Case Name: Velma PRATT, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. R. Bruce WILLIAMS, M.D., Charles Knight, Jr., M.D., William P. Spillers, M.D., Defendants-Appellees
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1995-05-10
Citations: 658 So. 2d 4
Docket Number: Nos. 26,903-CA to 26,905-CA
Parties: Velma PRATT, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. R. Bruce WILLIAMS, M.D., Charles Knight, Jr., M.D., William P. Spillers, M.D., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MARVIN, NORRIS and STEWART, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 658
Pages: 4–5

Head Matter:
Velma PRATT, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. R. Bruce WILLIAMS, M.D., Charles Knight, Jr., M.D., William P. Spillers, M.D., Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 26,903-CA to 26,905-CA.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
May 10, 1995.
Rehearing Denied June 15, 1995.
Velma Pratt, in pro. per.
Cook, Yancey, King & Galloway by Cynthia A. Anderson, Shreveport, for R. Bruce Williams, appellee.
Pugh, Pugh & Pugh by Lamar P. Pugh, Shreveport, for William Spillers, appellee.
Blanchard, Walker, O’Quinn & Roberts by A.M. Stroud, III, Shreveport, for Charles Knight, appellee.
Before MARVIN, NORRIS and STEWART, JJ.

Opinion:
|, MARVIN, Chief Judge.
In this action by pro se plaintiffs, Velma and Harry Pratt appeal a summary judgment dismissing their demands for damages against three doctor defendants arising out of a diagnosis of a lump in Velma Pratt's breast as being cancerous and the resulting modified radical mastectomy undertaken a few days later. The summary judgment was granted after some delays when plaintiffs acknowledged their inability to procure expert medical testimony establishing the respective standard of care and how that respective standard was breached by each doctor.
Relying on appellate jurisprudence, the trial court granted the summary judgment before Pfiffner v. Correa, No. 94-0924 (La.1994), 643 So.2d 1228, rehearing denied, was rendered. Pfiffner held that negligence in a physician's conduct may be perceived by a trier of fact where the defendanffphysician testifies as to the standard of care and there is objective evidence, "including the testimony of the defendant/physician, which demonstrates a breach thereof." The court clearly pronounced that "expert testimony is not always necessary in order for a plaintiff to meet his burden of proof in . a medical malpractice claim." 643 So.2d at 1234.
We therefore reverse the summary judgment at defendants' cost and remand for further proceedings.
Before MARVIN, NORRIS, LINDSAY, HIGHTOWER and STEWART, JJ.