DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Mijalis, 676 So. 2d 543.

51 citing documents.

  • Sylvia Woods Brown, Individually, and Roy Brown, Individually v. LSU Health Sciences Center-Shreveport through the Board of Supervisors … La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
    6/25/96), reminds that, in a lost chance case, the burden of proof by preponderance of the evidence remains: Allowing recovery for the loss of a chance of survival is not...a change or a relaxation of the usual burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
  • Faizan Farooqui and Farhat Farooqui, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Azra Farhat (D) v. BRFHH … La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2023
    6/25/96), the opinion explains that any lost chance is a compensable injury: The issues in loss of a chance of survival cases are whether the tort victim lost any chance of survival because of the defendant’s negligence and the value of that loss…Allowing recovery for the loss of a
  • Wilfred Allridge and Juanika Allridge v. William H. St. Martin, MD La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
    6/ 25/ 96), the Louisiana Supreme Court acknowledged the conceptual problem" presented by a pre- existing condition.
  • Lindsey Lambert Malbrough v. Alycia Rodgers, M.D. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
    6/25/96), - 47 (footnotes omitted), recognized that the loss of any chance of survival is compensable and discussed the proof necessary to establish same: plaintiffs were not required to prove a “reasonable” or “substantial” chance of survival.
  • Alendra Niang v. Dryades Ymca School of Commerce, Inc. and Xyz Insurance Co. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
    In providing reasons for its ruling, the trial court stated: And let me say this for the record so that it’s clear, obviously this body of law, this particular cause of action, as it is being sought to be invoked, doesn’t exist at present in this state, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s ruling in … Smith versus State of Louisiana
  • Reginald Lewis, on Behalf of Robert Lewis, Jr. v. Cornerstone Hospital of Bossier City, LLC La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
    6/25/96), and Benefield v. Sibley, 43,317 (La.
  • Roger Burchfield and Carol Burchfield v. Forrest H. Wright, M.D., Thomas Renda, M.D., and Willis Knighton Medical Center 275 So. 3d 855 La. 2018
    06/25/96), but then it found the trial court had erred in considering the jury’s award as general damages and subject to the Medical Malpractice Act’s limitation on total recoverable damages, without awarding the plaintiffs past medical awards, future medical care, and lost wages.
  • Burchfield v. Wright 224 So. 3d 1170 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
  • Deykin v. Ochsner Clinic Foundation 219 So. 3d 1234 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    6/25/96), , the Louisiana Supreme Court noted that on several occasions it has recognized the right to recover damages in medical malpractice cases for the loss of a chance of survival, citing Hastings v. Baton Rouge Gen.
  • Guidry v. Lammico 186 So. 3d 642 La. 2016
    en chance of survival because of negligent treatment of a preexisting condition, the plaintiff must prove by' a preponderance of the evidence that the tort victim had a chance of survival at the time of the professional negligence and that the 'tortfeasor’s action or inaction deprived the victim of all or part of that chan’ce[.]” Smith v. State, Dep’t of Health & Hosps., 95-0038 (La.6/25/96), .
  • Toston v. St. Francis Medical Center, Inc. 178 So. 3d 1084 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    Dept. of Health and Hospitals, 95-0038 (La.06/25/96), , the Supreme Court recognized the right to recover damages for any lost chance of survival and set forth the method of valuation.
  • Matranga v. Parish Anesthesia of Jefferson, LLC 170 So. 3d 1077 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    On appeal, the defendants assert that “loss of chance of survival is not recoverable as an element of damage in either a wrongful death or survival action,” citing the Louisiana Supreme Court decision of Smith v. State, Dep’t of Health & Hospitals, 95-0038 (La.6/25/96), .
  • Watson v. Glenwood Regional Medical Center 163 So. 3d 817 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    In the seminal case of Smith v. State, 95-0038 (La.6/25/96), , the supreme court recognized that loss of a chance of survival is “a distinct compensa-ble injury caused by the defendant’s negligence, to be distinguished from the loss of life in wrongful death cases,” id.
  • Banks v. Children's Hospital 156 So. 3d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    See: Smith v. State, Dep’t of Health & Hospitals, 95-0038, p. 1 (La.6/25/96), ; Martin v. E. Jefferson Gen.
