DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 636 So. 2d 211.

59 citing documents.

  • Medical Review Panel Proceedings for the Claim of Rhoda Timpton v. Touro Infirmary and Dr. Richard L. Meyer … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
    “Superimposed upon [the discovery rule], 6 however, is an overall limitation upon the discovery rule's operation to a period of three years from the date of the alleged act, omission or neglect.” Branch v. Willis– Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086 at p. 17 (La.4/28/94)
  • Michael M. Mulkey, Sr. v. Century Indemnity Company, Petroleum Casualty Company, James Ralph Vannoy, R.H. Bretz, Ralph F. … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
  • Joe Oliver v. Magnolia Clinic La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    Despite the supreme court’s that the statute did not violate equal protection, and in Branch v. Willis-Knighten Medical Center, 92-3086 (La.4/28/94), overruled on other grounds, David v. Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, 02-2675 (La.
  • Becker v. Murphy Oil Corp. 70 So. 3d 885 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    in Court quoted at length from Eastin v. Entergy Corp. to expressly distinguish the facts of the case from long-latency cases: We distinguish the instant case from those in which the doctrine has traditionally applied: those cases involving medical malpractice factions (In Re: Medical Review Panel of Howard, Branch v. Willis- Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086 (La.4/28/94), (Prescriptive period did not commence until plaintiffs discovered the damage, the delict and their relationship, when disease
  • Russo v. Kraus 52 So. 3d 876 La. 2011
    -09 (La.1986); see also, Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086, pp. 9-10 (La.4/28/94), , overruled on other grounds in David v. Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, 02-2675 (La.07/02/03), .
  • Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 48 So. 3d 234 La. 2010
    covery rule in non-medical malpractice cases, there is a distinction from how that rule is applied in medical malpractice cases: We distinguish the instant case from those in which the doctrine has traditionally applied: those cases involving medical malpractice actions (In Re: Medical Review Panel of Howard, Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086 (La.4/28/94), (Prescriptive period did not commence until plaintiffs discovered the damage, the delict and their relationship, when disease
  • Hanks v. Seale 904 So. 2d 662 La. 2005
    Ctr., 92-3086, p. 14 (La.4/28/94), .
  • Bailey v. Khoury 891 So. 2d 1268 La. 2005
    Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086, p. 1 *1276 (La.4/28/94), .
  • Carter v. Haygood 892 So. 2d 1261 La. 2005
    Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086 at p. 17 (La.4/28/94), .
  • Randazzo v. LA. STATE UNIV. HEALTH SCIENC. 879 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086 at p. 17 (La.4/28/94), .
  • Randazzo v. State, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center 879 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    “Superimposed upon [the discovery rule], however, is an overall limitation upon the discovery rule’s operation to a period of three years from the date of the alleged act, omission or neglect.” Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086 at p. 17 (La.4/28/94), .
  • Eastin v. Entergy Corp. 865 So. 2d 49 La. 2004
    [4] We distinguish the instant case from those in which the doctrine has traditionally been applied: those cases involving medical malpractice actions ( In Re: Medical Review Panel of Howard, Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086 (La.4/28/94), [Prescriptive period did not commence until plaintiffs discovered the damage, the delict and their relationship, when disease was diagnosed]); long-latency diseases ( Brown v. R.J.
  • Day v. MOREHOUSE GENERAL HOSP. 865 So. 2d 924 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    In Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086 (La.4/28/94), , the supreme court ruled that for a cause of action vested prior to the enactment of the blood shield laws, the plaintiff and other pre-1981 recipients of defective blood could not be divested of their rights against providers of blood.
  • Brenda Sue Carter, Et Ux. v. Gary Stephen Haygood, Dds La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    “Superimposed upon [the discovery rule], however, is an overall limitation upon the discovery rule’s operation to a period of three years from the date of the alleged act, omission or neglect.” Branch v. Willis- Knighten Medical Center, 92-3086 at p. 17 (La.4/28/94)
  • Carter v. Haygood 865 So. 2d 824 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    “Superimposed upon [the discovery rule], however, is an overall limitation upon the discovery rule’s operation to a period of three years from the date of the alleged act, omission or neglect.” Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086 at p. 17 (La.4/28/94), .
