Case Name: Myrne CAMPBELL, et al. v. Vikrom S. SOTTIURAI, M.D., et al.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2003-01-29
Citations: 839 So. 2d 421
Docket Number: No. 2002-C-2223
Parties: Myrne CAMPBELL, et al. v. Vikrom S. SOTTIURAI, M.D., et al.
Judges: (Court composed of Judge CHARLES R. JONES, Judge TERRI F. LOVE, Judge MAX N. TOBIAS JR.).
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 839
Pages: 421–428

Head Matter:
Myrne CAMPBELL, et al. v. Vikrom S. SOTTIURAI, M.D., et al.
No. 2002-C-2223.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
Jan. 29, 2003.
Writ Denied May 9, 2003.
John D. Rawls, and Judith A. Gic, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff/Respondent.
Mary Fuchs Gaudin, Mang, Batiza, Gau-din, Godofsky & Penzato, Metairie, LA, for Defendants/Relators.
(Court composed of Judge CHARLES R. JONES, Judge TERRI F. LOVE, Judge MAX N. TOBIAS JR.).

Opinion:
hTERRI F. LOVE, Judge.
The relators, Drs. Sottiurai, Brown and Brown, seek review of a judgment denying their exception of no cause of action and in the alternative motion for summary judgment.
The instant case arises out of a survival action filed by the plaintiff, Myrne Campbell individually and as the executrix of the succession of Carol Campbell, against the relators and other named defendants for medical malpractice.
All well-pleaded allegations of fact must be accepted as true when considering an exception of no cause of action. The exception of no cause of action must be decided upon the face of the petition and any attached documents. Hoskin v. Plaquemines Parish Government, 98-1825, p. 10 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/4/99), 743 So.2d 736. No evidence may be introduced at any time to support or controvert the objection that the petition fails to state a cause of action. La.Code Civ. Proc. art. 931.
The standard for granting an exception of no cause of action is as follows:
The burden of demonstrating that no cause of action has been stated is upon the mover or exceptor. In deciding the exception of no cause of action, the court must presume all factual allegations of the petition to be true and all reasonable inferences are made in favor of the non-moving party. In reviewing a trial court's ruling sustaining an exception of no cause of action, the [appellate court] should subject lathe case to de novo review, because the exception raises a question of law and the lower court's decision is based only on the sufficiency of the petition.
In appraising the sufficiency of the petition, [the reviewing court] follow[s] the accepted rule that a petition should not be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of any claim which would entitle him to relief. The question therefore is whether in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the petition states any valid cause of action for relief. The petition should not be dismissed merely because plaintiffs allegations do not support the legal theory he intends to proceed on, since the court is under a duty to examine the petition to determine if the allegations provide relief on any possible theory.
Hoskin, 98-1825, pp. 10-11, at 742 (quoting City of New Orleans v. Board of Com'rs, 93-0690 (La.7/5/94), 640 So.2d 237).
Taking all factual allegation of the petition to be true, we find that the respondent has stated a cause of action. It is not beyond doubt that the respondents can prove no set of facts in support of their claims. The respondents have alleged in their petition, among other things, that Carol Campbell signed a contract with Pendelton Hospital, consenting to treatment by their staff physicians, and that Dr. Steven D. Jones, relied on relators' opinions in treating Carol Campbell, opinions that were given without research or examination of the patient. Respondents argue that it was the reliance on these uninformed opinions that ultimately resulted in the death of Carol Campbell. We find that these allegations, accepting them as true, articulate a valid cause of action against the relators. Judgment on the facts of these allegations should be made at trial.
Relators argue alternatively that the trial court should have granted their motion for summary judgment, if it was determined that the respondents had stated a valid cause of action.
A summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the I ¡affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. C.C.P. art. 966(B).
We find that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a physician-patient relationship existed between relators' and Carol Campbell, and the extent to which Dr. Jones relied on the relators' opinions in treating Carol Campbell. Therefore, we find no error in the trial courts denial of relators' motion for summary judgment.
WRIT DENIED.
TOBIAS, J., dissents with reasons.