suffered mental anguish, and loss of consortium, service, and society as a result of the injuries, damages, and the untimely loss of their loved one.

In a letter dated February 16, 2024, the Patient's Compensation Fund (PCF) acknowledged receipt of the request for a medical review panel and payment. The PCF confirmed the majority of the Defendants were qualified medical providers under the statutory provisions of La. R.S. 40:1231.8, et seq., and that further investigation was required as to one remaining medical provider. Finally, the PCF requested that the claimant “provide the name of the plaintiff in this matter as Estate of Shila A. Myers is without clarity.” Notably, the PCF did not provide a deadline within which the Estate of Shila A. Myers was to provide this information.

On or about March 5, 2024, defendant, St. Tammany Parish Hospital, filed a petition to institute discovery in the medical malpractice proceeding with the intent to facilitate the medical review panel proceedings. Thereafter, St. Tammany Parish Hospital, Michael W. Carpenter, M.D., and Northlake Surgical Associates (collectively the STPH Defendants) propounded discovery upon the Estate of Shila A. Myers. On or about April 2, 2024, the Estate of Shila A. Myers provided its answers to this discovery including, in pertinent part:

INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

Please provide Shila Myers’ full name, date of birth, address, marital status at the time of her death,․ and the names and ages of all spouses and/or children.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

***

Spouse: Michael A. Myers ․

Sons: Christopher J. Myers, Bobby Story, III, and Bobby G. Myers

Daughter: Catherine Rushing

INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

Please provide your full names, dates of birth, current addresses, marital statuses, social security numbers, the names and ages of all spouses and/or children, and identify your relationship to Shila Myers.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

Michael A. Myers․; Widower

Claimant is in the process of obtaining information and reserves the right to supplement this Response at a later time.

On or about September 19, 2024, the STPH Defendants filed a peremptory exception raising the objection of no right of action. The STPH Defendants argued that the Estate of Shila A. Myers was not a proper party to bring the instant claim since Ms. Myers left both a surviving spouse and children to assert claims for medical malpractice, wrongful death, and survival actions. Therefore, the STPH Defendants prayed their peremptory exception be maintained and that the medical review panel proceeding be dissolved.

Thereafter, on September 23, 2024, the Estate of Shila A. Myers sent correspondence to the PCF stating, “Per your request, the Plaintiffs’ names in this matter are: Mr. Michael A. Myers, Mr. Christopher J. Myers, Mr. Bobby Story, III, Mr. Bobby G. Myers, and Ms. Catherine Rushing.” On September 25, 2024, the PCF acknowledged receipt of the supplemental letter and advised that all parties had been notified.

On or about October 3, 2024, the STPH Defendants, filed a peremptory exception raising the objection of prescription. The STPH Defendants argued that the supplemental PCF complaint naming the husband and children of Shila A. Myers as claimants was prescribed, as the supplement was filed outside of the one-year prescriptive period allowed by law. The STPH Defendants further asserted that because the initial medical review complaint lacked a proper claimant, it did not suspend the running of prescription, citing Guffey v. Lexington House, LLC, 2018-1568 (La. 5/8/19), 283 So.3d 1001. The STPH Defendants once again prayed that the medical review panel be dissolved.

On November 6, 2024, Claimants, Michael A. Myers, Christopher J. Myers, Bobby Story, III, Bobby G. Myers, and Catherine Rushing, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Shila A. Myers, filed oppositions to both the peremptory exceptions raising the objections of no right of action and prescription. Claimants argued that the Estate of Shila A. Myers was a proper claimant under the plain language of the Medical Malpractice Act (MMA); therefore, prescription was suspended when the original complaint was filed with the PCF. Moreover, claimants argued that the jurisprudence cited by the STPH Defendants, including Guffey, was distinguishable because the proper claimants, Ms. Myers’ husband and children, were mentioned in the original complaint at paragraph twenty-two, which provided Ms. Myers’ “husband and children have suffered mental anguish, and loss of consortium, service, and society as a result of the injuries, damages, and the untimely loss of their loved one.” Further, Claimants asserted that Ms. Myers died intestate, leaving her husband and children as the sole heirs to her estate, who also happen to be the most favored class under wrongful death and survival actions, further distinguishing this case from Guffey.

On November 12, 2024, defendants, Lawrence Gensler, M.D., Dennis Booth, M.D., Wendy Peterson, N.P., and Northlake Gastroenterology Associates (collectively the Northlake Defendants) also filed peremptory exceptions raising the objections of no right of action and prescription, asserting the same arguments as the STPH Defendants, and praying that the medical review panel proceeding be dismissed with prejudice.