  • Grant v. Tulane University 853 So. 2d 651 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086 (La.4/28/94), ; Hoerner v. Wesley-Jensen, supra .
  • David v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc. 849 So. 2d 38 La. 2003
    The Branch, Boutte, Williams decisions: In 1994, Justice Dennis again wrote for the majority in Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086 (La.4/28/94), .
  • Ginn v. Woman's Hospital Foundation, Inc. 842 So. 2d 338 La. 2003
    Ctr., 92-3086 (La.4/28/94), .
  • Chauvin v. Sisters of Mercy Health System, St. Louis, Inc. 818 So. 2d 833 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    Co. of N.Y ., the 1971 case relied upon so heavily in DeBattista , is significant because it marks the point at which the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the strict products liability in tort theory reflected in Restatement (Second), § 402 A. Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086 (La.4/28/94), .
  • Lucas v. Tenet Health System Hospitals, Inc. 818 So. 2d 269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    [W]e are satisfied that our abandonment of Branch’s [Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086 (La.4/28/94), ] traditional medical malpractice analysis in favor of Boutte’s expanded approach was wrong.
  • Netherland v. Ethicon, Inc. 813 So. 2d 1254 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    In Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Ctr., 92-3086 (La.4/28/94), , the court examined the language of La.
  • Williams v. Jackson Parish Hospital 798 So. 2d 921 La. 2001
    [10] *926 Addressing the nature of a DeBattista claim against a hospital for purposes of determining the applicable prescriptive period, this court in Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086 (La.4/28/94), , concluded that such claims are not malpractice claims governed by § 5628 since the language in that special prescriptive statute neither "mention[s] strict liability or products liability," nor "contain[s] the terms and concepts indispensable to the definition, classification and ad
  • Webre v. Hospital Service District No. 1 of the Parish of Terrebonne 798 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    The Cedotal court relied on Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086 (La.4/28/94), .
  • In Re Medical Review Panel, Claim of Moses 788 So. 2d 1173 La. 2001
    Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086 at p. 17 (La.4/28/94), .
  • Abney v. Charity Hospital in New Orleans 787 So. 2d 1123 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    .must be strictly construed against limiting the tort claimants’ rights against the wrongdoer.” Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086 (La.4/28/94), ; Kelty v. Brumfield, 93-1142 (La.2/25/94), ; Roberts v. Sewerage & Water Board, 92-2048 (La.3/21/94), ; Galloway v. Baton Rouge Gen.
  • St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Eusea 775 So. 2d 32 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    See Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086, p. 9 (La.4/28/94), .
  • Halle v. Our Lady of Lake Hospital, Inc. 779 So. 2d 10 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    The holding in Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086 (La.4/28/94), was distinguished in Boutte because the blood transfusion in Branch occurred prior to the 1976 statutory reference in the Medical Malpractice Act to defective blood implanted in a patient.
  • Ginn v. Woman's Hosp. Foundation, Inc. 770 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Noting that the blood transfusions allegedly contaminated with hepatitis C were received by plaintiff prior to the effective date of the amendment, a case she sets forth as "factually indistinguishable" from the case at hand, in support of her position.
  • Seal v. ST. TAMMANY PARISH HOSPITAL 848 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    The factual distinctions previously relied on by this Court, cannot serve to defeat plaintiffs' strict liability claim in this case.
  • Boutte v. Jefferson Parish Hosp. Serv. 759 So. 2d 45 La. 2000
    Ctr., 92-3086 (La.4/28/94), , dictate a contrary result.
