STEVENS v. CLHG OAKDALE LLC (2026)

Writ granted. This court, in Sebble on Behalf of Est. of Brown v. St. Luke's #2, LLC, 23-483 (La. 10/20/23), 379 So.3d 615, 621, has stated:

There is a distinction between a medical standard of care and a legal standard of care. The medical standard of care is a determination made by the medical review panel, medical experts, whose duty it is to apply their medical expertise and opine on whether the defendant health care provider failed to adhere to the appropriate medical standard. By contrast, the LHEPA sets forth a legal standard of care, which is a determination left to the trier of fact, lay persons, who consider all of the evidence, including the medical review panel's opinion, in making a determination of whether the defendant health care provider's conduct was grossly negligent. In other words, a finding by a medical review panel that there was a breach in the standard of care is a “baseline” determination; the degree of that breach is a judicial determination by the trier of fact. (Emphasis added).

As noted by the appellate dissent, plaintiffs do not have the burden of establishing gross negligence on a motion for summary judgment. The degree of negligence is a question for the trier of fact. Given the evidence of negligence presented by plaintiffs, summary judgment is inappropriate at this juncture. The ruling of the trial court granting summary judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

PER CURIAM