## Facts

- Goldia Neystel was transferred on February 25, 1997, to the senior-care unit at Byrd Hospital (National Healthcare of Leesville, Inc., d/b/a Byrd Regional Hospital) for psychiatric problems, including psychosis and schizophrenia.
- On admission, the hospital recorded Neystel as a high risk for falls, including because her left great toe had been amputated.
- Neystel was placed on “specialist precautions II,” which required nursing staff to observe and make contact with her at least every 15 minutes.
- In the early morning of March 18, 1997, Neystel fell while trying to get out of bed to use the toilet/bedside commode and fractured her hip.
- On March 19, 1997, Neystel’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Frank Covington, took a history from her. In deposition testimony later used in the litigation, Covington stated that Neystel told him she called for nursing staff several times for help getting up but received no assistance, could not wait longer, tried to get up on her own, and fell.
- Other record evidence indicated nursing staff checked on Neystel every 15 minutes, consistent with the precautions level assigned to her.
- At her daughter Theresa Weeks’s request, Neystel was transferred to another hospital on March 19, 1997, and she died on March 21, 1997.
- Weeks sued Byrd Hospital, Byrd Medical Clinic, Inc., and other entities for negligence/medical malpractice, alleging a breach of the standard of care in supervising and assisting a known fall-risk patient.
- Byrd Hospital moved for summary judgment, arguing Weeks had no competent evidence that the hospital’s policies or staff conduct fell below the applicable standard of care, and contending Covington’s testimony about Neystel’s statements was inadmissible hearsay.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Byrd Hospital and dismissed Weeks’s claims against it; Weeks appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Dr. Covington’s deposition testimony repeating Neystel’s statements about calling for help and not receiving assistance was admissible summary-judgment evidence to prove a breach of the hospital standard of care.
2. Whether Weeks produced sufficient competent evidence—typically including expert testimony in a hospital-care case—to create a genuine issue of material fact on breach and causation and thus defeat summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Byrd Hospital.
- The court agreed with the hospital that the portion of Covington’s deposition offered to prove the truth of Neystel’s account (that staff failed to respond to repeated calls for help) was hearsay and could not be used to create a genuine issue of material fact for trial.
- The court concluded Weeks did not otherwise present competent evidence that Byrd Hospital’s fall-risk policies or the staff’s monitoring and response fell below the applicable standard of care.
- With no admissible evidentiary support for an essential element of Weeks’s claim (breach, and related causation), Byrd Hospital was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; appellate review of summary judgment is de novo.
- In opposing summary judgment, a party must produce evidence that would be admissible at trial; deposition excerpts cannot defeat summary judgment if they rely on inadmissible hearsay offered for its truth.
- In hospital-negligence/medical-malpractice claims, a plaintiff must prove the applicable standard of care, a breach of that standard, and a causal link between the breach and the injury.
- When the alleged breach involves hospital policies, nursing monitoring levels, or similar medical-care judgments, proof of the standard of care and breach generally requires expert testimony (absent an obvious, layperson-level lapse).

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal of Weeks’s claims against Byrd Hospital because her primary proof of breach—Dr. Covington’s repetition of the patient’s statements that staff did not respond—was hearsay and not competent summary-judgment evidence, and she offered no other admissible evidence, including required expert testimony, showing that the hospital’s fall-prevention measures or staff conduct fell below the standard of care and caused Neystel’s injuries.


Weeks v. Byrd Medical Clinic, 927 So. 2d 594 (2006)