The hearing on the peremptory exceptions raising the objections of no right of action and prescription was held on November 14, 2024. The parties conceded that the issue of no right of action was moot following the supplementation of the complaint, and they instead focused their arguments on prescription. All defendants filed their exhibits into evidence, which consisted of the original timely-filed medical review complaint identifying the claimant as Estate of Shila A. Myers; the letter of acknowledgement from the PCF, requesting clarification of the identity of the “plaintiff”; the discovery responses confirming Shila A. Myers was married and had children at the time of her death, and included as attachments both her marriage license and death certificate; and the PCF's acknowledgment of claimant's supplemental complaint with the supplement attached, naming Ms. Myers’ husband and children and indicating that they are the plaintiffs to this action. Claimants also filed their opposition memorandum as well as the original medical review complaint into the record. Following the parties’ arguments, the trial court sustained the defendants’ peremptory exceptions raising the objection of prescription.

A judgment reflecting this ruling was executed on December 13, 2024. It is from this judgment that claimants now appeal. Claimants assert the trial court erred in several instances, including in finding that the original complaint did not suspend or interrupt the running of prescription; in failing to recognize that Ms. Myers’ surviving spouse and children were claimants asserting claims for wrongful death and survival action in the original complaint; in failing to acknowledge that the Estate of Shila A. Myers was the surviving spouse and children of Ms. Myers; in failing to acknowledge that the Estate of Shila A. Myers had a right to recover damages; and in sustaining the peremptory exception raising the objection of prescription with prejudice.

On September 18, 2025, this court issued an interim order finding deficiencies in the trial court's judgment. Thus, we remanded the matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of instructing the trial court to sign an amended judgment to correct those deficiencies and to supplement the appellate record with the amended judgment. On October 20, 2025, the appellate record was supplemented with an amended judgment dated September 26, 2025. After reviewing the supplemented September 26, 2025 amended judgment, we maintain the appeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

As a general rule, prescription statutes are strictly construed against prescription and in favor of the obligation sought to be extinguished. See Taranto v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp., 2010-0105 (La. 3/15/11), 62 So.3d 721, 726. Ordinarily, the party urging prescription bears the burden of proof at trial of the exception; however, if the petition is prescribed on its face, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show the action is not prescribed. See Id. Thus, unless prescription is evident from the face of the petition, the party raising the plea of prescription bears the burden of proof. Guillot v. LECC-Baton Rouge Inc., 2005-2537 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/28/06), 952 So.2d 42, 44.

A judgment granting a peremptory exception is generally reviewed de novo, because the exception raises a legal question. Quatrevingt v. State through Landry, 2017-0884 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/8/18), 242 So.3d 625, 631, writ denied, 2018-0391 (La. 4/27/18), 239 So.3d 837. However, when an exception raising the objection of prescription is tried with evidence introduced at a hearing, the trial court's findings of fact on the issue are subject to the manifest error standard of review. See Id. Nevertheless, in a case involving no dispute regarding material facts, only the determination of a legal issue, a reviewing court must apply the de novo standard of review, under which the trial court's legal conclusions are not entitled to deference. Jenkins v. Kauffman, 2021-1596 (La. App. 1st Cir. 7/13/22), 344 So.3d 689, 692, writ denied, 2022-01242 (La. 11/8/22), 349 So.3d 576.

APPLICABLE LAW

Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:5628(A) sets forth the prescriptive period for actions for medical malpractice and requires such claims to be brought within one year of the alleged act, omission, or neglect, or within one year from the date of discovery. Guffey, 283 So.3d at 1006-07. Even as to claims filed within one year of the discovery of the alleged malpractice, all such claims must be filed, at the latest, within three years from the date of the alleged act, omission, or neglect. Guffey, 283 So.3d at 1007, citing La. R.S. 9:5628(A). Pursuant to the MMA, a party must first present a proposed complaint to a medical review panel for review prior to the filing of suit in the trial court. See La. R.S. 40:1231.8(A)(1)(a). The prescriptive period for filing a lawsuit set forth in La. R.S. 9:5628(A) is suspended during the full time that a claim is pending before a medical review panel and for ninety days following notification to the claimant or his/her attorney of the panel's opinion. See La. R.S. 40:1231.8(A)(2)(a). The Louisiana Supreme Court in Guffey further explained that prescription is tolled during the pendency of medical review panel proceedings only if the party instituting the medical review panel was the proper party to file a claim and initiate a medical review panel. See Guffey, 283 So.3d at 1007.

According to La. R.S. 40:1231.8(A)(1)(b), a malpractice complaint shall contain all of the following:

(i) A request for the formation of a medical review panel.

