## Facts

- Judi Milke brought her six-month-old Yorkshire Terrier, Slade, to a veterinary clinic for neutering and some dental extractions.
- Milke declined a pre-anesthetic blood panel and signed a waiver.
- Dr. Tracy Pierce performed the neuter; the procedure was described as uneventful.
- During postoperative recovery, Slade remained intubated and was monitored by a veterinary assistant while Dr. Pierce spoke with Milke in another room.
- The assistant observed shallow breathing and pulse, moved Slade to the operating room, provided oxygen, and began CPR.
- Dr. Pierce returned and informed Milke that Slade died during the postoperative recovery period.
- Defendants could not identify a specific physiological cause of death.
- Milke alleged negligent postoperative monitoring, asserting Dr. Pierce should have remained with Slade until extubation and recovery stabilized.
- Milke also alleged the clinic’s insurer acted in bad faith by improperly delaying or denying her claim.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff in a veterinary-malpractice case must present expert testimony to prove breach of the professional standard of care and causation.
2. Whether defendants’ expert affidavit supporting no breach shifted the summary-judgment burden to the plaintiff to produce competent countervailing evidence.
3. Whether res ipsa loquitur permits an inference of negligence from a young dog’s death after routine neutering.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery.
5. Whether the insurer acted in bad faith in investigating and denying the malpractice claim.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for the veterinarian, the clinic, and the insurer.
- The court held expert testimony was required to establish breach and causation on the postoperative monitoring theory.
- Defendants’ expert affidavit stating the standard of care was not breached was sufficient to support summary judgment and shift the burden to Milke.
- Milke failed to produce expert evidence linking any postoperative act or omission to Slade’s death, leaving no genuine issue of material fact.
- Res ipsa loquitur did not apply because death following anesthesia/surgery can occur absent negligence, even if statistically rare.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to compel discovery.
- The insurer’s denial and adjustment of the claim were not shown to be arbitrary or without probable cause; no bad faith was proven.

## Legal Principles

- In professional-negligence claims involving technical medical or veterinary questions, expert testimony is generally required to establish the applicable standard of care, breach, and causation.
- On summary judgment, once defendants present competent evidence supporting the absence of negligence, the plaintiff must produce evidence sufficient to show a genuine dispute of material fact; allegations, lay opinions, and generalized literature are insufficient on technical issues.
- Res ipsa loquitur requires that the event ordinarily does not occur absent negligence; known inherent risks of anesthesia and surgery can defeat that inference.
- Discovery rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; a plaintiff’s inability to meet the evidentiary burden after extended time to pursue discovery supports affirmance.
- Bad-faith claims handling requires proof the insurer acted arbitrarily or without probable cause; failure to show underlying liability supports rejection of bad-faith allegations.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal because the plaintiff lacked expert evidence that postoperative monitoring breached the veterinary standard of care or caused the dog’s death, res ipsa loquitur could not supply negligence by inference, and the insurer’s claim handling was not shown to be in bad faith.


Milke v. Ratcliff Animal Hosp., Inc., 120 So. 3d 343 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013)