Derrick Gabriel v. Louisiana Organ Procurement Agency

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

10-251

DERRICK GABRIEL AND PATRICK
GABRIEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF THEIR MOTHER,
MABLE GABRIEL, DECEDENT

VERSUS

LOUISIANA ORGAN PROCUREMENT
AGENCY AND DR. THIAGARAJAN
RAMCHARAN

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 2007-1411 “D”
HONORABLE EDWARD RUBIN, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

JAMES T. GENOVESE
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Oswald A. Decuir, and
James T. Genovese, Judges.

Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, concurs.

AFFIRMED.

R. Scott Iles
Post Office Box 3385
Lafayette, Louisiana 70502
(337) 234-8800
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS:
Derrick Gabriel and Patrick Gabriel,
individually and on behalf of their mother,
Mable Gabriel, decedent

Sidney W. Degan
Richard C. Badeaux
Maryann G. Hoskins
Travis L. Bourgeois
DEGAN, BLANCHARD & NASH
400 Poydras Street, Suite 2600
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
(504) 529-3333
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Louisiana Organ Procurement Agency

GENOVESE, Judge.

Plaintiffs, Derrick Gabriel and Patrick Gabriel, appeal the trial court’s grant of

summary judgment in favor of Defendant, Louisiana Organ Procurement Agency

(LOPA). For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 5, 2006, Mabel Gabriel (Ms. Gabriel) was admitted to Lafayette

General Medical Center (LGMC) in Lafayette, Louisiana, where it was determined

that she was suffering from a massive cerebral hemorrhage. Ms. Gabriel became

comatose, was placed on a respirator, and was declared brain-dead. Ms. Gabriel’s

family then made the decision to donate her organs. Said donations were effectuated

through LOPA.

According to Plaintiffs’ Petition for Damages filed on March 20, 2007, against

LOPA and Dr. Thiagarajan Ramcharan,1 “[i]n the process of organ harvest, the

employees, agents[,] and actors on behalf of LOPA[,] spilled caustic substances onto

Ms. Gabriel’s body causing disfiguring injuries to her body.” Pursuant to

La.Civ.Code art. 2315.6,2 Plaintiffs’ suit alleged that the “[d]amages sustained . . .

1
Dr. Ramcharan performed the organ procurement surgery on Ms. Gabriel.
2
Louisiana Civil Code Article 2315.6 provides, in pertinent part:

A. The following persons who view an event causing injury to another
person, or who come upon the scene of the event soon thereafter, may recover
damages for mental anguish or emotional distress that they suffer as a result of the
other person’s injury:

(1) The spouse, child or children, and grandchild or grandchildren of the
injured person, or either the spouse, the child or children, or the grandchild or
grandchildren of the injured person.

....

B. To recover for mental anguish or emotional distress under this Article, the
injured person must suffer such harm that one can reasonably expect a person in the
claimant’s position to suffer serious mental anguish or emotional distress from the
experience, and the claimant’s mental anguish or emotional distress must be severe,
debilitating, and foreseeable. Damages suffered as a result of mental anguish or
emotional distress for injury to another shall be recovered only in accordance with
this Article.

include mental anguish associated with seeing their [m]other in a disfigured fashion,

as well as having to conduct a funeral with a closed casket thereby not being able to

properly experience the grieving process with the loss of their [m]other.”

Plaintiffs filed a First Supplemental and Amending Petition for Damages on

June 30, 2008, wherein they alleged that “Dr. Ramcharan either enjoyed an

employment relationship or an agency relationship with [LOPA].” Plaintiffs further

asserted that “[i]n accordance with the provisions of [La.Civ.Code art.] 2320,3

[LOPA] is answerable in solido with Dr. Ramcharan for his acts of negligence

causing the injuries and disfigurement to [Ms.] Gabriel and the damages claimed by

the [P]laintiffs herein.” Alternatively, Plaintiffs alleged that LOPA “provided

professional liability insurance in force, effect, and in favor of the [D]efendant, Dr.

