Cited by

Billeaudeau, supra; (La.

by a dereliction of professional skill, [2] whether the wrong requires expert medical evidence to determine whether the appropriate standard of care was breached, and [3] whether the pertinent act or omission involved assessment of the patient’s condition.” n. 3 (La.1992)(quoting Holly P. Rockwell, Annotation, What Patient Claims Against Doctor, Hospital, or Similar Health Care Provider Are Not Subject to Statutes Specifically Governing Actions and Damages for Medical Malpractice, 89 A.L.R.4th

Perritt v. Dona, 02-2601 (La.7/2/03)

ires expert medical evidence to determine whether the appropriate standard of care was breached, and [3] whether the pertinent act or omission involved assessment of the patient's condition.” The latter annotation lists three additional factors that courts have considered, and we now add those to our Sewell [v. Doctors Hosp., ] list; to wit: [4] whether an incident occurred in the context of a physician-patient relationship, or was within the scope of activities which a hospital is licensed to p

sed by a dereliction of professional skill,” [2] whether the wrong requires expert medical evidence to determine whether the appropriate standard of care was breached, and “[3] whether the pertinent act or omission involved assessment of the patient’s condition.” The latter annotation lists three additional factors that courts have considered, and we now add those to our Sewell [v. Doctors Hosp., ] list; to wit: [4] whether an incident occurred in the context of a physician-patient relationship,

While we are mindful the MMA is in derogation of established rights and is to be strictly construed, we are nevertheless obligated to apply the Act in a manner which is consistent with logic *257 and the presumed fair purpose and intention of the Legislature in passing it.

Under well-established law, because “all of the limiting provisions applicable to qualified health care providers are ‘special legislation in derogation of the rights of tort victims,’ these provisions are all strictly construed.” Spradlin , 98-1977 at p. 6, 758 So.2d at 120 ( (La.

at 315-16 (quoting, in part, ).

at 315-16 (quoting, in part, ).

Williamson, 04-0451 at p. 5, 888 So.2d at 786; (finding strict liability for defects in hospital bed that collapsed resulting in injury to patient was not included within definition of medical malpractice under the LMMA).

Williamson, 04-0451 at p. 5, 888 So.2d at 786 ; (finding strict liability for defects in hospital bed that collapsed resulting in injury to patient was not included within definition of medical malpractice under the LMMA).

40:1299.45(A); Roberson v. Arcadia Healthcare Ctr., Inc. 37,761 (La.App.2d Cir.7/9/03), .

[citations omitted] In Sewell [,v. Doctors Hosp., ], we explained: The Medical Malpractice Act’s limitations on the liability of a health care provider are special legislation in derogation of the rights of tort victims.

LaCoste, supra, XXXX-XXXX at p. 6, 966 So.2d at 524 , citing, Coleman v. Deno, XXXX-XXXX, pp. 15-16 (La.1/25/02), (finding claim for alleged wrongful transfer from one emergency room to another of a patient whose left arm was later amputated sounded in medical malpractice); (finding strict liability for defects in hospital bed that collapsed resulting in injury to patient was not included within the definition of medical malpractice under the MMA).

Williamson , 04-0451 at p. 5, 888 So.2d at 786 ; (finding strict liability for defects in hospital bed that collapsed resulting in injury to patient was not included within definition of *664 medical malpractice under the LMMA).

Landry Medical Foundation, 98-1977, p. 6 (La.2/29/00), ; Conerly v. State, 97-0871, p. 3 (La.7/8/98)

Williamson, 04-0451 at p. 5, 888 So.2d at 786; (finding strict liability for defects in hospital bed that collapsed resulting in injury to patient was not included within definition of medical malpractice under the LMMA).

Williamson , 04-0451 at p. 5, 888 So.2d at 786 ; (finding strict liability for defects in hospital bed that collapsed resulting in injury to patient was not included within definition of medical malpractice under the LMMA).

(finding strict liability for defects in hospital bed which collapsed resulting in injury to patient was not included within "malpractice" under the LMMA).

In support of its judgment, which held that coverage by the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (La.

ion of professional skill, 4 [2] whether the wrong requires expert medical evidence to determine whether the appropriate standard of care was breached, and [3] whether the pertinent act or omission involved assessment of the patient's condition.” n. 3 (La.1992)(quoting Holly P. Rockwell, Annotation, What Patient Claims Against Doctor, Hospital, or Similar Health Care Provider Are Not Subject to Statutes Specifically Governing Actions and Damages for Medical Malpractice, 89 A.L.R.4th 887, 1991 WL

579 n. 3 (La.1992)(quoting Holly P. Rockwell, Annotation, What Patient Claims Against Doctor, Hospital, or Similar Health Care Provider Are Not Subject to Statutes Specifically Governing Actions and Damages for Medical Malpractice, 89 A.L.R.4th 887 , 1991 WL 741765 (1991)).

4 Furthermore, in establishing the LPCF, La.R.S.

No. 1 of Jefferson, XXXX-XXXX (La.12/01/04)

Landry Medical Foundation, 98-1977 (La.2/29/00), Hutchison v. Patel, 637 So.2d at 419

Landry Medical Foundation, 98-1977 (La.2/29/00), ; Hutchison v. Patel, 637 So.2d at 419

Kelty v. Brumfield, 93-1142 (La.2/25/94), .

Ginn , 02-1913, at p. 10, ; Price , 96-2408, at p. 6, 693 So.3d at 1172

(La.1992), the Court held that an allegedly defective hospital bed did not fall under the purview of the MMA because there were no allegations of negligence on the part of the hospital.