Ashley Keller Wife Of/and Jonah Keller v. Touro Infirmary, Crescent City Physicians, Inc. And Jennifer Lapeyrolerie, M.D.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
June 17, 2023
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
ASHLEY KELLER WIFE OF/AND
JONAH KELLER
VS.
TOURO INFIRMARY, CRESCENT CITY
PHYSICIANS, INC. AND JENNIFER
LAPEYROLERIE, M.D.
No. 2023-CC-00830
_ _ _ _ _ _
IN RE: Tour
o Infirmary - Applicant Defendant; Crescent City Physicians, Inc. -
Applicant Defendant; Jennifer Lapeyrolerie, M.D. - Applicant Defendant; Applying
For Supervisory Writ, Parish of Orleans Civil, Orleans Civil District Court
Number(s) 2019- 13360 c/w 2020 -09735, Court of Appeal, Fourth Circu it,
Number(s) 2023-C-0374;
_ _ _ _ _ _
June 17, 2023
Writ application granted in part. See per curiam.
Hughes, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
WJC
JLW
SJC
JTG
JBM
PDG
06/17/2023 "See News Release 029 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 2023-CC-00830
A
SHLEY KELLER WIFE OF/AND JONAH KELLER
VS.
TOURO INFIRMARY, CRESCENT CITY PHYSICIANS, INC. AND
JENNIFER LAPEYROLERIE, M.D.
O
n Supervisory Writ to the Orleans Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans Civil
P
ER CURIAM
G
ranted in part. We find the district court erred in excluding the opinion of
the medical review panel. A medical review panel's opinion is subject to mandatory
admission unless the panel exceeded its statutory authority. La. R.S. 40:1231.8(H);
Valenzuela v. Danj, 2023-00198 (La. 5/16/23), __ So. 3d __. Unlike the situation in
McGlothlin v. Christus St. Patrick Hospital, 10 -2775 (La. 7/1/11), 65 So.3d 1218,
there is no indication the medical review panel found any inconsistencies in the
evidence or made any credibility determinations. The medical review panel opinion
is therefore admissible in its entirety.
We further find the district court erred in allowing defendants to only call one
member of the medical review panel as a witness. La. R.S. 40:1231.8(H) is
mandatory in nature, providing, “either party shall have the right to call, at his cost,
any member of the medical review panel as a witness.” [emphasis added].
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed insofar as it
excludes the opinion of the medical review panel and limits defendants’ right to call
members of the medical review panel as witnesses. In all other respects, the writ is
denied. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
06/17/23