JASON DAVIS AND DAMIEN DAVIS INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF MAUDREY LEE DAVIS v. CHRISTUS HEALTH NORTHERN LOUISIANA CHRISTUS SCHUMPERT HEALTH SYSTEM (2023)

CRAIN, J., would grant and assigns reasons.

This case involves alleged malpractice relative to a death due to a subdural hemorrhage following brain surgery. In a split opinion, a medical review panel found no breach of the standard of care; however, the panel unanimously found no causation. The medical review panel opinion states, in relevant part:

All three panel members agree that there is no evidence of any acute head trauma or fall in either the nursing notes at Christus Highland or the medical records from University Health. Further, there is no evidence that the patient was found on the floor. The patient's final diagnosis at University Health is listed as non-traumatic acute subdural hemorrhage and non-traumatic extradural hemorrhage. This was unrelated to the care provided by the nursing staff at Christus Highland.

The defendant, relying on the medical review panel opinion, filed a motion for summary judgment contending plaintiffs cannot produce evidentiary support for a breach of the standard of care and causation. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, relying upon the medical review panel opinion and Pfiffner v. Correa, 94-0924, 94-0963, 04-0992 (La. 10/17/94), 643 So.2d 1228.

Based upon the opinion of one doctor, the medical review panel opinion was sufficient to create a question of fact relative to the alleged breach of the standard of care. However, plaintiffs failed to rebut the absence of evidence relative to causation.

The defendant, with three medical experts from the medical review panel who said there is no medical causation, pointed out plaintiffs’ failure to produce expert testimony to carry their burden on causation. The burden shifted to plaintiffs to come forward with expert medical testimony to create a genuine issue of material fact. Plaintiffs produced none. The cause of a subdural hemorrhage following brain surgery is “not within the province of lay persons to assess.” Pfiffner, 643 So.2d at 1234. Expert medical testimony is required to prove the causal connection between any alleged malpractice and this complicated medical condition. For these reasons, I would grant this writ application and render summary judgment in favor of the defendant.