Summary
The Supreme Court of Louisiana held that plaintiffs’ claims alleging a hospital failed to properly maintain and service equipment used to sterilize surgical instruments fell within the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act. Because the claims had not first been presented to a medical review panel, the hospital’s exception of prematurity should have been granted in its entirety. The court reversed the district court’s ruling.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether claims alleging that a hospital failed to properly maintain and service equipment used to sterilize surgical instruments constitute medical malpractice under the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act.
- Whether the Hospital's exception of prematurity should have been granted in its entirety because the claims had not first been submitted to a medical review panel.
- Whether the MMA applies when the alleged maintenance failure occurred before the patient's treatment or may have been performed by hospital plant-operations personnel rather than physicians.
Holdings
- Claims that a qualified hospital failed to properly maintain and service equipment used to sterilize surgical instruments fall within the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act.
- Because the sterilization-equipment allegations constituted medical malpractice against a qualified health care provider, the claims were premature unless first submitted to a medical review panel.
- The alleged maintenance failure need not be contemporaneous with the patient's treatment or performed directly by a physician to fall within the MMA.
Key quotations
“While we do not attempt to supply a universal definition of treatment, we do hold that it does include the furnishing of a clean and sterile environment for all patients.” (slip op. at 7)
“For the reasons set forth above, we hold that the plaintiffs’ claims that the Hospital failed to properly maintain and service equipment used in the sterilization of surgical instruments falls within the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act.” (slip op. at 14)
Factual background
Richard Dupuy developed a postoperative infection, osteomyelitis, following spine surgery at the Hospital; the infecting organism was identified as mycobacterium fortuitum. The plaintiffs alleged that the Hospital failed to sterilize or clean surgical instruments and, in an amended petition, failed to properly maintain and service washers and sterilizers used in the sterilization process. Medical testimony could not identify the precise source of the infection, although an instrument or other material used during surgery was considered the most likely source.
Procedural history
The plaintiffs sued the Hospital for injuries allegedly resulting from a postoperative infection after spine surgery. The district court sustained the Hospital's exception of prematurity as to the original petition but denied it in part as to the allegation that the Hospital failed to maintain and service sterilization equipment. The Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit, denied the Hospital's writ without comment. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted supervisory review and reversed, holding that the remaining allegation fell within the MMA and that the exception should have been granted in its entirety.