Allen Dehart, Et Al. v. Bruce A. Jones, M.D., Et Al.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
April 23, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
ALLEN DEHART, ET AL.
VS.
BRUCE A. JONES, M.D., ET AL.
No. 2025-C-00031
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Allen Dehart - Applicant Plaintiff; Adrienne Dehart - Applicant Plaintiff;
Ashley Dehart - Applicant Plaintiff; Anissa Dehart - Applicant Plaintiff; Allen
Dehart, et al. - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Writ Of Certiorari, Parish of
Lafayette, 15th Jud icial District Court Number(s) C -2012-3593, Court of Appeal,
Third Circuit, Number(s) 24-220;
_ _ _ _ _ _
April 23, 2025
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
WJC
JLW
JDH
JBM
PDG
JMG
CRC
04/23/2025 "See News Release 019 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

1
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2025-C-00031
ALLEN DEHART, ET AL.
VS.
BRUCE A. JONES, M.D., ET AL.
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Lafayette
PER CURIAM
Arlene Dehart underwent surgery for the repair of a heart valve on September
30, 2008. She suffered complications after the surgery and died on October 27,
2008. Plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice suit against cardiothoracic surgeon Dr.
Bruce Jones, Lafayette General Medical Center (LGMC), and perfusionist Amy
Falconer. LGMC and Falconer filed motions for partial summary judgment seeking
dismissal of claims related to failure to respond to excessive bleeding during the
surgery and informed consent is sues. The trial court granted both motions and
dismissed plaintiffs’ claims against the two defendants. The appellate court vacated
the judgment on the issue of excessive bleeding but affirmed the partial summary
judgment on the issue of informed consent . The matter was remanded for further
proceedings.
Dr. Jones filed a motion to dismiss on grounds of abandonment. He argued
that while plaintiffs appealed the partial summary judgment, the claims against Dr.
Jones remained pending in the trial court. He further argued that plaintiff s’ pursuit
of the appeal did not interrupt abandonment as to the claims remaining against him
in the trial court. The trial court granted Dr. Jones motion for abandonment, and the
appellate court affirmed.

2

The appellate court found this court’s opinion in James v. Formosa Plastics
Corp. of Louisiana, 01-2056 (La. 4/3/02), 813 So.2d 335, to be persuasive. In James,
the plaintiff sued for injuries allegedly sustained because of exposure to hazardous
material in the course and scope of her employment. She sued both the manufacturer
of the materials and her employer. An appeal was taken regarding the employer.
The manufacturer moved for dismissal for abandonment. This court considered
whether the claims against the manufacturer should have proceeded while the claims
against the employer were on appeal.
We find James factually distinguishable from the instant case. In James, it
was argued that plaintiff’s appeal regarding the employer “was completely
independent from her claims against [the manufacturer] and the trial court therefore
clearly retained jurisdiction over the case against [the manufacturer].” Id. at 337. It
was also acknowledged that “plaintiff’s demands for compensatory and exemplary
or punitive damages against [the manufacturer] were separate from its demand for
exemplary or punitive damages against [the employer].” Id. at 339. This court
ultimately found that the appeal regarding the employer “did not touch upon or
adjudicate in any way plaintiff’s actions against [the manufacturer].” Id. at 340.
Thus, pursuant to La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 2088, the trial court “was not divested of
jurisdiction over the actions against [the manufacturer] because none of the matters
relating to [the manufacturer] were reviewable under the appeal.” Id.
In contrast, the appeal by LGMC and Falconer related to liability arising out
of the same occurrence affecting the liability of Dr. Jones. Specifically, the trial
court dismissed two co-defendants through summary judgment finding they did not
commit negligence in tending to the bleeding of the patient. This decision was later
reversed by the appellate court, with Dr. Jones benefiting from that reversal as it
affected his rights and obligations on the issue of negligence. La. Code Civ. Proc.
art. 2088 provides:

3

The jurisdiction of the trial court over all matters in the case reviewable
under the appeal is divested, and that of the appellate court attaches, on
the granting of the order of appeal and the timely filing of the appeal
bond, in the case of a suspensive appeal or on the granting of the order
of appeal, in the case of a devolutive appeal. Thereafter, the trial court
has jurisdiction in the case only over those matters not reviewable under
the appeal . . .

Unlike James where the claims were separate, the claims here are very much
entwined. Because the claims against LGMC and Falconer affect plaintiffs’ claims
against Dr. Jones, the plaintiffs could not have taken steps in the prosecution of the
case against Dr. Jones until the appeal was resolved. Therefore, under La. Code.
Civ. Proc. art. 2088 the matter against Dr. Jones was effectively stayed during the
appeal. For these reasons, the trial court’s grant of the motion to dismiss on grounds
of abandonment is reversed , and t he matter is remanded for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.