Lawsuit "Tripped Up" by Open and Obvious Defense

Under the Louisiana Health Emergency Powers Act (“LHEPA”), a plaintiff must establish a medical provider’s gross negligence in a medical malpractice case when the treatment at issue occurred during a declared state of public health emergency.^ However, the Louisiana Supreme Court recently ruled that a medical review panel shall not consider gross negligence when the medical treatment occurred during a declared state of public health emergency.

In Sebble v. St. Luke’s, the plaintiff instituted a medical review panel for a medical malpractice claim related to medical treatment provided from June 17, 2020 to June 24, 2020. This treatment was received during a declared state of public health emergency. Sebble asked the court for a declaratory judgment to state that the gross negligence standard, usually applied during a state of public health emergency, should not be considered or applied in medical review panel proceedings conducted pursuant to the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (“LMMA”).

In response, the health care provider also sought a declaratory judgment that LHEPA’s standard of gross negligence applied and that the medical review panel must consider and analyze the claim under the gross negligence standard. The trial court ruled in favor of Sebble declaring that the gross negligence standard shall not be considered or applied in the medical review panel proceeding. The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed.

The Louisiana Supreme Court examined provisions of the LMMA and the LHEPA and affirmed the trial court and court of appeal. The court agreed there is a distinction between a medical standard of care (considered by the medical review panel) and a legal standard of care (dictated by the LHEPA). The panel of medical experts is only qualified to render an opinion based on the medical standard of care. The panel’s opinion is then considered by the trier of fact in making a judicial determination.

Medical review panels include an attorney chairperson. However, the Supreme Court stated that the attorney chairperson is not authorized to instruct the panel on gross negligence. The Supreme Court also rejected a proposed two-step process where the panel would first determine whether the medical provider breached the standard of care; and only if the panel found a breach would it consider whether there was gross negligence. The Court rejected this proposal because the legislature did not provide for this process in the statute.

Although the Court agreed that the LHEPA is an immunity statute, it made clear that immunity is an affirmative defense that can only be plead in civil litigation. The statute provides for two defenses at the panel stage: right of action and prescription. Therefore, immunity provided under the LHEPA may not be invoked until a civil action is instituted district court.

However, Sebble was 4-3 decision, with a dissent by Justices Weimer, Cain, and McCallum, which may suggest this issue could resurface in the future. For now, under Sebble, gross negligence is not to be considered by the medical review panel.

References:

Sebble v. St. Luke’s, 2023-C-00483 (La. 10/20/23), 379 So.3d 615.

^ La. R.S. 29:766(A).

The Fourth Circuit recently affirmed summary judgment Keogh Cox obtained in Clark v. Premier Automotive Management, LLC, finding the plaintiff’s circumstantial evidence failed to establish an unreasonable risk of harm caused her to fall.

In Clark, the plaintiff claimed she was injured after slipped and fell in a puddle of water in a service garage. Keogh Cox attorneys Chad A. Sullivan and Cole C. Frazier filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of the defendants in response. The defendants asserted that the plaintiff failed to submit sufficient proof to establish that standing water or a hazardous condition caused her fall. Specifically, the defendants maintained that the plaintiff could not establish (1) an unreasonable risk of harm existed within the garage or (2) the puddle of water existed on the garage floor for an extended period of time.

The plaintiff’s deposition testimony established that it rained earlier in the day, that she was walking quickly before she fell, and that she was wearing flip flops. The plaintiff also testified she assumed she fell in a puddle of water because her back was damp after her fall. She described the amount of water under her shoes as the size of a “softball.”

The defendants also attached the affidavits of two employees who worked at the service garage on the day of the incident. The affidavits acknowledged wet conditions on the day of the incident but denied any prior complaints or accidents in the area. The affidavits also established that the plaintiff fell in an uncovered area of the garage that slopes downward. Thus, there was no possibility for standing water or puddles to collect.

