ALLEN DEHART ET AL v. BRUCE JONES ET AL (2025)

Writ application granted. See per curiam.

WJC

JLW

JDH

JBM

PDG

JMG

CRC

Supreme Court of Louisiana April 23, 2025

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2025-C-00031

ALLEN DEHART, ET AL.

VS.

BRUCE A. JONES, M.D., ET AL.

On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Lafayette

PER CURIAM

Arlene Dehart underwent surgery for the repair of a heart valve on September 30, 2008. She suffered complications after the surgery and died on October 27, 2008. Plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice suit against cardiothoracic surgeon Dr. Bruce Jones, Lafayette General Medical Center (LGMC), and perfusionist Amy Falconer. LGMC and Falconer filed motions for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of claims related to failure to respond to excessive bleeding during the surgery and informed consent issues. The trial court granted both motions and dismissed plaintiffs’ claims against the two defendants. The appellate court vacated the judgment on the issue of excessive bleeding but affirmed the partial summary judgment on the issue of informed consent. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

Dr. Jones filed a motion to dismiss on grounds of abandonment. He argued that while plaintiffs appealed the partial summary judgment, the claims against Dr. Jones remained pending in the trial court. He further argued that plaintiffs’ pursuit of the appeal did not interrupt abandonment as to the claims remaining against him in the trial court. The trial court granted Dr. Jones motion for abandonment, and the appellate court affirmed.

The appellate court found this court's opinion in James v. Formosa Plastics Corp. of Louisiana, 01-2056 (La. 4/3/02), 813 So.2d 335, to be persuasive. In James, the plaintiff sued for injuries allegedly sustained because of exposure to hazardous material in the course and scope of her employment. She sued both the manufacturer of the materials and her employer. An appeal was taken regarding the employer. The manufacturer moved for dismissal for abandonment. This court considered whether the claims against the manufacturer should have proceeded while the claims against the employer were on appeal.

We find James factually distinguishable from the instant case. In James, it was argued that plaintiff's appeal regarding the employer “was completely independent from her claims against [the manufacturer] and the trial court therefore clearly retained jurisdiction over the case against [the manufacturer].” Id. at 337. It was also acknowledged that “plaintiff's demands for compensatory and exemplary or punitive damages against [the manufacturer] were separate from its demand for exemplary or punitive damages against [the employer].” Id. at 339. This court ultimately found that the appeal regarding the employer “did not touch upon or adjudicate in any way plaintiff's actions against [the manufacturer].” Id. at 340. Thus, pursuant to La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 2088, the trial court “was not divested of jurisdiction over the actions against [the manufacturer] because none of the matters relating to [the manufacturer] were reviewable under the appeal.” Id.

In contrast, the appeal by LGMC and Falconer related to liability arising out of the same occurrence affecting the liability of Dr. Jones. Specifically, the trial court dismissed two co-defendants through summary judgment finding they did not commit negligence in tending to the bleeding of the patient. This decision was later reversed by the appellate court, with Dr. Jones benefiting from that reversal as it affected his rights and obligations on the issue of negligence. La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 2088 provides:

The jurisdiction of the trial court over all matters in the case reviewable under the appeal is divested, and that of the appellate court attaches, on the granting of the order of appeal and the timely filing of the appeal bond, in the case of a suspensive appeal or on the granting of the order of appeal, in the case of a devolutive appeal. Thereafter, the trial court has jurisdiction in the case only over those matters not reviewable under the appeal ․

Unlike James where the claims were separate, the claims here are very much entwined. Because the claims against LGMC and Falconer affect plaintiffs’ claims against Dr. Jones, the plaintiffs could not have taken steps in the prosecution of the case against Dr. Jones until the appeal was resolved. Therefore, under La. Code. Civ. Proc. art. 2088 the matter against Dr. Jones was effectively stayed during the appeal. For these reasons, the trial court's grant of the motion to dismiss on grounds of abandonment is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.