Clyde Snider, Jr. v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Ins. Co.

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

12-1068

CLYDE SNIDER, JR. ET UX

VERSUS

LOUISIANA MEDICAL MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, ET AL.

**********
APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF BEAUREGARD, DOCKET NO. 2010-1220
HONORABLE C. KERRY ANDERSON, DISTRICT JUDGE

OPINION ON REMAND

**********

PER CURIAM

**********

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Billy H. Ezell and D. Kent Savoie, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Broussard, Halcomb & Vizzier
Daniel E. Broussard, Jr.
P.O. Box 1311
Alexandria, LA 71309-1311
(318) 487-4589
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS
Clyde Snider, Jr. Et Ux

Stockwell, Sievert, Viccellio, Clements & Shaddock, L.L.P.
Benjamin J. Guilbeau, Jr.
Megan L. Callahan
Marcelynn Hartman

P.O. Box 2900
Lake Charles, LA 70602
(337) 436-9491
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES
Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Comp., Et Al.

PER CURIAM

This case has been twice remanded to this court by the Louisiana State

Supreme Court. In the first remand, the supreme court reversed this court’s finding

regarding consent to the surgical procedure based on legal error. Clyde Snider, Jr.

Et Ux. v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Company, Et al., 13-579, (La.

12/10/13), 130 So.3d 922. The supreme court instructed us on remand to

reconsider that issue applying the manifest error standard of review declaring that

“compliance with the requirement of informed consent was alternatively attainable

under Subsection (A) or (C) [of LSA-R.S. 40:1299.40].” Id. at 939. In accordance

with the supreme court’s instruction we reviewed the matter applying the manifest

error standard of review and found the jury erred in failing to find Defendant

malpracticed because Dr. Yue’s actions fell below the standard of care and such

resulted in injury to Clyde Snider. The supreme court reversed, finding the jury

did not manifestly err in finding Dr. Yue’s actions did not fall below the standard

of care. Clyde Snider, Jr. Et. Ux v. Louisiana Mutual Insurance Company, Et al.,

14-1964 (La. 5/5/15), 169 So.3d 319. Although the record is complete, and despite

lengthy discussion of the case by the supreme court, the high court has again

remanded the matter to this court for a determination of the remaining issues.

The only issue remaining is Plaintiffs’ assertion that Defendant failed to

obtain informed consent because he failed to disclose his financial arrangement

with Beauregard Memorial Hospital. The supreme court has already determined

there was informed consent, and Plaintiffs cite no authority for their proposition to

the contrary based on non-disclosure of Dr. Yue’s financial incentive. We can find

no authority for Plaintiffs’ proposition. Although not addressed directly by this

court or the supreme court, the assertion that consent could be invalidated by

2

Defendant’s failure to disclose his financial arrangement with the hospital appears

to have been rejected by the supreme court in its essentially finding there was valid

consent. Plaintiffs also assert Defendants’ cross examination of Plaintiffs’ experts

and remarks made in closing argument “appealed to the locality bias of the jury”

thus somehow tainting the jury verdict. Again Plaintiffs fail to cite any persuasive

authority for this assertion and we have found none. Consequently, giving due

deference to the supreme court’s holdings in this case and their discussions therein,

we must affirm the trial court’s ruling. All costs of this appeal are assessed against

Plaintiffs.

AFFIRMED.

3