## Facts

- Sonya Causey, age 31, a quadriplegic in end-stage renal failure, suffered cardiorespiratory arrest and was transferred from a nursing home to St. Francis Medical Center (SFMC).
- She was comatose, quadriplegic, and in end-stage renal failure.
- Her treating physician, Dr. Herschel R. Harter, concluded continued dialysis would provide no medical benefit; he estimated only a 1%–5% chance she would regain consciousness.
- Dr. Harter acknowledged that with dialysis and a ventilator she could potentially live up to two additional years.
- The family demanded aggressive life-sustaining treatment; Dr. Harter unsuccessfully attempted to transfer her to another facility willing to provide such care.
- Dr. Harter sought review by SFMC’s Morals and Ethics Board, which agreed to discontinue dialysis and other life-support measures and to place the patient in “no-code” (do not resuscitate) status.
- Life-sustaining measures were withdrawn; on the day the ventilator was removed, Mrs. Causey died of respiratory and cardiac failure.
- The husband and parents sued SFMC and Dr. Harter, alleging an intentional tort (battery) for treatment without consent based on withdrawing life-sustaining treatment over family objection.

## Issues

1. Whether withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment without family consent is an intentional tort (battery) outside the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (LMA).
2. Whether the challenged conduct constitutes “malpractice” under the LMA, requiring submission to a medical review panel before suit.
3. Whether the trial court properly sustained an exception of prematurity and dismissed the action for failure to comply with the LMA’s panel-review requirement.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment sustaining the exception of prematurity and dismissing the lawsuit as premature.
- The court held the conduct at issue was medical malpractice governed by the LMA, not an independent intentional tort.
- Because plaintiffs did not first submit the claim to a medical review panel, suit could not proceed in court.

## Legal Principles

- A claim falls within the LMA when the complained-of conduct arises from professional medical judgment regarding treatment decisions, including decisions to discontinue life-sustaining measures.
- Allegations framed as “treatment without consent” do not remove a claim from the LMA when the dispute primarily concerns medical standards and professional judgment about appropriate care.
- When the LMA applies, a plaintiff must submit the claim to a medical review panel before filing suit; failure to do so renders the action premature and subject to dismissal.

## Conclusion

The court treated the physician’s and hospital’s decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, made pursuant to professional judgment and ethics review, as malpractice within the LMA, requiring prior medical review panel proceedings and supporting dismissal of the suit as premature.


Causey v. St. Francis Med. Ctr., 719 So. 2d 1072 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998)