Thiagarajan Ramcharan. Accordingly, [LOPA] is duty[-]bound to indemnify and

defend the physician for the injuries complained of herein.”

On August 22, 2008, LOPA filed an Answer to Petition for Damages and First

Supplemental and Amending Petition for Damages denying Plaintiffs’ claims. On

June 18, 2009, LOPA filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that Dr.

Ramcharan was not its employee; therefore, LOPA cannot be held liable for

3
Louisiana Civil Code Article 2320 provides:

Masters and employers are answerable for the damage occasioned by their
servants and overseers, in the exercise of the functions in which they are employed.

Teachers and artisans are answerable for the damage caused by their scholars
or apprentices, while under their superintendence.

In the above cases, responsibility only attaches, when the masters or
employers, teachers and artisans, might have prevented the act which caused the
damage, and have not done it.

The master is answerable for the offenses and quasi-offenses committed by
his servants, according to the rules which are explained under the title: Of
quasi-contracts, and of offenses and quasi-offenses.

2

Dr. Ramcharan’s actions. In support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, LOPA

attached as exhibits: Exhibit A – Agreement for the Procurement of Organs and

Tissue for Transplantation by and between LGMC and LOPA; Exhibit B – Plaintiffs’

Initial Complaint to the Commissioner of Administration, State of Louisiana Medical

Review Panel (MRP); Exhibit C – Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint to the

Commissioner of Administration, State of Louisiana MRP; Exhibit D – the Opinion

and Reasons for Opinion of the MRP dated March 18, 2008; Exhibit E – Plaintiffs’

Petition for Damages; Exhibit F – Plaintiffs’ First Supplemental and Amending

Petition for Damages; and Exhibit G – Affidavit of Kelly Ranum, Executive Director

of LOPA. The affidavit of Ms. Ranum attests, in pertinent part:

6. Dr. Thiagarajan Ramcharan is not an employee of LOPA.

7. There has never been a contract of employment between [LOPA]
and Dr. Thiagarajan Ramcharan; and, more specifically, there was
not a contract of employment or service contract in effect on or
about January 5, 2006.

8. There has never been a service contract between [LOPA] and
Dr. Thiagarajan Ramcharan; and, more specifically, there was not
a contract of employment or service contract in effect on or about
January 5, 2006.

9. There is no contractual relationship between LOPA and
Dr. Ramcharan.

10. LOPA does not have any personnel records of Dr. Thiagarajan
Ramcharan.

11. LOPA does not have any pay stubs, payment records[,] or wage
records regarding Dr. Thiagarajan Ramcharan, including services
performed in the organ recovery of Mabel Gabriel.

12. Dr. Ramcharan did not receive any compensation from LOPA for
recovering Mabel Gabriel’s organs.

13. Dr. Ramcharan has never submitted a bill for services rendered
for LOPA in the organ recovery of Mabel Gabriel.

3

14. LOPA has never provided Dr. Ramcharan with staff support
during the recovery of tissue or organs from organ donors in the
form of surgical assistance, nurses[,] or couriers, etc.[,] and
specifically did not provide such support during the recovery of
Mable Gabriel’s organs.

In their opposition to LOPA’s motion, Plaintiffs relied upon LOPA’s offering

of the Agreement for the Procurement of Organs and Tissue for Transplantation by

and between LGMC and LOPA. Specifically, Plaintiffs relied heavily upon

paragraph four therein, which states:

LOPA assures [LGMC] that it assumes total responsibility for the
actions of LOPA personnel, and that said personnel are covered by
organ and tissue professional liability insurance. LOPA will ensure only
appropriately credentialed and qualified individuals will be used to
perform organ and tissue retrievals. Physicians affiliated with LOPA
will be licensed to practice medicine and qualified and trained to
perform organ procurement services. These physicians must meet the
qualifications established by LOPA, its Board of Directors and the
United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS). LOPA personnel will
present [LGMC] with appropriate LOPA identification.

