DRIVER v. WILLIS KNIGHTON PIERREMONT HEALTH CENTER (2025)

Writ application denied.

There is no factual or legal basis to support an allocation of fault to Willis Knighton Pierremont Health Center (WKP). The court of appeal found “defendants” breached the standard of care owed to Mr. Driver by Dr. Parikh's failure to diagnose and treat his facial rash. However, plaintiffs did not allege respondeat superior liability for WKP. Then, in apportioning 25% fault to WKP, the court of appeal noted the lack of an accurate and trustworthy charting system produced inaccurate and unreliable medical records in this case. Plaintiffs presented no expert testimony to establish WKP's standard of care for record keeping or breach of that standard. Finally, plaintiffs presented no evidence to establish any breach of the standard of care by WKP caused Mr. Driver's injuries or death. Consequently, there is no factual support for an allocation of fault to WKP. I would grant the writ and reverse the court of appeal's judgment against WKP.

I would grant the writ application due to the court of appeal's erroneous application of the law. At the trial of this matter, defendants submitted certified medical records showing no notation of a facial rash and testimony of Dr. Parikh and the two nurses who treated Mr. Driver in the Willis Knighton Pierremont Emergency Room (WKP ER) that Mr. Driver did not present with or complain of a facial rash and if he had, it would have been noted in the medical records. Plaintiffs, however, submitted testimony from Mr. Driver's daughters, Darcy and Deann, that Mr. Driver had a facial rash in the WKP ER and submitted a picture taken by Darcy of Mr. Driver while in the WKP ER, which experts agreed showed a rash that appeared to be shingles. However, there was no dispute that this picture was taken after Mr. Driver was discharged from WKP ER.

The presence of a rash at the time Mr. Driver presented for treatment in the WKP ER is essential to determining the applicable standard of care in this case, as the medical evidence regarding standard of care related solely to the observation, diagnosis, and treatment of a facial rash that appeared to be shingles. The jury reviewed the conflicting evidence regarding the presence of a rash on Mr. Driver's face when he presented to WKP ER for treatment and ultimately determined that plaintiffs failed to establish the standard of care applicable to defendants. A court of appeal may not set aside a trial court's or jury's finding of fact in the absence of manifest error or unless it is clearly wrong, and where there is conflict in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review, even though the appellate court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So. 2d 840, 844 (La. 1989). The issue to be resolved by the reviewing court is not whether the trier of fact was right or wrong but whether the factfinder's conclusion was a reasonable one. Stobart v. State of Louisiana through Department of Transp. and Dev., 92-1328 (La. 4/12/93), 617 So. 2d 880, 882. If the trial court or jury's findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, the court of appeal may not reverse, even if convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently. Stobart, 617 So. 2d at 882-883. In the instant case, the court of appeal failed to apply the manifest error standard of review to the jury's preliminary factual finding regarding the presence of a rash on Mr. Driver's face and instead, substituted its own evaluation of the conflicting evidence for that of the jury.

Additionally, the court of appeal assessed 25% percent fault to WKP, noting the lack of an accurate and trustworthy charting system that produced inaccurate and unreliable medical records in this case, and that Dr. Parikh and the nurses based their testimony on these faulty medical records. However, even if there was a standard of care and breach of the standard of care established as to this issue, it does not appear that any evidence was introduced at trial that the lack of an accurate and trustworthy charting system caused Mr. Driver any damages. Rather, it was the failure to observe, diagnose, and treat Mr. Driver's alleged facial rash that allegedly caused the shingles to worsen, spread to his brain, and cause further complications. Therefore, absent any proof that any alleged failure by WKP to have an accurate and trustworthy charting system caused Mr. Driver any damages, which was the sole basis for the court of appeal's assessment of fault against WKP, the court of appeal also erroneously applied the law in finding WKP 25% at fault.

Crain, J., would grant and assigns reasons. Guidry, J., would grant and docket and assigns reasons.