(ii) The name of only one patient for whom, or on whose behalf, the request for review is being filed[.]

(iii) The names of the claimants.

(iv) The names of the defendant health care providers.

(v) The dates of the alleged malpractice.

(vi) A brief description of the alleged malpractice as to each named defendant health care provider.

(vii) A brief description of the alleged injuries.

(Emphasis added). The MMA defines “claimant” as “a patient or representative or any person, including a decedent's estate, seeking or who has sought recovery of damages or future medical care and related benefits under this Part.” La. R.S. 40:1231.1(A)(4) (emphasis added). This definition further provides that “[a]ll persons claiming to have sustained damages as a result of injuries to or death of any one patient are considered a single claimant.” Id.

The Louisiana Supreme Court, in Guffey, noted that the MMA is very specific as to who may bring a claim and initiate a medical review panel proceeding. See Guffey, 283 So.3d at 1008. The Court explained that in determining who is a proper claimant under the MMA, the courts must consider the classes of claimants listed in La. Civ. Code arts. 2315.1 and 2315.2, in order to give meaning to the entire definition of “claimant” under the MMA. See Guffey, 283 So.3d at 1008-10. Louisiana Civil Code articles 2315.1 and 2315.2 provide for survival and wrongful death actions, respectively. Pertinent to the matter before us, both actions provide classes of claimants, with the first being a surviving spouse and child or children of the deceased, or either the spouse or child or children. See La. Civ. Code arts. 2315.1(A)(1) & 2315.2(A)(1). Neither article contains a class for the “estate of the deceased” to bring an action; although, La. Civ. Code art. 2315.1(B) providing for survival actions, states that the “deceased's succession representative” may bring a survival action in the absence of any higher class of beneficiary.

Words and phrases must be read with their context and construed according to the common and approved usage of the language. La. R.S. 1:3. Every word, sentence, or provision in a law is presumed to be intended to serve some useful purpose, that some effect is given to each such provision, and that no unnecessary words or provisions were employed. Consequently, courts are bound, if possible, to give effect to all parts of a statute and to construe no sentence, clause, or word as meaningless and surplusage if a construction giving force to and preserving all words can legitimately be found. Oubre v. Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan, 2011-0097 (La. 12/16/11), 79 So.3d 987, 997, cert. denied, 567 U.S. 935, 133 S.Ct. 30, 183 L.Ed.2d 677 (2012)

While La. R.S. 40:1231.8(A)(1)(b) mandates that certain information be contained in a medical review panel request, the MMA is silent as to the consequences of a claimant's failure to comply with these provisions. See Franks v. Louisiana Patient's Compensation Fund Oversight Board, 2016-0765 (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/3/17), 220 So.3d 862, 867, writs denied, 2017-0868, 2017-0877 (La. 9/29/17), 227 So.3d 294. Nevertheless, Title 37, Part III, § 1403(C)(3) of the Louisiana Administrative Code ¹ provides in pertinent part:

C. Within 15 days of receiving a malpractice complaint, the board shall:

***

3. if the malpractice complaint does not contain all of the required information set forth in paragraph (A)[2] of this section, notify the claimant(s) that the malpractice complaint has been received but does not comply with this section and indicate what additional information is required and a reasonable time limit for submitting such additional information[.]

(Footnote added.)

Following receipt of the complaint listing the sole claimant as “the Estate of Shila A. Myers” and containing allegations sounding in survival and wrongful death actions on behalf of Ms. Myers’ “husband and children,” the PCF, by letter dated February 16, 2024, requested that the “plaintiff[s]” be individually identified as the “Estate of Shila A. Myers” was “without clarity.” The letter failed to provide a reasonable time within which the names were to be produced. Ultimately, the requested supplement was provided by letter dated September 23, 2024.

Claimants argue that the trial court erred in its reliance on Guffey in finding that the original complaint was filed on behalf of the estate to the exclusion of Ms. Myers’ surviving spouse and children. Rather, Claimants reiterate that not only did the original complaint assert claims on behalf of Ms. Myers’ husband and children specifically, but because Ms. Myers’ died intestate, her surviving spouse and children are the sole heirs of her estate distinguishing the facts of the present case from Guffey.

In Guffey, the Louisiana Supreme Court found that the granddaughter of a decedent did not have the right to initiate a medical malpractice complaint, where the decedent was survived by three sons who are a more-favored class of claimants than a grandchild pursuant to La. Civ. Code arts. 2315.1 and 2315.2. Therefore, prescription was not suspended upon the granddaughter's filing of the original request for medical review panel, as La. R.S. 40:1231.8(A)(2)(a) only suspends prescription for claimants. Guffey, 283 So.3d at 1010-1011. The Guffey court further found that because the original complaint did not suspend the running of prescription, any supplement filed after the one-year prescriptive period, attempting to add a proper claimant was untimely. Id. at 1011.

