Louisiana courts traditionally have ruled claims of administrative negligence fell outside of the purview of the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (LMMA). Courts found the LMMA applied strictly to cases “arising from medical malpractice.” In cases where Plaintiffs argued medical administrative failure, courts applied general tort law. This meant that the LMMA’s key protections— the statutory cap on damages and the requirement for a pre-suit medical review panel— did not apply to claims based on alleged administrative failures.
The following cases illustrate this point:
- In LaCoste v. Pendleton Methodist Hosp., Plaintiff alleged a hospital failed to maintain its life-support equipment and implement emergency evacuation plans.^
- In Blevins v. Hamilton Med. Ctr., Inc., Plaintiff alleged the hospital failed to provide him with equipment in proper working condition, to keep his bed in lowest position with wheels locked, and to properly instruct him on proper use and safety of his bed.*
- In Scio v. University Med. Mgmt. Corp., Plaintiff alleged the defendant failed to implement policies to ensure that follow up appointments were properly communicated.^^
- In Billeaudeau v. Opelousas Gen. Hosp. Auth., Plaintiff alleged the hospital was negligent in its credentialing of a doctor in the emergency department.**
The Louisiana Supreme Court used the “Coleman factors” established in Coleman v. Deno^^^ to determine whether the alleged conduct in these cases could constitute “malpractice.” These factors assess (1) whether the alleged conduct is treatment-related, (2) whether expert testimony is required to examine the claim, (3) whether assessment of the patient’s condition was involved, (4) whether it involves a physician-patient relationship, (5) whether the injury would have occurred absent treatment, and (6) whether the act was intentional. Considering these factors in each of the cases outlined above, the Court found the LMMA did not apply.
However, recent legislative amendments expanded the LMMA’s scope and raise questions about how these cases would be decided now. Effective August 1, 2025, new amendments broaden the definitions of “health care” and “malpractice” under La. R.S. 40:1231.1 to include administrative and managerial actions that are necessary for delivering medical care. While the full text of the new statute should be considered when evaluating any pending or potential claims, a summary is provided here.
Under the amended statute:
“Health care” now includes any act, treatment, “administration, service, or care related to policies and procedures and the administration thereof, staffing, custodial services by licensed or certified staff…” Further, the amendment expressly provides that the definition of health care “includes all acts associated with the medical treatment of an individual, whether directly related to clinical care or performed in an administrative or managerial capacity necessary for the delivery of such care.”
Additionally, under the amendment, the definition of “malpractice” now explicitly covers all acts tied to staffing and expressly includes “all acts associated with the medical treatment of an individual, whether directly related to clinical care or performed in an administrative or managerial capacity necessary for the delivery of such care.”
These amendments suggest the cases outlined above may have been decided differently if they were filed today. However, it remains to be seen how courts will apply these changes moving forward.
References:
^ LaCoste v. Pendleton Methodist Hosp., LLC, 07-0008 (La. 9/5/07), 966 So. 2d 519.
* Blevins v. Hamilton Med. Ctr., Inc., 2007-127 (La. 6/29/07), 959 So. 2d 440, 442, 443.
^^ Scio v. University Med. Mgmt. Corp., 19-1319 (La. 10/21/19), 280 So. 3d 1135.
** Billeaudeau v. Opelousas Gen. Hosp. Auth., 2016-0846 (La. 10/19/16), 218 So. 3d 513, 515.
^^^ Coleman v. Deno, 2001-1517 (La. 1/25/02), 813 So. 2d 303, 316.