Lucia Valenzuela And Saul Vazquez Individually And On Behalf Of Their Deceased Daughter Luz Briana Vazquez v. Dr. Farnaz Almas Danj, The Medical Protective Company, And Lakeview Regional Medical Center

Supreme Court of Louisiana
May 16, 2023
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
LUCIA VALENZUELA AND SAUL VAZQUEZ
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THEIR
DECEASED DAUGHTER LUZ
BRIANA
VAZQUEZ
VS.
DR. FARNAZ ALMAS DANJ, THE MEDICAL
PROTECTIVE COMPANY, AND LAKEVIEW
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
No. 2023-CC-00198
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN R
E: Dr. Farnaz Almas Ganj - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory
Writ, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Number(s) 622254,
Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2022 CW 1295;
_ _ _ _ _ _
May 16, 2023
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
JBM
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
PDG
05/16/2023 "See News Release 024 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2023-CC-00198
LUCIA VALENZUELA AND SAUL VAZQUEZ INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF THEIR DECEASED DAUGHTER LUZ BRIANA VAZQUEZ
VS.
DR. FARNAZ ALMAS DANJ, THE MEDICAL PROTECTIVE COMPANY,
AND LAKEVIEW REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
On Supervisory Writ to the 19th Judicial District Court,
Parish of East Baton Rouge
PER CURIAM
Writ granted. The trial court erred by granting the motion to exclude the
medical review panel’s opinion based on evidence the defendant was occasionally
supervised by one or more of the panel members during her medical residency. A
medical review panel’s opinion is subject to mandatory admission unless the panel
exceeded its statutory authority . See La. R.S. 40:1231.8H ; Sanderson v. Tulane
University Hospital and Clinic, 18 -0588 (La. 6/15/18) , 245 So. 3d 1043 (per
curiam); McGlothlin v. Christus St. Patrick Hospital , 10-2775 (La. 7/1/11), 65 So.
3d 1218, 1226-30. “Plaintiff[s] will have an adequate opportunity to explore any
potential bias on the part of the panel member[s] through cross examination, and the
trier of fact may assign any appropriate weight to the opinion in light of such
testimony.” Sanderson, 245 So. 3d at 1043; see also McGlothlin, 65 So. 3d at 1227
(“[A]s with any expert testimony or evidence, the medical review panel opinion is
subject to review and contestation by an opposing viewpoint.”) To the extent it held
otherwise, Fanguy v. Lexington Ins. Co., 13-0114 (La. 4/1/13), 110 So. 3d 127 (per
curiam) was implicitly overruled by Sanderson and is expressly overruled herein.
The trial court’s judgment granting the motion to exclude is reversed, and this matter
is remanded for further proceedings.
JUDGMENT REVERSED; CASE REMANDED.
05/16/23