Opinion

McGregor v. Hospice Care of Louisiana in Baton Rouge, L.L.C.

  • 2009 La.App. 1 Cir. 1357
  • 36 So. 3d 272
  • 95 A.L.R. 6th 783
  • 2010 La. App. LEXIS 232
  • 2010 WL 502954
Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal
Filed
Feb 12, 2010
Status
Published
Author
Guidry
On the bench
Carter, Guidry, Pettigrew
Cited by
7 cases

The opinion

GUIDRY, J.,

on rehearing.

hWe grant a rehearing for the limited purpose of clarifying our original opinion with regard to the motion for summary judgment as it relates to Kathryn Grigsby. As stated in our original opinion, Hospice Foundation of Greater Baton Rouge, Inc. d/b/a Hospice of Baton Rouge (“Hospice”), Melanie Hyatt, Katherine Braud, and Kathryn Grigsby filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims against them based on a lack of expert testimony. In addition, Kathryn Grigsby asserted that she was entitled to summary judgment because she is not and never has been a health care provider. Therefore, according to Grigsby, because she is not a health care provider and never engaged in any medical or health care relationship with Donald McGregor, there is no basis for a medical malpractice suit against her.

Reading the plaintiffs’ petition as a whole, the plaintiffs not only asserted claims in medical malpractice, but they also asserted claims for damages generally *281 under La. C.C. art. 2315. Additionally, although Grigsby states in her affidavit that she did not play any part in the discharge of Donald McGregor, she was the Administrator of Hospice during the time at issue in the instant case and stated in her deposition testimony that almost all decisions we make, including discharging a patient, are done using an interdisciplinary team approach, unless the physician discharges the patient. Several Hospice employees indicated in their depositions that it was Dr. Georgia Reine, the on call physician for Donald McGregor, who discharged Donald from Hospice. However, Dr. Reine stated in her deposition that is was Hospice who made the decision to discharge Donald, and that she merely concurred in that decision.

Therefore, from our reading of the record, we find that plaintiffs have asserted claims against Grigsby not only in medical malpractice, but also for | ¡.negligence under La. C.C. art. 2315. Additionally, we find a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Grigsby had a role in discharging Donald McGregor from Hospice’s care. Accordingly, having concluded that Grigsby is not entitled to summary judgment, we adhere to the result reached in our original opinion.

REHEARING GRANTED WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF CLARIFICATION OF THE ORIGINAL OPINION.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.