Louisiana Expands Definition of Medical Malpractice Under the LMMA

It is well-established that a client in legal malpractice shall have no greater rights against their attorney than they had against the original defendant. That is, until the recent decision by the Supreme Court in Ewing v. Westport Insurance Corporation, 20-00339 (LA. 11/19/20), 2020 WL 6789490 where the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the “collectibility“ of the underlying judgment against the defendant is neither part of the plaintiff’s burden of proof nor the proper subject of an affirmative defense.

In Ewing, the defendant/attorney fax-filed a petition for damages but failed to forward the original petition within seven days as required by statute. As a result, the claim he sought to advance on behalf of Elaine Ewing prescribed. Ewing sued her attorney and his insurer.

Prior to trial, the tortfeasor testified that he would have filed for bankruptcy had an excess judgment been entered. On this basis, the defendants obtained a motion for summary judgment establishing that the underlying tortfeasor would have been unable to pay any amount above the $30,000 in available insurance coverage. Following trial, an award of $30,000 was entered in favor of the plaintiff and the plaintiff appealed.

The appellate court reversed citing to the decision in Rodriguez v. Traylor, 468 So.2d 1186, 1188 (La. 1985) which held that “the wealth or poverty of a party to a lawsuit is not a proper consideration in the determination of compensatory damages.“

The Supreme Court upheld the appellate opinion. In the analysis, Chief Justice Johnson on behalf of the majority also cited to the Rodriguez decision for the proposition that the wealth of the tortfeasor is not relevant to damages. The majority acknowledged that a majority of courts nationwide hold that the collectibility of a judgment is an essential element of a plaintiff’s legal malpractice case. It also observed “a growing trend” in other states to allow the defendant/attorney to plead collectability as an affirmative defense. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court in Ewing chose to follow neither position.

The defendants in Ewing did not argue that collectibility was part of the plaintiff’s burden. However, they did assert an affirmative defense on this basis. In rejecting this defense, the Ewing court found that nothing in statutory law of Louisiana limits damages based upon the collectibility of a judgment against a particular tortfeasor. In Ewing, it was established that the tortfeasor would have been immediately unable to pay an excess judgment. Nevertheless, the majority highlighted that a money judgment is valid for 10 years and may be revived for successive 10-year periods. As such, the court concluded that the money judgment has intrinsic value, regardless of immediate collectibility. To quote the majority, “impecunity is a snapshot in time.”

The concurring opinion by Justice Weimer reasons that there may be certain and rare cases where the underlying tortfeasor is truly judgment proof. In that circumstance, he writes that summary judgment in favor of the defendant may be appropriate but not under the record before the court.

Writing for the dissent, Justice Crain observed: “Thirty states have determined collectibility is relevant in a legal malpractice action. No state has reached a contrary conclusion, until now.” According to the majority, the absence of any statute making collectability a relevant consideration mandated the result under our civilian traditions. Justice Crain disagreed and argued that the majority opinion is inconsistent with the Code of Evidence articles which generally allow the admissibility of relevant evidence such as an inability to pay. La. L.C.E. art. 402. In support of his position, Justice Crain gave a hypothetical scenario involving an insolvent, uninsured driver who rear-ends a world-class professional athlete rendering him a paraplegic, resulting in damages and $50 million. About this hypothetical, he states:

“What did the plaintiff lose, or what harm did the lawyer cause the plaintiff, when the lawyer failed to preserve the claim against the insolvent, uninsured driver? The lawyer did not cause the paraplegia, nor did he caused a loss of $50 million, as that money was clearly uncollectible.“

To Justice Crain, the determinative question is the value of the lost judgment.

Insofar as the majority and concurring opinions highlight the absence of any statutes to support their conclusions, it would not be surprising for this issue to be considered by the legislature in coming years.

Collin is a Keogh Cox partner who litigates injury, commercial, and legal malpractice disputes. He lives in nearby Zachary, Louisiana with his wife Melissa and three all too active children. He is an outdoorsman, a tennis player, a cook, and a hobbyist writer.

This blog was written in partnership with Andrew "Drew" Blanchfield whose practice also includes professional liability defense.

Legal malpractice claims in Louisiana are governed by a peremption period that cannot be interrupted or suspended. La. R.S. 9:5605(A) provides that a legal malpractice claim must be brought one year from the date of the alleged malpractice, or within one year from the date the alleged malpractice should have been discovered. However, even when a claim is filed within one year of discovery, it must be filed within three years of the date of the alleged malpractice. If a party fails to assert a legal malpractice claim before the peremption period expires, the right to bring the claim is lost.

The Louisiana Supreme Court holds that “peremption commences to run in a legal malpractice case when a claimant knew or should have known of the existence of facts that would have enabled him to state a cause of action for legal malpractice.” In Crosby v. Waits, Emmett, Popp & Teich, LLC, the court recently examined the types of circumstances that should inform a plaintiff that an act of alleged malpractice occurred, which would trigger the peremptive period in which the plaintiff’s claim must be filed.

