Case Name: Scott HARRISON v. LAKE CHARLES MENTAL HEALTH, et al.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2007-03-07
Citations: 954 So. 2d 249
Docket Number: No. 2006-434
Parties: Scott HARRISON v. LAKE CHARLES MENTAL HEALTH, et al.
Judges: Court composed of SYLVIA R. COOKS, JOHN D. SAUNDERS, MARC T. AMY, ELIZABETH A. PICKETT, and BILLY H. EZELL, Judges.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 954
Pages: 249–255

Head Matter:
Scott HARRISON v. LAKE CHARLES MENTAL HEALTH, et al.
No. 2006-434.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
March 7, 2007.
Rehearing Denied May 9, 2007.
Colleen McDaniel, Assistant Attorney General, Louisiana Department of Justice, Division of Risk Litigation, Lafayette, LA, for Defendants/Appellees, Lake Charles Mental Health, et al.
Scott Harrison, General Delivery, Kerr-ville, TX, for Plaintiff/Appellant, In Proper Person.
Court composed of SYLVIA R. COOKS, JOHN D. SAUNDERS, MARC T. AMY, ELIZABETH A. PICKETT, and BILLY H. EZELL, Judges.

Opinion:
AMY, Judge.
|TThe plaintiff filed a petition asserting entitlement to damages related to termination of services by the Lake Charles Mental Health Care Center. The defendants construed the claim as one for medical malpractice and filed an exception of prematurity due to the failure to request review by a state medical review panel. The trial court granted the exception. The plaintiff appeals this determination. In this court, the defendants have filed an exception of prescription. For the following reasons, we grant the exception of prescription and dismiss the plaintiffs claim with prejudice.
Factual and Procedural Background
The record indicates that the plaintiff, Scott Harrison, filed the petition instituting this matter on August 20, 2002. In that petition, Mr. Harrison asserts that he had been treated as an outpatient at the Lake Charles Mental Health Care Center for an alleged mental health condition, but that the treatment was terminated on August 21, 2001. Thereafter, he was unable to receive the medication he asserts is necessary for his condition. This initial petition indicates that Mr. Harrison received notice of the termination of treatment on September 10, 2001. The Lake Charles Mental Health Care Center, the State of Louisiana, the Department of Health and Hospitals, and various personnel were named as defendants.
The defendants filed an initial exception of prematurity in September 2002, noting that the matter had not been submitted to a state medical review panel as is required by La.R.S. 40:1299.39.1. The exception of prematurity was granted by the trial court by judgment entered January 24, 2003.
Thereafter, on June 16, 2005, the defendants again filed an exception of prematurity, stating that, in May 2005, the plaintiff filed a Request for Expert Medical | gReview Panel. According to the defendants, the filing was again a complaint regarding denial of psychiatric medication and, as the claim had not yet been presented to a state medical review panel as is required by La.R.S. 40:1299.39.1, it remained premature. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the exception of prematurity and dismissed the plaintiffs claim without prejudice.
The plaintiff appeals the dismissal and appears to generally argue that his allegations raise claims of intentional tort and, therefore, are beyond the scope of the medical malpractice act.
For the first time on appeal, the defendants have filed an exception of prescription, and seek dismissal of the plaintiffs claim with prejudice.
Discussion
We begin by stating that review of the plaintiffs petition reveals no error in the trial court's treatment of this case as one for medical malpractice. While the plaintiffs assertions are wide ranging, they stem from his claims of termination of his treatment and his inability to obtain psychiatric medication. Thus, we turn to the exception of prescription. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 2163, permits the pleading of prescription in an appellate court in the following circumstances:
The appellate court may consider the peremptory exception filed for the first time in that court, if pleaded prior to a submission of the case for a decision, and if proof of the ground of the exception appears of record.
If the ground for the peremptory exception pleaded in the [..¡appellate court is prescription, the plaintiff may demand that the case be remanded to the trial court for trial of the exception.
As the defendants' exception of prescription was timely filed prior to submission of this case for a decision, we turn to consideration of whether the proof of the exception appears in the record.
A one-year prescriptive period is applicable in medical malpractice cases. See La.R.S. 9:5628(A). As this case is one involving state entities, this one-year period of La.R.S. 9:5628(A) is considered in light of La.R.S. 40:1299.39.1. Entitled "State Medical Review Panel," La.R.S. 40:1299.39.1 provided as follows at the time in which suit would have been timely:
A. (1) All malpractice claims against the state, its agencies, or other persons covered by this Part . shall be reviewed by a state medical review panel established as provided in this Section, to be administered by the commissioner of administration, hereinafter referred to as commissioner.
