Preview:

MARIO MASS                                                                        *   NO. 2009-CA-0660
VERSUS                                                                            *
                                                                                      COURT OF APPEAL
BRADLEY J.                                                                        *
BARTHOLOMEW, M.D. AND                                                                 FOURTH CIRCUIT
ST. CHARLES GENERAL                                                               *
HOSPITAL                                                                              STATE OF LOUISIANA
*
APPEAL FROM
CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 2005-12587, DIVISION “N-8”
Honorable Ethel Simms Julien, Judge
Judge Roland L. Belsome
(Court composed of Judge Charles R. Jones, Judge Dennis R. Bagneris, Sr., Judge
Roland L. Belsome)
Ivan A. Orihuela
RIGUER SILVA, LLC
1900 West Esplanade Avenue
Suite 203
Kenner, LA 70065
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT
Nairda Colon
Sheri Sport Faust
James P. Waldron
FRILOT, L.L.C.
1100 Poydras Street
3700 Energy Centre
New Orleans, LA 70163-3600
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, ST. CHARLES
GENERAL HOSPITAL
John R. Cook IV
CURRY & FRIEND, PLC
228 St. Charles Avenue
1200 Whitney Bank Building




New Orleans, LA 70130
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, DR. BRADLEY J.
BARTHOLOMEW
AFFIRMED




The question before us is whether the trial court erred in dismissing Mario
Mass’ medical malpractice claims for failure to obtain an expert.
Mr. Mass sought an evaluation from Dr. Bradley Bartholomew for back
pain.  Mr. Mass’ complaints included difficulty sleeping; stabbing, sharp
throbbing, pulsing, intermittent pain; and limitations on the distances he was able
to walk.  Dr. Bartholomew reviewed Mr. Mass’ previous MRIs and determined he
had disc herniations at L4-5.
Dr. Bartholomew ordered an additional MRI for an updated assessment of
Mr. Mass’ condition.  That MRI revealed “isolated pathology at L4-5, along with
large, broad, posterior protrusion that projects into central canal and severely
compromises thecal sac.”  At a follow up visit, Dr. Bartholomew recommended
surgery, discussing fusion and/disectomy as options.  Within weeks of that
recommendation, Mr. Mass underwent a “right L4-5 discectomy with right L-4
laminectomy, and an L4-5 interbody fusion with autologous bone chips.”
1




The following day, a repeat MRI showed a “large recurrent possible residual
disc at L4-5 and stenosis at L3-4.”   Dr. Bartholomew recommended a “repeat
discectomy and total laminectomy at L4.”  Mr. Mass agreed to the subsequent
procedure.
One year later, Mr. Mass filed a complaint with the Louisiana Patients’
Compensation Fund (PCF).  In that complaint he alleges that St. Charles General
Hospital and Dr. Bartholomew breached the applicable standards of care by 1)
failing to obtain informed consent for the procedures at issue; 2) failing to
adequately train and supervise its employees and physicians in the care of patients
undergoing a discectomy and/or a laminectomy; 3) failing to provide appropriate
medical care; and 4) failing to have the appropriate equipment and staff necessary
to provide care.  After discovery the medical review panel unanimously concluded
that the evidence did not support that there was a deviation from the standard of
care by the hospital or Dr. Bartholomew.  Subsequent to the panel’s opinion, Mr.
Mass filed the instant lawsuit against St. Charles General Hospital and Dr.
Bartholomew.1
Because Mr. Mass had not identified an expert at the medical review stage
of the case, the defendants propounded additional discovery asking him to identify
the expert witnesses that were going to be called to support his claims.  That
additional discovery was submitted on March 22, 2006, but went unanswered.  On
September 28, 2006, St. Charles General filed a motion for summary judgment
based on plaintiff’s failure to obtain a qualified medical expert.
1 Mr. Mass’ Petition for Damages was filed on November 15, 2005.
2




