2001-CC-1601 Precedential Granted Processed

Washington v. Fustok

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed September 21, 2001 · 797 So. 2d 56

Cited by

Bernard v. Estate of Laporte 113 So. 3d 397 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2013
Slaughter v. NORTH OAKS MEDICAL CENTER 30 So. 3d 1183 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Delbert W. Bush v. National Health Care of Leesville La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Bush v. National Health Care of Leesville 923 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Metropolitan Development Center v. Liner 891 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
Martin v. Comm-Care Corp. 866 So. 2d 225 La. 2004
Martin v. Comm-Care Corp. 859 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
Sherman v. Touro Infirmary Hospital 832 So. 2d 334 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Geiger v. State Ex Rel Dept. of Health 815 So. 2d 80 La. 2002
Wesco v. Columbia Lakeland Medical Center 801 So. 2d 1187 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

LeBreton v. Rabito 714 So. 2d 1226

Opinion text

797 So.2d 56 (2001) Quinzetta WASHINGTON v. Dr. Mohamed FUSTOK, West Jefferson Medical Center and Valley Lab, Inc. No. 2001-CC-1601. Supreme Court of Louisiana. September 21, 2001. Granted. Plaintiff's premature suit did not interrupt prescription. LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), 714 So.2d 1226 . Moreover, the application indicates plaintiff's request for medical review panel was filed more than one year from the date of the alleged malpractice. As a result, prescription was never suspended under La. 40:1299.47 A(2)(a). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and relator's exception of prescription is granted. CALOGERO, C.J., I would grant and docket in order to reconsider the issue resolved in LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), 714 So.2d 1226 . As set forth in my dissent in LeBreton , I find no conflict between the provisions to Civil Code article 3462 and LSA-R.S. 40:1299.47(A)(2)(a), as both provisions can easily be harmonized with the result of each provision being given full effect. The purpose for denying claims that are prescribed is to avoid denying the defendant a timely opportunity to investigate a matter and prepare a defense. That purpose is not served here, where the defendant was *57 sued less than one year from the occurrence of plaintiffs injury. KIMBALL, J., would grant and docket. JOHNSON, J., would grant and docket.