Summary
In Arnold and Richmond (discussed below), the court of appeal distinguished those cases from Perritt by contending that those cases propounded interrogatories requesting the specifics on each doctors' action or inaction and the applicable standards of care, instead of challenging the plaintiffs' claims by filing exceptions.
Summary of this case from Perritt v. DonaOpinion
No. 2001-CC-3073.
March 15, 2002
IN RE: Dona, Grant M. D.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. H, Nos. M35-2001; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 35724-CW
Granted and remanded. See per curiam.
JLW
PFC
BJJ
JPV
CDT
KIMBALL, J., would deny the writ.
KNOLL, J., would deny the writ.
These separate writ applications involve the common question of whether a defendant in a case pending in the medical review panel may compel the plaintiff to respond to interrogatories requesting information on the standard of care allegedly breached by the defendant. After reviewing the applications, we find further consideration of these cases are warranted in the court of appeal.
Accordingly, the writ applications are remanded to the court of appeal for its consideration. Upon remand, the court of appeal should render an opinion, after appropriate briefing and argument from the parties, which definitively sets forth the position of the circuit on this issue. The court should also address the case of Solomon v. Medical Ctr., 97-0783 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/14/97), 694 So.2d 1229, in its opinion.