Case Name: In re Medical Review Panel Proceedings in the Matter Of Stephanie NOE
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2007-05-22
Citations: 958 So. 2d 617
Docket Number: No. 2005-C-2275
Parties: In re Medical Review Panel Proceedings in the Matter Of Stephanie NOE.
Judges: CALOGERO, C.J., and KIMBALL and VICTORY, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part and assign reasons:
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 958
Pages: 617–634

Head Matter:
In re Medical Review Panel Proceedings in the Matter Of Stephanie NOE.
No. 2005-C-2275.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
May 22, 2007.
Rehearing Denied June 29, 2007.
Adams & Reese, Arthur F. Hickham, Jr., Edward J. Rice, Jr., New Orleans, for Applicant.
Steven M. Spiegel, Metairie, for Respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
| /We granted certiorari to determine whether the court of appeal erred when it reversed the district court and held the one-year prescriptive period was suspended under the continuous treatment doctrine.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 11, 2001, Stephanie Noe sought treatment from her physician, Dr. Hill, for sinus congestion. As he had on several occasions in the past, Dr. Hill ordered a Celestone injection, which was administered in Ms. Noe's right buttock by Nurse Hahn, an employee of IMG Healthcare Network. On March 12, 2003, twenty-one months after the injection had been given, Ms. Noe filed a medical malpractice complaint against IMG Healthcare Network and Dr. Hill and later amended the complaint to add Nurse Hahn. The complaint alleged Nurse Hahn administered the injection in an inappropriate location and/or manner causing Ms. Noe continuing back, buttock and leg pain and related problems and further alleged Dr. Hill and IMG Healthcare Network were vicariously liable under the theory of respondeat superi- or.
While the complaint was still before the medical review panel, defendants filed an exception of prescription as authorized by La. R.S. 40:1299.47(B)(2)(a). The district court granted the exception of prescription on March 9, 2004.
|2On appeal, the court of appeal affirmed and further held the doctrine of contra non valentem did not apply. Moreover, the court of appeal rejected Ms. Noe's argument that she should have been allowed to amend her complaint to assert a claim against Dr. Hill arising out of his independent negligence.
This court granted Ms. Noe's application for writ of certiorari, vacated the ruling of the court of appeal and remanded the case to the court of appeal to reconsider the prescription issue in light of this court's recent decision in Carter v. Haygood, 04-0646 (La.1/19/05), 892 So.2d 1261, involving the third category of contra non valentem.
On remand, the court of appeal, applying the continuous treatment doctrine, reversed the district court and found the claim had not prescribed. Based on the conclusion that Ms. Noe's claim had not prescribed, the court of appeal pretermitted discussion of whether Ms. Noe should be granted the opportunity to amend her complaint to assert a claim against Dr. Hill arising out of his independent negligence.
This court then granted defendants' application for writ of certiorari to determine whether the claim had prescribed.
DECREE
After reviewing the evidence and considering the law, we hereby find that the claim against Nurse Hahn is prescribed. The vicarious liability claim against Dr. Hill arising under the doctrine of respondeat superior is also prescribed. However, we |sfind the introduction of Ms. Noe's affidavit and deposition at the hearing on the exception of prescription expanded the pleadings to include a claim against Dr. Hill arising out of his own independent negligence. Moreover, we find the claim against Dr. Hill arising out of his own independent negligence remains viable and is not prescribed. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeal is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.
CALOGERO, C.J., and KIMBALL and VICTORY, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part and assign reasons:
JOHNSON and KNOLL, JJ., dissent in part and concur in part for reasons assigned by CALOGERO, C.J.
TRAYLOR, J., concurs in part and dissents in part for reasons assigned by VICTORY, J.
. This court's order addressed its recent ruling in Carter and the application of an incorrect date concerning Ms. Noe's visit to Dr. Frank Wharton, stating:
Granted; the court of appeal's ruling is vacated and the case is remanded to the court of appeal to reconsider the prescrip-lion issue (1) in light of this Court's recent decision in Carter v. Haygood, 892 So.2d 1261 (La.1/19/05) involving the application of the third category of contra non valen-tem, and (2) applying the correct date of March 27, 2002 as the date Ms. Noe visited Dr. Frank Wharton.