  • Johns v. Agrawal 748 So. 2d 514 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086, p. 14 (La.4/28/94), ; see also Hutchinson v. Patel, 93-2156, p. 5 (La.5/23/94), , and cases cited therein.
  • Calvert v. Sisters of Charity 738 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    Calvert counters this argument by pointing to the 1976 amendment to the Act's definition for malpractice and to the rationale of the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086 (La.4/28/94), .
  • Acosta v. Campbell 744 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • Boutte v. Jefferson Parish Hospital Service District No. 1 738 So. 2d 1188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    In Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086 (La.4/28/94), , the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed the issue we now face and concluded that claims of plaintiffs who sustained injury, infection, or disease from contaminated blood prior to the enactment dates of Civil Code article 2322.1 and LSA-R.S.
  • Yokem v. SISTERS OF CHARITY OF INCARNATE 742 So. 2d 906 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    In their petition, the plaintiffs alleged that the parties' counsel had agreed that no further action would be taken by either the plaintiffs or defendant regarding prosecution of plaintiffs' claims until the Louisiana *909 Supreme Court had rendered judgment in the subsequently decided case of Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086 (La.4/28/94), .
  • Neal v. PENDLETON MEMORIAL METHODIST HOSP. 733 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    Instead, the trial court concluded that the case was governed by Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086 (La.4/28/94), .
  • Foraker v. BOARD OF SUP'RS OF STATE UNIV. 734 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086 (La.4/28/94), .
  • Broussard v. FA Richard & Associates, Inc. 732 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    9:5628, and cited the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Ctr., 92-3086, p. 7 (La.4/28/94), .
  • Williams v. Jackson Parish Hosp. 729 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    Like Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086 (La.1994), , the injury in the instant case, a blood transfusion, occurred prior to the effective dates of La.
  • Conerly v. State 714 So. 2d 709 La. 1998
    Ctr., 92-3086, p. 14 (La.4/28/94), ; Rodriguez v. Louisiana Med.
  • Pevey v. Lallie Kemp Regional Medical Center 713 So. 2d 1258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Accordingly, we pretermit any discussion of the plaintiffs claim sounding in strict product liability and the jurisprudence dealing with same, such as Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086 (La.4/28/94), [3] ; Cedatol v. Community Blood Center of Louisiana, Inc., 93-1167 (La.App.
  • Walker v. Bossier Medical Center 714 So. 2d 895 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    [3] 92-3086 (La.4/28/94), .
  • Ruiz v. Oniate 713 So. 2d 442 La. 1998
    Ctr., 92-3086, p. 14 (La.4/28/94), ; Rodriguez v. Louisiana Med.
  • Anderson v. Beauregard Memorial Hosp. 709 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    Applying the one-year prescriptive period found to be applicable in these strict tort product liability cases by Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086 (La.4/28/94); , rather than the special rule of prescription applicable to medical malpractice actions, the trial court found the Andersons' claims had prescribed.
  • Douglass v. Alton Ochsner Medical Foundation 704 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    Plaintiffs urge this Court to follow the holding in Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086 (La.4/28/94), , which allowed an action in strict tort products liability against a hospital by a plaintiff who contracted hepatitis from a blood transfusion.
  • Price v. City of Bossier City 693 So. 2d 1169 La. 1997
    Ctr., 92-3086, p. 14 (La.4/28/94), ; Rodriguez v. Louisiana Med.
  • DeBlanc v. Touro Infirmary 686 So. 2d 1015 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
    In the Cedotal decision, (La.
  • Explained Hoerner v. Wesley-Jensen 684 So. 2d 508 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
  • Pendleton v. Barrett 675 So. 2d 720 La. 1996
    4/28/94); ; Kelty v. Brumfield, 93-1142 (La.
  • Marsh Engineering, Inc. v. Parker 688 So. 2d 1042 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    4/28/94); , requires us, nevertheless, to narrowly interpret the statute's scope and limit its reaches to "actions traditionally viewed as sounding in legal malpractice."