  • Pesses v. Angelica 165 So. 3d 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    2 Cir. 10/29/04), , writ denied, 04-2908 (La.2/4/05), , citing Smith v. State, Dept. of Health and Hospitals, 95-0038 (La.6/25/96), .
  • Coulon v. Creel 142 So. 3d 79 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    at 373 , citing Smith v. State, Dept. of Health and Hosp., 95-0038 (La.6/25/96), .
  • Bolton v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center 116 So. 3d 76 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    Citing Smith v. State, Dept. of Health & Hosp., 95-0038 (La.6/25/96), , they argued that the wrongful death verdict required proof that Jody had a greater than 50% chance of survival.
  • Coody v. Barraza 111 So. 3d 485 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    Smith v. State, 95-0038 (La.06/25/96), .
  • Goudia v. Mann 98 So. 3d 364 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Smith v. State, Dep’t of Health and Hosp., 95-0038 (La.6/25/96), ; Greer v. Lammico, 34,058 (La.App.
  • In Re Medical Review Panel Claim of Dunjee 57 So. 3d 541 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    “[T]he -loss of a less-than-even chance of survival is a distinct injury com-pensable as general damages ...” Smith v. State, Dept. of Health and Hospitals, 95-0038 (La.6/25/96), ; see also Hargroder v. Unkel, 39,009 (La.App.2d Cir.10/29/04), (award for loss of a chance of a better outcome because of physician’s negligence in treating a stroke was one of general damages).
  • Bianchi v. KUFOY 53 So. 3d 530 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Smith v. State Department of Health and Hospitals, 95-0038 (La.6/25/96), .
  • Distinguished Braud v. Woodland Village L.L.C. 54 So. 3d 745 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Smith v. State of Louisiana, Dept. of Health and Hospitals, 95-0038 (La.6/25/96), .
  • Hebert v. Plaquemine Caring, L.L.C. 43 So. 3d 239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Smith v. State through Department of Health and Hospitals, 95-0038, p. 6 (La.6/25/96), .
  • Simmons v. Task Force Staffing Services, Inc. 30 So. 3d 223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    JkjIII The claimants also raised an alternative argument for imposing liability upon the employer, suggesting that Ms. Simmons’ “lost chances of survival and ultimate death were directly caused by the inaction of the Baumer management and ‘Safety’ Committee.” 4 The claimants cite and rely upon Smith v. State, Department of Health, and Hospitals, 95-0038 (La.6/25/96), , for the proposition that the loss of a chance of survival is a distinct compensable injury.
  • Beaucoudray v. Walsh 9 So. 3d 916 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    In Smith v. State, Dept. Health & Hosp., 95-0038, p. 6 (La.06/25/96), , the Supreme Court explained that "[ajilowing recovery for the loss of chance of survival is not, ..., a change or relaxation of the usual burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence....
  • Benefield v. Sibley 988 So. 2d 279 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    Smith v. State, Department of Health and Hospitals, XXXX-XXXX (La.6/25/96), .
  • Lewis v. STATE, MEDICAL CENTER OF LOUISIANA 983 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    4 Cir. 6/20/01), , citing, Smith v. State Dept. of Health and Hosp., 95-0038 (La.6/25/96), .
  • Raines v. Columbia Lakeland Medical Center 923 So. 2d 170 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
    4 Cir. 6/20/01), , citing, Smith v. State Dept. of Health and Hosp., 95-0038 (La.6/25/96), .
  • Julie Guidry v. Coregis Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • Guidry v. Coregis Ins. Co. 896 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    [3] Smith v. State, Dep't of Health & Hospitals, 95-38 (La.6/25/96), , 551 n. 9.
  • Hargroder v. Unkel 888 So. 2d 953 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    Smith v. State Department of Health and Hospitals, 95-0038 (La.6/25/96), .
  • Johnson v. Foti 844 So. 2d 1050 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    The case relied upon by defendants, Smith v. State Dept. of Health & Hospitals, 95-0038 (La.6/25/96), , does not support their contention that specific percentages must be established in *1056 a case involving the loss of a chance of survival; rather, it indicates that specific percentages, if introduced as evidence, must be considered by the trier of fact along with evidence such as loss of support, loss of love and
  • Alphonse v. Acadian Ambulance Services, Inc. 844 So. 2d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    The trial court farther stated that according to Smith v. State, Department of Health and Hospitals, 95-0038 (La.6/25/96), , damages for the loss of a chance of survival were the only item of damages at issue before the court and it was therefore prohibited from consideration of any claim for damages for loss of consortium and the like, which would normally be brought by the legal survivor of the malpractice claim.
  • LePrettre v. Progressive Land Corp. 820 So. 2d 1240 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    In Smith v. State, Department of Health and Hospitals, 95-0038, p. 6 (La.6/25/96); , the court recognized that damages for loss of a chance of survival are available where "the tort victim had a chance of survival at the time of the professional negligence and ...
  • Jackson v. University Hosp. 809 So. 2d 1145 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    In addressing the nature of a loss of chance of survival claim in the medical malpractice context, the Louisiana Supreme Court in Smith v. State, Dept. of Health & Hosp., 95-0038 (La.6/25/96), , explained that the focus is on "the damages that the defendant caused— the loss of a chance of avoiding a death that might not have occurred if the health care provided had performed properly," that the issue is "whether the tort victim lost any chance of survival because of the *1154 defendant's neg
  • Hebert v. Parker 796 So. 2d 19 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    *26 Smith v. State of Louisiana, Dept. of Health and Hospitals, 95-0038 (La.6/25/96) .
  • Thoulion v. Jeanfreau 794 So. 2d 936 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Smith v. State, Dept. of Health and Hosp., 95-0038 (La.6/25/96), .
  • LeBlanc v. Barry 790 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    of Health and Hospitals, 95-0038, p. 6 (La.6/25/96); .
  • Greer v. Lammico 779 So. 2d 894 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Smith v. State, Department of Health and Hospitals, 95-0038 (La.6/25/96), .
  • Stroud v. Golson 744 So. 2d 1286 La. 1999
    The decision of the court of appeal to affirm the jury's $1.5 million general damage verdict, reduced in accordance with the statutory cap to $400,000, for the decedent's 20% lost chance of survival demonstrates the error of the majority in Smith v. State, 95-0038 (La.6/25/96), .
  • Stroud v. Golson 741 So. 2d 182 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    In Smith v. State, 95-0038 (La.06/25/96), , the supreme court recognized the right to recover damages for any lost chance of survival and set forth the method of valuation.
  • Lovelace v. Giddens 740 So. 2d 652 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    See, e.g., Smith v. State, Department of Health and Hospitals, 95-0038 (La.6/25/96)
  • Clark v. City of Shreveport 726 So. 2d 1042 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    See, e.g., Smith v. State, DHH, 95-0038 (La.06/25/96)
  • Williams v. Jackson Parish Hosp. 729 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    2 Cir. 12/9/94), , writ granted, , 95-0038 (La.3/10/95), set aside, , 95-0038 (La.6/25/96), rehearing denied
  • McCrery v. Willis Knighton Medical Center 705 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    6/25/96), [hereafter Smith, La.].
  • Haynes v. Calcasieu Medical Transp., Inc. 702 So. 2d 1024 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Smith v. State, Dept. of Health and Hosp., 95-0038 (La.6/25/96); (1996)."
  • Graham v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center 699 So. 2d 365 La. 1997
    Moreover, the case was tried in the trial court and in the court of appeal (prior to remand) before this court outlined the procedure for determining damages for the loss of a chance of survival in Smith v. State, Dept. of Health and Hosp., 95-0038 (La.6/25/96); (1996).
  • Boudoin v. NICHOLSON, BAEHR, ETC. 698 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    However, if any damages are due, Dr. Hendler asserts that this court must perform a de novo review and reduce the award to conform to the Supreme Court's analysis in Smith v. State Dept. of Health & Hospitals, 95-0038 (La.6/25/96), , which was handed down while this appeal was pending.
  • Greer v. Lammico 688 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
  • Mullins v. State 686 So. 2d 940 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
    The most recent Supreme Court expressions concerning the cause of action for lost chance of survival came in the case of Smith v. State Dept. of Health & Hosp., 95-0038 (La.6/25/96), .