St. Charles General’s motion for summary judgment was originally set for
hearing on January 12, 2007, but was continued at the plaintiff’s request.      The
hearing was reset for February 9, 2007.  On the hearing day, issues were raised
regarding Dr. Bartholomew’s employment status at the hospital.  The trial judge
deferred any ruling on the issues allowing St. Charles General time to supplement
its motion for summary judgment with additional documentation.
In the interim, Dr. Bartholomew filed a motion for summary judgment.   On
July 25, 2008, the parties appeared for hearing of St. Charles General’s and Dr.
Bartholomew’s motions for summary judgment.  Mr. Mass was still without an
expert witness, but presented the trial court with the affidavit of Maria Barrayo, his
ex-wife.   The trial court rejected the affidavit as untimely and granted summary
judgment in favor of the defendants.
On appeal Mr. Mass argues that the trial court was manifestly erroneous in
granting the defendants’ motions for summary judgment because an expert witness
is not necessary in this case.  He also contends that the trial court erred when it
failed to consider his ex-wife’s affidavit as evidence to overcome the summary
judgments.
This Court’s review of the record on a motion for summary judgment is de
novo.
The burden of proof for a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case is set forth
in La. R.S. 9:2794A.2  The statute requires the plaintiff to establish the standard of
2
La. R.S. 9:2794A reads in pertinent part:
A.   In a malpractice action based on the negligence of a physician…the plaintiff shall have the burden of
proving:
3




care applicable to the doctor, a violation by the doctor of that standard of care, and
a causal connection between the doctor's alleged negligence and the plaintiff's
injuries resulting there from.   Pfiffner v. Correa, 94-0924 (La. 10/17/94), 643
So.2d 1228, 1233.  These requirements are generally satisfied by expert medical
testimony.  However, jurisprudence has recognized exceptions in instances of
obvious negligence, these exceptions are limited to "instances in which the medical
and factual issues are such that a lay jury can perceive negligence in the charged
physician's conduct as well as any expert can."  Id., at 1234; see also, Williams v.
Memorial Medical Center, 03-1806 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/17/04), 870 So. 2d. 1044.
Mr. Mass contends that this case is one that can be determined without
expert testimony citing to Williams v. Metro Home, 02-0535 (La. App. 4 Cir.
5/8/02), 817 So. 2d 1224. In Williams, a paraplegic developed bed sores due to the
neglect of his home healthcare nurse. Id.  Certain obvious acts of negligence such
as those set forth by the Supreme Court in Pfiffner3 may not need expert testimony;
however the negligence and damages complained of in this case are not as evident.
Therefore, an expert witness is imperative to Mr. Mass’ case.   He must present
more than mere allegations to overcome summary judgment.   See Smith v.
(1) The degree of knowledge or skill possessed or the degree of care ordinarily exercised by physicians, ...
under similar circumstances; and where the defendant practices in a particular specialty and where the
alleged acts of medical negligence raise issues peculiar to the particular specialty involved, then the
plaintiff has the burden of proving the degree of care ordinarily practiced by physicians ... within the
involved medical specialty.
(2) That the defendant either lacked this degree of knowledge or skill or failed to use reasonable care and
diligence, along with his best judgment in the application of that skill.
(3) That as a proximate result of this lack of knowledge or skill or the failure to exercise this degree of care
the plaintiff suffered injuries that would not otherwise have been incurred.
3 “Expert testimony is not required where the physician does an obviously careless act, such as fracturing a leg
during examination, amputating the wrong arm, dropping a knife, scalpel, or acid on a patient, or leaving a sponge in
a patient’s body, from which a lay person can infer negligence.”  Pfiffner, supra, 643 So. 2d at 1233.
4




McArthur Surgical Clinic, 610 So.2d 245 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1992).  Without
evidence establishing the standard of care and the breach of that standard, he is
unable to prove essential elements of his case, and therefore cannot satisfy his
burden at trial.  La. C.C.P. art. 966C(2).
The trial court had previously informed Mr. Mass that he needed to obtain
an expert witness if he was going to maintain his cause of action.  At the hearing
for the summary judgments, on July 25, 2008, Mr. Mass still had not obtained an
expert witness, but rather offered an affidavit from his ex-wife.  The trial judge
found the affidavit to be untimely and did not allow it to be entered into evidence,
which decision was within her discretion and consistent with Uniform District
Court Rule 9.9(b) and La. C.C.P. art. 966(B).  Also see, Buggage v. Volks
Constructors, 06-0175 (La. 5/5/06) 928 So. 2d 536.
Finding that Mr. Mass would not be able to meet his burden of proof at trial
without an expert witness, the motions for summary judgment were granted in
favor of St. Charles General Hospital and Dr. Bradley Bartholomew.  Mr. Mass’
claims were dismissed with prejudice.  We do not find that the trial court erred in
its rulings.  Accordingly we affirm.
AFFIRMED
5

Download 243900.pdf

Louisiana Law