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- Life-sustaining measures were withdrawn; on the day the ventilator was removed, Mrs.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
- Whether withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment without family consent is an intentional tort (battery) outside the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (LMA).
- Whether the challenged conduct constitutes “malpractice” under the LMA, requiring submission to a medical review panel before suit.
- 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.