Lopez v. Ochsner Clinic

Full title: GUILLERMO LOPEZ, ET AL v. OCHSNER CLINIC, ET AL

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

Date published: Apr 17, 2000

Civil Action No. 98-1916 Section "C" (E.D. La. Apr. 17, 2000)

Opinion

CIV. NO. 98-1916 SECTION "C".

April 14, 2000.

April 17, 2000.

BERRIGAN, Judge.

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion in limine to exclude evidence of discounts is GRANTED. The discount afforded the plaintiff by the hospital appears to have all of the characteristics of a benefit from a collateral source. Phillips v. Western Co. of North America, 953 F.2d 923, 930 (5^th Cir. 1992) (insurance benefits); LeBlanc v. Acadian Ambulance Service, Inc., 746 So.2d 665, 678 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1999) (insurance discount); Williamson v. St. Francis Medical Center, 559 So.2d 929, 934 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1990) (Medicare); Brannon v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co., 520 So.2d 984, 986 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1987) (hospital adjustment). Furthermore, the Louisiana Patients' Compensation Fund and Fund Oversight Board ("LPCF") is in effect a "stand-in" for the tortfeasor whose liability is not reduced by virtue of a payment from a collateral source. The LPCF also argues that it is only responsible for medical expenses as they are incurred. However, it would appear that these prediscounted expenses were in fact incurred, then discounted at a later date.

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The plaintiffs have not shown that they are entitled to "bystander damages" under La. Civ. Code art. 2315.6. In order to recover under this article, the plaintiff must prove: (1) that she ". . . view[ed] an event causing injury to another person, or . . . come upon the scene of the event soon thereafter . . ."; (2) that the harm to the injured person must be severe enough that one could reasonably expect the observer to suffer serious mental distress; (3) that she suffers severe, debilitating and foreseeable emotional distress; and (4) that she has a specifically enumerated relationship with the injured person.Trahan v. McManus, 728 So.2d 1273, 1278 (La. 1999); Dumas v. Angus Chemical Co., 728 So.2d 441, 447 (La.App. 2d Cir.), writ denied, 741 So.2d 19 (La. 1999). The plaintiff has not shown that the plaintiff's injury was "an injury-causing event in which the claimant was contemporaneously aware that the event had caused harm to the direct victim, as required for recovery of Article 2315.6 damages." Trahan v. McManus, 728 So.2d at 1280.

2. Ochsner Foundation Hospital is entitled to collect from the plaintiffs for medical charges for medical treatment necessitated by the liability of Ochsner Clinic, L.L.C. The plaintiff has not filed a memorandum opposing this issue. See also La. Rev. Stat. 9:4752; Mena v. Muhleisen Properties, 652 So.2d 65 (La.App. 5^th Cir.), writ denied, 653 So.2d 593 (La. 1995); Moore v. State for Louisiana State University Medical Center at Shreveport, 596 SO.2d 293 (La.App. 3d Cir.), writ denied, 600 So.2d 667 (La. 1992)

3. Ochsner Foundation Hospital is entitled to collect from the Louisiana Patient's Compensation Fund and Fund Oversight Board for the plaintiff's medical charges for medical treatment necessitated by the liability of Ochsner Clinic, L.L.C. to the extent that its privilege on any award to the plaintiff "from another person on account of such injuries" is placed on those funds before they are paid. La. Rev. Stat. 9:4752; Moore, 596 So.2d at 296. However, Ochsner Foundation Hospital does not argue that it is entitled to sue or bring an action against the Louisiana Patient's Compensation Fund and Fund Oversight Board, and no appeal from the magistrate judge's ruling has been made.Id.

IT IS ORDERED that the Court's ruling on the deposition objections made by the Louisiana Patients' Compensation Fund and Fund Oversight Board are as follows:

1. Deposition of Irma Mariana Guzman:

Objection 1 is OVERRULED. The objection goes to the weight to be given the testimony, not its admissibility.

2. Re: Deposition of Mark Levine, M.D.:

Objection p. 13 is OVERRULED. Although liability is uncontested, the testimony provides background to the opinion.

Objections pp. 18-19 are OVERRULED. The objection goes to the weight to be given the testimony, not its admissibility.

Objection p. 21 is OVERRULED. The objection goes to the weight to be given the testimony, not its admissibility.

Objection p. 26 is OVERRULED. The objection goes to the weight to be given the testimony, not its admissibility.

Objections pp. 27-28 are OVERRULED. The objection goes to the weight to be given the testimony, not its admissibility.

Objection p. 41 is OVERRULED. The objection goes to the weight to be given the testimony, not its admissibility.

3. Deposition of Marco Tulio Torres Guillen:

Objection pp. 22-23 is OVERRULED. The objection goes to the weight to be given the testimony, not its admissibility.

Objection p. 25 is OVERRULED. The objection goes to the weight to be given the testimony, not its admissibility.

Objection p. 30 is OVERRULED. The objection goes to the weight to be given the testimony, not its admissibility.

Objection p. 32 is OVERRULED. The objection goes to the weight to be given the testimony, not its admissibility.

4. Deposition of Francisco Javier Godoy:

Objection p. 9 is OVERRULED. The objection goes to the weight to be given the testimony, not its admissibility.

Objection pp. 25-26 is OVERRULED. The objection goes to the weight to be given the testimony, not its admissibility.

Objection pp. 26-27 is OVERRULED. The objection goes to the weight to be given the testimony, not its admissibility.

Objections pp. 37-38 are OVERRULED. The objections go to the weight to be given the testimony, not its admissibility.

Objections pp. 49-51 are SUSTAINED. The Court understands that the parties agree that the issue of whether future medical expenses are owed is a question of fact for the jury to determine, but the amount of those future medical expenses is not for the jury to determine, since they are paid by the Fund as incurred. This is in accordance with Descant v. Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund, 653 So.2d 819, 821 (La.App. 5^th Cir. 1995) when the need for future care is not in dispute, "a separate judgment approving each amount of expenses as they are incurred" is appropriate. Id., quoting, LaMark v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 522 So.2d 624, 638 (La.App. 4^th Cir.), writ denied, 526 So.2d 803 (La. 1988). If this understanding is incorrect, the issue may be revisited on motion with additional legal authority.

Objections pp. 53-54 are OVERRULED. The objections go to the weight to be given the testimony, not its admissibility.