The plaintiff in Crosby owned 75% of a company and was in the process of buying out the minority stakeholder. The company was involved in litigation at the time. Initially, the minority stakeholder maintained all of the recovery and risk related to the suit. In April 2016, an attorney advised the plaintiff to accept an offer to split the recovery and risk in the suit 50/50 as part of the sale. The plaintiff then accepted the 50/50 offer. The litigation concluded after the sale, in February 2018, and resulted in an adverse judgment for which the plaintiff was responsible pursuant to the 50/50 agreement.

The plaintiff filed suit on February 12, 2019, within one year of the verdict in the underlying litigation, and claimed that its attorney committed malpractice when he advised that plaintiff accept the offer to split the recovery and risk in the suit. Specifically, it was alleged the attorney failed to examine the nature of the litigation or discover that the seller’s employees were aware the suit bore serious risk. The plaintiff’s representative testified that he did not keep track of the litigation and therefore could not have known the attorney engaged in the alleged malpractice until the jury rendered its verdict in the underlying suit.

However, the minority stakeholder testified that he knew the 50/50 offer was a bad deal for the plaintiff. Another employee testified he thought the risk of loss in the underlying suit was apparent to everyone involved. The court agreed. Based upon the evidence presented, “it should have been obvious to all concerned that the 50/50 option was favorable” to the minority stakeholder, who was adverse to the plaintiff’s interest.

The court held that the plaintiff should have known its attorney may have committed an act of malpractice when he advised it to accept the 50/50 split before the underlying litigation concluded. Accordingly, suit was not filed within one year of when the plaintiff should have known the alleged act of malpractice occurred. The plaintiff’s claims that it lacked such knowledge could not stand up to conflicting evidence. Thus, the claim was peremepted, and the plaintiff’s suit was dismissed.

Case References:

Crosby v. Waits, Emmett, Popp & Teich, LLC, 2022-0395 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/21/22), 352 So. 3d 145.

Jenkins v. Starns, 2011-1170, p. 15 (La. 1/24/12), 85 So.3d 612, 621.

Louisiana premises liability law continues to evolve in the wake of the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in Broussard v. State, 113 So.3d 175 (La. 2013). The Broussard decision was believed to limit the application of the open and obvious defense in the context of a Motion for Summary Judgment on liability.On February 18, 2014, the First Circuit Court of Appeals decided Gustafson v. Priority Electric, Inc., et al, 2013 CA 1096, 2014 WL 647704 (2/18/14) (not designated for publication), providing additional insight as to how Broussard will affect the applicability of the open and obvious defense. Based on Gustafson, the open and obvious defense may still be alive in the context of a Motion for Summary Judgment.While the Gustafson's home was under construction, Ms. Gustafson entered the home unescorted. She stood facing a newly repainted wall and took several steps backward to broaden her perspective of the wall. As she walked backwards, she tripped on one of two unfinished PVC conduit "stub-outs" containing electrical wire that would ultimately service floor-mounted outlets in an adjoining den. The lawsuit ensued.Priority Electric filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the stub-out presented an open and obvious condition that was readily discoverable had plaintiff exercised reasonable care. The company further argued that it had no duty to warn. The Trial Court agreed that the stub-out was an open and obvious condition and granted the motion.The Appellate Court conducted a de novo. The defendants argued, and the Trial Court agreed, that "if a defect is obvious and apparent, then there is no correlative duty to warn of its existence." Citing Broussard, the Appellate Court found that statement to be a misstatement of the law, noting that Broussard's analytic framework for evaluating an unreasonable risk of harm is classified as a determination of whether a defendant breached a duty owed, rather than a determination of whether a duty is owed ab initio.In light of Broussard, the Trial Court's reasoning underlying the grant of summary judgment was flawed. Nevertheless, the Appellate Court found a basis to support the Trial Court's dismissal of the claims utilizing a "risk-utility" analysis considering multiple factors.

1. Utility of the Stub-Outs

The necessity and utility of the stub-outs was not disputed.

2. Likelihood and Magnitude of Harm

The decision turned on this element. The utility of the stub-outs must be weighed against the likelihood and magnitude of harm presented by their defective condition, including whether the defect was open and obvious. The plaintiffs did not make a showing that any of the numerous contractors, subcontractors or visitors to the premises ever tripped. They also failed to offer expert testimony to show that the stub-outs presented an unreasonable risk of harm. Instead, they relied solely on the testimony of Ms. Gustafson, who admitted she was walking backwards and not paying attention. Unlike in Broussard, there was no evidence that the stub-outs were not "open and obvious to all who encountered them..."3. Cost of Preventing the HarmNo expert testimony was presented to show that the use of PVC stub-outs was unconventional in a new home or that there were reasonable alternatives to their use. No evidence was presented to show how the stub-outs could have been better placed or made more visible.　 Although plaintiffs argued that warning cones should have been in place, no evidence was presented to show that the contrast of the blue pipes on the gray cement was insufficient to alert an unsuspecting person.4. Nature of Plaintiff's ActivityPlaintiff was walking backwards when she fell. She acted unreasonably. The home was under construction and could have encountered a number of hazards. She failed to offer countervailing evidence on this issue.Upon balancing all of the factors above, all evidence showed that the accident would not have occurred "but for" Ms. Gustafson's own inattention and negligence.