# Estate of Patrick v. Board of Supervisors

> Supreme Court of Louisiana · November 22, 2002 · 836 So. 2d 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7756245

## Case

- **Full name:** ESTATE OF Andrew PATRICK, M.D. v. The BOARD OF SUPERVISORS of LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Louisiana
- **Decided:** November 22, 2002
- **Citations:** 836 So. 2d 1; 2002 La. LEXIS 3352; 2002 WL 31628770
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Application, Deny, Kimball, Knoll
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7756245

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- declining to reach issue not raised "in a timely and proper manner.”

## Opinion text

liGRANTED.
Relator failed to raise, in a timely and proper manner, the issue of a link between the SV40 virus and mesothelioma being discovered after its previous testing *2 of the tissues taken from Dr. Patrick prior to his death. Consequently, this court cannot consider that issue.
However, the lower courts erred in utilizing the test for allowing an independent medical examination (IME) to determine whether to allow further testing of the tissue. One cannot analogize testing of the tissue in this case with an IME of a living person or with the performance of an autopsy, {see In re Certain Asbestos Cases, 112 F.R.D. 427, 433 (N.D.Tex.1986)}, both of which are intrusive procedures performed on the human body. Examination of tissue preserved more than eight years ago does not differ from examination of any inanimate substance for the purpose of discovery. Therefore, the heightened test, “for good cause shown,” of LSA-C.C.P. art. 1464 does not apply.
The rulings of the lower courts denying Relator’s motion are vacated. We remand this matter to the trial court to determine whether the SV40 virus and mesothelioma link was, in fact, not discovered until after Relator’s previous testing of the tissue and, if the link had been discovered at the time of the previous testing, whether Relator’s delay was excusable. If this fact is established, the trial court shall allow Relator to perform another examination.
KIMBALL and KNOLL., JJ., would deny the application.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7756245. Public record. Not legal advice.