Based upon this evidence, the appellate court found that the defendants satisfied their burden of proof to show there was no unreasonable risk of harm. The court stated the burden then shifted to the plaintiff to establish that there was an unreasonable risk of harm and thus establishing a genuine issue of material fact. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to meet her burden because all her arguments were based upon conclusory allegations and unsupported speculation. To support her claims, the plaintiff could only cite to the “possibility” of the existence of standing water or puddles. As such, the plaintiff only speculated whether a hazardous substance or an unreasonable risk of harm caused her fall. Such speculation was insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact.

In so holding, the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims that Keogh Cox obtained through summary judgment.

References:

Clark v. Premier Auto. Mgmt., LLC, 2024-0397 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/10/25), --- So.3d ---, 2025 WL 451473.

In Louisiana, a “statutory employer” is entitled to protection from tort suit. With limited exceptions, the defense must be supported by a contractual provision declaring the defendant to be a statutory employer in a manner consistent with La. RS 23:1061. In Spears v. Exxon Mobil Corporation & Turner Industries Group, LLC, 2019-0309, 291 So. 3d 1087 (La. App. 1^st Cir. 2019), the defendant-premises owner successfully asserted the defense, notwithstanding multiple issues with respect to the nature and terms of the agreement and an alleged lack of privity with the plaintiff’s immediate employer.

In Spears, the plaintiff was injured when he slipped and fell on the production floor at the Exxon plastics plant. Spears filed suit against multiple parties, including Exxon, alleging it failed to provide a safe premises. The plaintiff worked for Poly Trucking who operated at Exxon under a contract with Polly-America. Poly-America, LP and Exxon, in turn, were signatories to an agreement entitled "STANDARD PURCHASE ORDER" which stated that Polly-America was to:

"… provide pickup/delivery service… For all containers of Polyethylene scrap as well as Polyethylene's scrap recovery vacuum service for a quoted amount of one dollar.”

The "STANDARD PURCHASE ORDER" also contained a section expressly recognizing Exxon:

“… as the statutory employer of employees of Poly America and subcontractors while such employees are engaged in the contracted work.”

Exxon filed a motion for summary judgment based upon its status as Spears’ statutory employer. The Trial Court granted the motion and dismissed Exxon with prejudice. On appeal, Spears argued that the contract between Exxon and Poly-America presented multiple issues of fact and law which necessitated a reversal of the summary judgment. The issues identified by the plaintiff included the following:

1. The agreement upon which Exxon relied was a “Contract of Sale,” not a “Contract for Services;”
2. The agreement specified that the signatory contractor (Poly America) was an "Independent Contractor;"
3. The plaintiff’s immediate employer (Poly Trucking) was neither a signatory to, nor specifically identified anywhere in the agreement; and,
4. Although the agreement designated Exxon as the statutory employer of the “employees of Poly America,” Exxon is not specifically designated as the statutory employer of the employees of Poly Trucking, the plaintiff’s immediate employer.

The First Circuit Court of Appeal expressly rejected each of the plaintiff's arguments.

First, the Court pointed out that the law does not mandate that the contract containing the statutory employment language be of any particular type. As such, whether the contract was considered a contract of sale or for services was irrelevant.

Secondly, the Court rejected the claim that contractual language describing Exxon as an “independent contractor” required a rejection of the statutory defense. The Spears Court reasoned that nothing in La. RS 23:1061 prevents an independent contractor from entering into a written agreement whereby the principal to that contract is recognized as the statutory employer of the employees of the contractor and its subcontractors.

Finally, the Court rejected the claim the defense should be rejected because the plaintiff’s immediate employer was not a party to the contract. As discussed in Spears, the law provides that the contract establishing statutory employment can be with either the plaintiff’s immediate employer or the plaintiff’s statutory employer, and Poly America qualified as the plaintiff’s statutory employer under the “two contract” theory because the work that Poly America subcontracted to the plaintiff’s immediate employer (Poly Trucking) was included within Poly America’s “STANDARD PURCHASE ORDER” contract with Exxon.

The Spears opinion highlights that the statutory defense should be maintained, even under unusual facts, when the requirements of La. RS 23:1061 are satisfied.