DANIEL BONNETTE AND MARY BONNETTE v. OUR LADY OF THE LAKE HOSPITAL INC ET AL (2022)

APPLICATION FOR REHEARING GRANTED. WRIT DENIED.

VGW

MRT

WRC

McDonald, J., dissents and would deny the application for rehearing.

Penzato, J., dissents and would deny the application for rehearing. The evidence reflected that following his September 19, 2017 appointment with Dr. Accardo, at the latest, Mr. Bonnette had information sufficient to excite attention and put him on guard calling for inquiry. By that time, the Bonnettes knew that Mr. Bonnette suffered from repeated infections and ultimately osteomyelitis, that the hardware, originally designed to be permanent, had been removed and that he had a non-union. In fact, he admitted in his deposition testimony which was admitted into evidence that at that time “we figured something was wrong somewheres [sic]”. This case does not present a situation where Mr. Bonnette should have known of the alleged malpractice. As his own testimony exemplifies, he knew of the alleged malpractice at least by September 19, 2017. See Cleveland v. Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, Inc., 2021-0777 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/5/21), 2021 WL 5152751. Further as revealed in Mrs. Bonnette's testimony, she did her own internet research to find a non-union specialist and ultimately scheduled the appointment with Dr. Brinker in Houston. With knowledge of this information and personal research and inquiry concerning the qualifications of subsequent providers, the failure to call for further inquiry was unreasonable. Request for Medical Review Panel by Wilson v. Whitfield, 2017-1723 (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/23/19), 277 So.3d 370, 375-76, writ denied, 2019-00983 (La. 10/1/19), 280 So.3d 157, writ denied sub nom., Andrews v. Berkshire Hathaway Insurance Company, 2019-01114 (La. 10/8/19), 280 So.3d 591, citing Campo v. Correa, 2001-2707 (La. 6/21/02), 828 So.2d 502.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT