Summary
The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit reviewed a medical malpractice action arising from complications following multiple knee surgeries. The jury found that Dr. Richard Ballard did not breach the applicable standard of care or cause compensable injury, and the appellate court held that this finding was not manifestly erroneous despite conflicting expert testimony regarding when a referral for a second opinion was required. The court affirmed the jury’s verdict and assessed appeal costs to Karen Temple.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the jury manifestly erred in finding that Temple failed to prove that Dr. Ballard breached the medical standard of care by not referring her to another orthopedist earlier in her treatment.
- Whether the jury manifestly erred in finding that Dr. Ballard's treatment did not cause injury that otherwise would not have occurred.
Holdings
- The jury's finding that Dr. Ballard did not breach the applicable standard of care was reasonable in light of conflicting expert testimony and was not manifestly erroneous.
- Temple did not establish a basis for reversing the jury's finding that Dr. Ballard's conduct did not cause injury that otherwise would not have occurred.
Key quotations
“The issue to be decided by the reviewing court is not whether the trier of fact was right or wrong, but whether the factfinder’s conclusion was a reasonable one.” (7)
“Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.” (7)
“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the jury’s verdict.” (10)
Factual background
Karen Temple underwent left knee replacement surgery by Dr. Richard Ballard in 2015 and experienced persistent infection, dislocation, pain, and other complications requiring multiple procedures over approximately three years. After nine procedures, she sought treatment from other orthopedic surgeons, and Dr. Linschoten performed a salvage reconstruction after determining that her leg was at risk. Although a medical review panel found that Dr. Ballard breached the standard of care, trial experts gave conflicting opinions about whether and when he was required to refer Temple for a second opinion, and the jury found no malpractice.
Procedural history
A medical review panel found that Dr. Ballard failed to comply with the applicable standard of care and that his conduct was a factor in Temple's damages. Temple then filed a medical malpractice action, and the jury found that Dr. Ballard neither breached the standard of care nor caused injury that otherwise would not have occurred. Temple appealed, waiving all assignments of error except whether the trial court erred in failing to find that she proved malpractice by a preponderance of the evidence.