Case Name: Rosalyn SAVOY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant-Appellee
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1996-07-10
Citations: 676 So. 2d 882
Docket Number: No. 95-1496
Parties: Rosalyn SAVOY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before YELVERTON, COOKS, DECUIR, SULLIVAN and GREMILLION, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 676
Pages: 882–885

Head Matter:
Rosalyn SAVOY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 95-1496.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
July 10, 1996.
Kent Mercier, Lafayette, for Rosalyn Savoy.
Sydney Picou-Kendrick, St. Francisville, for University Medical Center.
Before YELVERTON, COOKS, DECUIR, SULLIVAN and GREMILLION, JJ.

Opinion:
DECUIR, Judge.
hRosalyn Savoy appeals the judgment of the district court sustaining the exception of prescription filed by University Medical Center. We affirm.
On June 21, 1991, Savoy sought medical treatment at University Medical Center. Savoy was approximately nine weeks pregnant and was experiencing vaginal bleeding. She subsequently miscarried the fetus.
University Medical Center is a state health care provider pursuant to the provisions of La.R.S. 40:1299.39, et seq. The statute requires that all malpractice claims against state health care providers be submitted to the Division of Administration. On June 19, 1992, Savoy filed a petition for medical review panel with the Patient's Compensation Fund, the agency to which claims against private health care providers are to be submitted. The Patient's Compensation Fund thereafter notified Savoy that the named defendant, University Medical Center, was not a qualified health care provider with the Patient's Compensation Fund under the provisions of La.R.S. 40:1299.41, et seq. Savoy's petition was not submitted to the ^proper agency until after her claim had prescribed. Savoy argues that prescription was interrupted by virtue of La.R.S. 40:1299.47A(2)(a), which provides for a suspension or interruption of prescription against health care providers who are not "qualified" health care providers under the act, and contends that the trial court erred in failing to apply these provisions in the case sub judice. The flaw in Savoy's argument is that defendant is not a "qualified" health care provider under La. R.S. 40:1299.41, et seq. because it is a state or public health care provider, not a private health care provider. The defendant is however a "qualified" health care provider under the provisions of the Public Act.
La.R.S. 40:1299.41, et seq. applies to private health care providers and cannot be relied upon to interrupt or suspend prescription in a claim against a public health care provider. Our legislature has enacted two separate medical malpractice statutes:
1. The Public Act — La.R.S. 40:1299.39, et seq. located in Part XXI-A of Title 40 under the heading "Malpractice Liability for State Services;" and
2. The Private Act — La.R.S. 40:1299.41, et seq. located in Part XXIII of Title 40 under the heading "Medical Malpractice."
Each statute contains its definition of qualified and non-qualified health care providers and its own suspension of prescription provision. The provision upon which Savoy relies is contained within the Private Act. However, since Savoy's claim is one against a public health care provider, the Public Act, La.R.S. 40:1299.39, et seq. is applicable. Thus, we find no error in the trial court's refusal to apply the provisions Savoy seeks to invoke under the Private Act in a claim against a public health care provider. To allow Savoy to invoke the provisions of the Private Act because her claim is prescribed under the applicable provisions of the Public Act would render these statutes meaningless.
^Furthermore, we note that the second circuit in Burdeaux v. Cline, 626 So.2d 1205 (La.App. 2 Cir.1993), writ denied 634 So.2d 833 (La.1994), was faced with the identical issue now before this court, i.e. whether prescription is suspended by filing of a request for review with the wrong agency. The plaintiffs in Burdeaux filed their malpractice claim against private health care providers with the Division of Administration instead of the Commissioner of Insurance (now the Patient's Compensation Fund). The second circuit held in effect, as we do, that filing with the wrong agency has no effect on the running of prescription, stating that the duty rests with the plaintiff to timely file with the proper agency.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of appeal are assessed to plaintiff-appellant.
AFFIRMED.
COOKS, J., dissents and assigns written reasons.
YELVERTON, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by COOKS, J.