Coleman v. Deno - 01-1517 ( La. 01/25/02), 813 So. 2d 303

Rule:

In determining whether certain conduct by a qualified health care provider constitutes malpractice as defined under the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:1299.41 et seq., the following factors are utilized: (1) whether the particular wrong is treatment-related or caused by a dereliction of professional skill; (2) whether the wrong requires expert medical evidence to determine whether the appropriate standard of care was breached; (3) whether the pertinent act or omission involved assessment of the patient's condition; (4) whether an incident occurred in the context of a physician-patient relationship, or was within the scope of activities which a hospital is licensed to perform; (5) whether the injury would have occurred if the patient had not sought treatment; and (6) whether the tort alleged was intentional.

Facts:

Appellee patient went to the hospital due to arm swelling. The physician prescribed treatment and arranged for transfer to the charity hospital as the patient had no insurance and the charity hospital was better able to treat him. The patient's arm was amputated. The patient sued appellant physicians and hospital, alleging medical malpractice. The trial court ruled in favor of the patient. The court of appeal, characterizing the patient’s claim as one for patient dumping, as well as medical malpractice, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The physicians and hospital sought further review.

Issue:

Did the court of appeal err in recognizing an intentional tort cause of action against an emergency room physician for improper transfer of a patient under general tort law, which was outside the scope of the limitations set forth in the Medical Malpractice Act, La. R.S. 40:1299.41, et seq.?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The supreme court held the court of appeal erred in characterizing the patient's claim as one for patient dumping, as well as medical malpractice, since that claim was not alleged. The anti-dumping statutes, 42 U.S.C.S. 1395dd and La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 40:2113.4 - .6, only applied to hospitals. The patient dumping claim was for malpractice governed by the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:1299.41, et seq., because (1) the wrong was treatment-related; (2) expert medical evidence was needed to determine if a standard of care was breached; (3) the act or omission involved assessing the patient's condition; (4) the incident occurred in the context of a physician-patient relationship, and was within the scope of activities the hospital was licensed to perform; and (5) the injury would not have occurred if the patient had not sought treatment. Fault should have been apportioned to the charity hospital.