Following Guffey, the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal addressed a similar issue in In re Medical Review Panel Claim of Babin, 21-198 (La. App. 5th Cir. 12/15/21), 335 So.3d 332, writ denied, 2022-00092 (La. 3/22/22), 334 So.3d 755, where following the death of the decedent, a medical review panel request was filed by the decedent alone. One of the defendants in Babin requested that the medical review panel be dismissed, asserting that the decedent could not bring the claim. Id. at 334. Thereafter, decedent's surviving spouse and children filed a supplemental request for medical review panel listing themselves as claimants. Id. Defendants then filed a peremptory exception raising the objection of prescription, which the trial court sustained, finding the supplemental complaint was filed outside of the one-year prescriptive period. The Louisiana Fifth Circuit affirmed the trial court's ruling finding that because a proper claimant had not filed the original request for medical review, the filing did not suspend prescription; therefore, the supplemental request filed more than a year after decedent's death was untimely. Id. at 339.

We find Guffey and Babin factually distinguishable from the present case in two important ways such that we do not find the instant matter prescribed. In the present case, the original complaint was timely filed naming “the Estate of Shila A. Myers” as claimant, with obvious reference to her surviving spouse and children, which are the most-favored claimants in survival and wrongful death actions, although the names and numerosity of the children were not made known. In reading the complaint as a whole, there can be no other conclusion than the surviving husband and children of Shila A. Myers filed this complaint as the “Estate of Shila A. Myers,” which is found under the definition of “claimant”. At the very least, the discovery responses entered into evidence demonstrate that Michael Myers, the surviving husband of Shila A. Myers, was always a claimant. The record contains no other information regarding any higher classes of plaintiffs discovered or sought to be supplemented in to the matter. Therefore, unlike in Guffey and Babin, the most favored class of claimants in a wrongful death and survival action made allegations in the timely filed original complaint. They only did not provide their names.

Moreover, as Claimants made the assertion that the decedent died intestate both to the trial court and this court, the Estate in this case is the decedent's husband and children, see La. Civ. Code art. 880, which is also the most favored class to recover under La. Civ. Code arts. 2315.1 & 2315.2. This further distinguishes this case from Guffey, and provides doubt as to whether the claim was prescribed on its face.

The second distinction is that the supplement filed by the Claimants was filed at the request of the PCF. Although Claimants did not seek review of whether the PCF is authorized to extend the prescriptive period by requesting the claimant correct or supplement a complaint request, and we make no finding in regards thereto, we find this fact nonetheless distinguishes the instant case from Guffey and Babin.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, we reverse the September 26, 2025 amended judgment sustaining the peremptory exceptions raising the objection of prescription in favor of defendants, St. Tammany Parish Hospital Service District No. 1 d/b/a St. Tammany Parish Hospital, Northlake Surgical Associates, Michael W. Carpenter, M.D., Lawrence L. Gensler, M.D., Dennis J. Booth, Jr., M.D., and Wendy R. Peterson, N.P., and against plaintiffs, Michael A. Myers, Christopher J. Myers, Bobby Story, III, Bobby G. Myers, and Catherine Rushing. As such, the medical review panel proceeding is reinstated. Costs of this appeal are assessed to defendants/appellees, St. Tammany Parish Hospital Service District No. 1 d/b/a St. Tammany Parish Hospital, Northlake Surgical Associates, Michael W. Carpenter, M.D., Lawrence L. Gensler, M.D., Dennis J. Booth, Jr., M.D., and Wendy R. Peterson, N.P.

REVERSED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The legislature provided for the PCF board to have authority to adopt and promulgate such rules, regulations and standards as it may deem necessary or advisable to implement the authority and discharge the responsibilities conferred and imposed on the PCF board by the MMA. See La. R.S. 40:1231.4(D)(3).

2.   Louisiana Administrative Code Title 37, Part III, § 1403(A) is substantially similar to La. R.S. 40:1231.8(A)(1)(b) and provides:A. A “request for review of a malpractice claim” or “malpractice complaint” shall contain, at a minimum:1. a request for the formation of a medical review panel;2. full name of only one patient for whom, or on whose behalf, the request for review is being filed[;]3. full name(s) of the claimant(s);4. full name(s) of defendant health care providers;5. date(s) of alleged malpractice;6. brief description of alleged malpractice as to each named defendant; and7. brief description of alleged injuries.

FIELDS, J.