Plaintiffs argued that as a consequence of the agreement between LOPA and LGMC,

“LOPA has agreed to provide liability insurance to indemnify the physician who

made the error in this case. Therefore, irrespective of direct negligence on the part

of any LOPA employee, LOPA is duty[-]bound pursuant to its indemnity agreement

to provide indemnity, insurance, and defense for this matter.”

The matter was heard on August 24, 2009, at which time LOPA’s motion for

summary judgment was granted. A judgment was signed by the trial court on

September 8, 2009, and Plaintiffs have appealed therefrom.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

In their sole assignment of error, Plaintiffs assert that “[t]he trial court erred in

failing to find that an organ harvest surgeon dispatched by the Louisiana Organ

Procurement Agency was not a physician ‘affiliated with LOPA . . .’ so as to activate

4

the indemnification agreement that enured to the benefit of the patient and Plaintiffs.”

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Our Louisiana Supreme Court has instructed us on the standard of review

relative to a motion for summary judgment as follows:

A motion for summary judgment is a procedural device used when
there is no genuine issue of material fact for all or part of the relief
prayed for by a litigant. Duncan v. U.S.A.A. Ins. Co., [06-363
(La. 11/29/06)], 950 So.2d 544, [see La.Code Civ.P.] art. 966. A
summary judgment is reviewed on appeal de novo, with the appellate
court using the same criteria that govern the trial court’s determination
of whether summary judgment is appropriate; i.e. whether there is any
genuine issue of material fact, and whether the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Wright v. Louisiana Power & Light,
[06-1181 (La. 3/9/07)], 951 So.2d 1058[]; King v. Parish National
Bank, [04-337 (La. 10/19/04)], 885 So.2d 540, 545; Jones v. Estate of
Santiago, [03-1424 (La. 4/14/04)], 870 So.2d 1002[.]

Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726, pp. 3-4 (La. 2/26/08), 977 So.2d 880, 882-83 (footnote

omitted). Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 966(C)(2) provides:

The burden of proof remains with the movant. However, if the
movant will not bear the burden of proof at trial on the matter that is
before the court on the motion for summary judgment, the movant’s
burden on the motion does not require him to negate all essential
elements of the adverse party’s claim, action, or defense, but rather to
point out to the court that there is an absence of factual support for one
or more elements essential to the adverse party’s claim, action, or
defense. Thereafter, if the adverse party fails to produce factual support
sufficient to establish that he will be able to satisfy his evidentiary
burden of proof at trial, there is no genuine issue of material fact.

On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that “[t]he question of fact for the [c]ourt is whether

this surgeon dispatched to perform the organ harvest procedure is a physician ‘ . . .

affiliated with LOPA . . .’ so as to activate the provisions of Paragraph 4 of the

indemnification agreement.” Plaintiffs assert “[c]learly, the trial court was incorrect

in finding that Dr. Ramcharan was not an affiliated physician with LOPA since his

only purpose for being present at [LGMC] was for [the] organ harvest of

5

[Ms.] Gabriel.”

LOPA counters by arguing that Plaintiffs’ reliance upon the contract between

LGMC and LOPA is a misguided effort to establish a vicarious relationship between

LOPA and Dr. Ramcharan. We agree.

The contract between LOPA and LGMC, and specifically paragraph four

thereof, provides that LOPA will “assume[] total responsibility for the actions of

LOPA personnel[.]” In this case, no evidence was introduced proving that

Dr. Ramcharan was, in fact, “LOPA personnel.” To the contrary, the affidavit of

Ms. Ranum proves that Dr. Ramcharan was not “LOPA personnel.” Plaintiffs

wrongly rely upon an indemnity agreement between LOPA and LGMC in their effort

to prove a vicarious relationship between LOPA and Dr. Ramcharan.

Pursuant to our de novo review of the record, we conclude that the trial court

was correct in holding that Plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish

that they will be able to prove their claim at trial; thus, no genuine issue of material

fact exists, and LOPA’s Motion for Summary Judgment was properly granted.

DECREE

For the above reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of this

appeal are assessed against Plaintiffs/Appellants, Derrick Gabriel and Patrick Gabriel.

AFFIRMED.

6