Bruce Wayne Parker, Jr., Individually and as Representative of the Decedent, A'Mircle Faith Parker v. Baton Rouge General Medical Center and State of Louisiana, through the Department of Children and Family Services

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

BRUCE WAYNE PARKER, JR. NO. 2020 CW 0977
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEDENT, PAGE 1 OF 2

A' MIRCLE FAITH PARKER

VERSUS

BATON ROUGE GENERAL MEDICAL
CENTER AND STATE OF LOUISIANA,

THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF FEBRUARY 24, 2021
CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES

In Re: Baton Rouge Medical Center, applying for supervisory
writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton
Rouge, No. 631644.

BEFORE: McDONALD, HOLDRIDGE, AND PENZATO, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The trial court' s September 24, 2020, judgment

denying Baton Rouge General Medical Center' s motion for summary
judgment is reversed, the motion for summary judgment is granted
and plaintiff' s claims against Baton Rouge General Medical Center
are dismissed with prejudice. We find that plaintiff' s allegations
asserted in the petition against Baton Rouge General Medical Center
are inextricably tied to the assessment of and medical care, and

treatment rendered to the patient, the infant child, A' Mircle Faith
Parker, and sound in medical malpractice. The allegations of

negligence against the hospital fall within the confines of " health
care," defined by the Medical Malpractice Act as follows, "... any
act or treatment performed or furnished, or which should have been
performed or furnished, by any health care provider for, to, or on

behalf of a patient during the patient' s medical care, treatment,

or confinement...." La. R. S. 40: 1231. 1( A)( 9). The Medical

Malpractice Act defines " malpractice" as " any unintentional tort
or breach of contract based on health care or professional services
rendered, or which should have been rendered, by a health care

provider to a patient, including failure to render services

timely...." La. R. S. 40: 1231. 1( A) ( 13).

To establish a claim for medical malpractice, a plaintiff

must prove by a preponderance of the evidence: 1) the standard of

care applicable to the defendant; 2) that the defendant breached
the standard of care; and 3) there was a causal connection between
the breach and the resulting injury. Samaha v. Rau, 2007- 1726

La. 2/ 26/ 08), 977 So. 2d 880, 884. Expert medical testimony is

generally required to establish the applicable standard of care

and whether or not the standard was breached, except where the

negligence was so obvious that a lay person can infer negligence
without the guidance of expert testimony. Samaha, 977 So. 2d at

884; Pfi.ffner v. Correa, 1994- 0924, 1994- 0963, 1994- 0992 ( La.

10/ 17/ 94), 643 So. 2d 1228.

Expert medical testimony is necessary in this case to

establish the standard of care and whether or not that standard

was breached, as it does not involve an obvious act or failure to
act from which a lay person may infer negligence.

The requirement of producing expert medical testimony in this case

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

PAGE 2 OF 2

is especially apt since Baton Rouge General Medical Center has
supported its motion for summary judgment with a certified copy of
the Medical Review Panel opinion, as well- as the affidavit of

panelist Dr. Stephanie Kelleher, which stated that the evidence

does not support the conclusion that Baton Rouge General Medical
Center failed to meet the applicable standard of care. Insofar as
plaintiff has failed to come forth with an expert to testify on
the requisite standard of care and a violation thereof, we find

that plaintiff will be unable to satisfy his evidentiary burden of
proof at trial. Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of Baton
Rouge General Medical Center is warranted.

im
GH
AHP

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CLERK OCCOURT
FOR THE CO T