Valarie Cantrelle v. William T. Sargent, M.D.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
April 08, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
VALARIE CANTRELLE
VS.
WILLIAM T. SARGENT, M.D.
No. 2024-CC-01545
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: William T. Sargent, M.D. - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory
Writ, Parish of Orleans Civil, Civil District Court Number(s) 2024-02112, Court of
Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number(s) 2024-C-0619;
_ _ _ _ _ _
April 08, 2025
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Griffin, J., dissents.
Guidry, J., dissents.
JBM
JLW
JDH
WJC
CRC
04/08/2025 "See News Release 016 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2024-CC-01545

VALARIE CANTRELLE

VS.

WILLIAM T. SARGENT, M.D.

On Supervisory Writ to the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans Civil

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff, Valarie Cantrelle, filed a medical malpractice complaint requesting
a medical review panel convene against defendant, Dr. William T. Sargent . The
medical review panel rendered a unanimous opinion concluding defendant did not
breach the applicable standard of care.
Plaintiff then filed the instant suit in the district court. Defendant filed a
motion for bond for medical review panel costs under La. R.S. 40:12311.8(I)(c),
which provides that when a unanimous medical review panel opinion is rendered in
favor of the defendant, a claimant who files a medical malpractice suit must post a
cash or surety bond in the amount of the panel costs.
Prior to a hearing on the motion, the parties entered into a consent judgment
which required plaintiff to “post a cash or surety bond for the costs of the medical
review panel, in the amount of $3,012.26 on or before the 9th day of August, 2024.
. . .” The consent judgment also provided “no further action will be taken in this
matter until such bond is posted with the exception that if the deadline above lapses
without filing of a cash or surety bond referenced above, then Defendant may file an
ex parte mo tion to dismiss the suit, which shall be granted without the need of a
hearing.”
When plaintiff did not post the bond by the August 9, 2024 deadline,
defendant filed an ex parte motion to dismiss plaintiff’s petition for damages with

2

prejudice. On August 26, 2024, plaintiff filed an opposition asserting that
“[u]nfortunately, due to unforeseen circumstances, the plaintiff was not able to meet
the August 9, 2024 deadline.” Plaintiff posted the bond the same day.
Thereafter, the district court denied defendant’s ex parte motion to dismiss.
Defendant applied for supervisory review. The court of appeal denied the writ, with
one judge dissenting. Defendant now seeks relief in this court.
A consent judgment is a bilateral contract wherein parties adjust their
differences by mutual consent. Plaquemines Par. Gov't v. Getty Oil Co ., 95-2452
(La. 5/21/96), 673 So. 2d 1002, 1006. A judgment, whether it results from the assent
of the parties or is the result of a judicial determination after a trial on the merits, is
and should be accorded sanctity under the law. Id.; see also Ritchey v. Azar, 383
So. 2d 360, 363 (La. 1980) (explaining that “a judgment obtained by consent of the
parties gets its binding force and effect from the parties’ consent.”).
The consent judgment between the parties in this case mandates plaintiff to
post a cash or surety bond for the costs of the medical review panel on or before
August 9, 2024 and provides that if plaintiff fails to do so, defendant may file an ex
parte motion to dismiss the suit. It is undisputed plaintiff failed to comply with the
August 9, 2024 deadline. Therefore, the court must give effect to consent judgment
and grant defendant’s ex parte motion to dismiss the suit. See Burrell v. UMC ,
2019-1095 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/10/20), 302 So. 3d 93; Hebert v. Drewitz, 2009-0798
(La. App. 1 Cir. 10/27/09), 29 So. 3d 607.

DECREE
For the reasons assigned, the writ is granted and made peremptory. The
judgment of the district court is reversed. The motion to dismiss is granted , and
judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the suit filed by Valarie Cantrelle against
Dr. William T. Sargent without prejudice.