(2)(a) The filing of the request for a review of a claim shall suspend the time within which suit must he instituted, in accordance with this Part, until ninety days following notification, by certified mail, as provided in Subsection J of this Section, to the claimant or his attorney of the issuance of the opinion by the state medical review panel, in the case of the state or persons covered by this Part, or, in the case of a health care provider against whom a claim has been filed under the provisions of this part who has not qualified under this Part, until sixty days following notification by certified mail to the claimant or his attorney by the commissioner that after requesting evidence of such qualifications under this part and waiting the passage of at least ninety days, the commissioner has not received a certificate or other evidence sufficient to establish that the person is covered by this Part. The filing 14of a request for review of a claim shall suspend the running of prescription against all joint or solidary ob-ligors, including but not limited to health care providers, both qualified and not qualified, to the same extent that prescription is suspended against the party or parties that are subject of the request for review. Filing a request for review of a malpractice claim required by this Section with any agency or entity other than the division of administration shall not suspend or interrupt the running of prescription.
(b) The request for review of the claim under this Section shall be deemed filed on the date of receipt of the complaint stamped and certified by the commissioner, or on the date of mailing of the complaint if mailed to the commissioner by certified or registered mail.
B. (l)(a)(i) No action against the state, its agencies, or a person covered by this Part, or his insurer, may be commenced in any court before the claimant's complaint has been presented to a state medical review panel established pursuant to this Section.
(Emphasis added.)
The above provision indicates that no action may be commenced in court before a plaintiffs complaint is presented to a state medical review panel. See La.R.S. 40:1299.39.1(B)(l)(a)(i). The details for requesting review are specifically addressed by La.R.S. 40:1299.39.1(A)(2). There is no indication in the record that the plaintiff complied with the above filing requirements in a timely fashion. Other than a brief reference at a 2002 hearing that the initial petition was served on "Mark Dren-nan", this general information fails to indicate that the specific requirements of La. R.S. 40:1299.39.1(A)(2) were either satisfied or satisfied in a timely fashion. Any filings outside the division of administration, including those in the trial court, did not suspend or interrupt the running of prescription.
Given the lack of indication that the necessary filing was timely made with the Division of Administration, the plaintiffs claim has prescribed. Nor has the plaintiff demonstrated that he can sustain his burden of coming forward with evidence to | .^indicate that it has not prescribed. See In re Medical Review Panel for Claim of Moses, 00-2643 (La.5/25/01), 788 So.2d 1173.
We note that La.Code Civ.P. art. 2163 provides that, when an exception of prescription is filed for the first time on appeal, "the plaintiff may demand that the case be remanded to the trial court for trial of the exception!.]" Here, the plaintiffs brief inadequately requests this procedure, only briefly referencing the possibility of remand in this situation. In light of this failure and the lack of indication that the plaintiff would be able to satisfy his burden on remand, we grant the exception of prescription and dismiss the plaintiffs claim.
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, the exception of prescription filed by the defendants is granted. The plaintiffs claim is dismissed with prejudice. Ml costs of this proceeding are assessed to the plaintiff, Scott Harrison.
EXCEPTION OF PRESCRIPTION GRANTED. CLAIM DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
COOKS, J., dissents and assigns written reasons.
SAUNDERS, J., dissents.
. We note that the appellate record does not contain the May 2005 filing referenced in the exception. It is, however, affixed to the defendants' exception of prescription and reference has been made to the document for discussion purposes only. There appears to be no dispute that the request was filed in the district court.
. Furthermore, the transcript contains discussion between the trial court and the Assistant Attorney General representing the defendants indicating that the trial court has ruled on those claims falling outside of the Medical Malpractice Act.
. The statute provides:
(A) No action for damages for injury or death against any physician ., nurse ., psychologist ., hospital . duly licensed under the laws of this state ., whether based on tort, or breach or contract, or otherwise, arising out of patient care shall be brought unless filed within one year from the date of the alleged act, omission, or neglect, or within one year from the date of discovery of the alleged act, omission, or neglect; however, even as to claims filed within one year from the date of such discovery, in all events such claims shall be filed at the latest within a period of three years from the date of the alleged act, omission, or neglect.