Case Name: Jerry BICKHAM, et al v. INPHYNET, INC., et al.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2004-09-24
Citations: 899 So. 2d 15
Docket Number: No. 2003 CA 1897
Parties: Jerry BICKHAM, et al v. INPHYNET, INC., et al.
Judges: Before: CARTER, FOIL, PARRO, FITZSIMMONS, KUHN, GUIDRY, PETTIGREW, DOWNING, GAIDRY, McDonald, and McClendon, jj.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 899
Pages: 15–19

Head Matter:
Jerry BICKHAM, et al v. INPHYNET, INC., et al.
No. 2003 CA 1897.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
Sept. 24, 2004.
Marie Riccio Wisner, New Orleans, Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees Ella Bick-ham, et al.
Ronald A. Seale, Daniel A. Reed, Donald S. Zuber, Baton Rouge, Counsel for Defendant/Appellant Washington Parish Hospital Services District No. 1 D/B/A Riverside Medical Center.
David A. Woolridge, Jr., Larry M. Roe-del, Baton Rouge, Counsel for Interve-nor/Appellee Louisiana Patient’s Compensation Fund Oversight Board.
C. William Bradley, New Orleans, Counsel for Defendants Inphynet, Inc., et al.
Before: CARTER, FOIL, PARRO, FITZSIMMONS, KUHN, GUIDRY, PETTIGREW, DOWNING, GAIDRY, McDonald, and McClendon, jj.

Opinion:
JjFITZSIMMONS, J.
Defendant/appellant, Washington Parish Hospital Service District No. 1 d/b/a/ Riverside Medical Center (Riverside), was denied a dilatory exception of prematurity by the trial court. We affirm.
Jerry Bickham filed a medical malpractice claim for damages allegedly incurred in the emergency room of Riverside while under the professional care of Bascom Ya-coub, M.D. In addition to the claim for medical malpractice, Mr. Bickham also filed a lawsuit in the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court against Riverside and several other party defendants in which he alleged, among other causes, "negligent credentialing" and "negligent supervision" by the institution(s). Pursuant to his first amended petition for damages, Mr. Bick-ham asserted the following claims:
The Second Cause of Action is for negligent monitoring, supervision/direction of the Emergency Room physicians at Riverside in 1997, by LEMC and InPhyNet (through their employee/agent Dr. Bruce Kerry) and Riverside .
The third cause of Action is for the negligent credentialing (of Dr. Yacoub and the Emergency room physicians at Riverside), by LEMC, InPhyNet, and Riverside, through their employees who were charged with the responsibility of screening and verifying the credentials of the physicians accorded staff privileges at Riverside's emergency room.... (emphasis supplied.)
Riverside filed an exception of prematurity on the basis that all the claims by Mr. Bickham fell within the parameters of the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (MMA), in accordance with La. R.S. 40:1299.42 and 40:1299.47. The trial court denied the exception of prematurity. In reasons for judgment in support of its denial of the exception of prematurity, the trial court stated that "the negligent supervision claim and the negligent credent-ialling (sic) claim are outside the scope | ¡of the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act, as written and interpreted at the time that the instant suit was filed." Riverside's subsequent application for review pursuant to supervisory writs of the court's judgment was converted by this court to a motion for appeal.
It is initially observed that the Louisiana Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, strictly construed any ambiguities in the MMA against coverage because the MMA curtails the liability of health care providers in derogation of the general rights of tort victims. Hutchinson v. Patel, 93-2156 (La.5/23/94), 637 So.2d 415. The case currently before this court involves an action that arose prior to the 2001 amendment to La. R.S. 1299.41 A(8), which added to the definition of medical malpractice all legal responsibility of a health care provider arising from "acts or omissions in the training or supervision of health care providers ." The amendment to La. R.S. 1299.41 A(8) is substantive in nature and effect, supplementing those rights that were contained in the prior version of the statute. Gauthreaux v. Trosclair, 95-0549, pp. 6-7 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/28/96), 676 So.2d 213, 217. There is no express legislative intent to apply the expanded definition of medical malpractice retroactively; therefore, La. R.S. 1299.41 A(8) applies prospectively only. Hedgepeth v. Guerin, 96-1044 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/27/97), 691 So.2d 1355, 1364, writ denied, 97-1377 (La.9/26/97), 701 So.2d 983; Gauthreaux v. Trosclair, 95-0549, pp. 6-7, 676 So.2d at 217.
Williams v. State, 2000-0365 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/22/01), 801 So.2d 463, writ denied, 2001-1954 (La.10/26/01), 799 So.2d 1146, similarly addressed a claim premised on negligent hiring, albeit the purported liability involved state services, which are specifically regulated by the Malpractice Liability for State Services |4Act. In Williams, the provisions of La. R.S. 40:1299.39 A(6) limited "health care" to an act or treatment "during the medical care, treatment or confinement of the patient." Williams, 2000-0365, p. 2, 801 So.2d at 464. This court held that a hospital's alleged negligent hiring or employment of a surgeon by the hospital did not constitute "health care" by the hospital, such that it would fall within the definition of medical malpractice. Williams, 2000-0365, p. 3, 801 So.2d at 464.
The analysis employed in Williams applies to the instant case. "Health care" has consistently been defined in the MMA as "any act, or treatment performed or furnished, or which should have been performed or furnished, by any health care provider for, to, or on behalf of a patient during the patient's medical care, treatment, or confinement." La. R.S. 40:1299.41(8). At the time that Mr. Bickham's claim arose in 1997, "malpractice" was defined in La. R.S. 40:1299.41 A(8) of the MMA as follows:
"Malpractice" means any unintentional tort or any breach of contract based on health care or professional services rendered, or which should have been rendered, by a health care provider, to a patient, including failure to render services timely and the handling of a patient, including loading and unloading of a patient, and also includes all legal responsibility of a health care provider arising from defects in blood, tissue, transplants, drugs and medicines, or from defects in or failures of prosthetic devices, implanted in or used on or in the person of a patient.
Based on the outlined facts and legal axioms, the allegations of negligent monitoring, supervision/direction and credentialing fail to meet the applicable statutory definition of medical malpractice at the time the causes of action arose. Thus, the trial court's denial of the exception of prematurity is affirmed. All costs associated with this appeal are assessed to Washington Parish Hospital Service District No. 1 d/b/a Riverside Medical Center.
AFFIRMED.
PARRO, CARTER, McDONALD and FOIL, JJ., dissents for reasons assigned by GUIDRY, J.
GUIDRY, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
. The trial court initially stayed the proceedings until the rendition of an opinion by the medical review panel; however, in response to a motion for new trial filed on behalf of the Louisiana Patient's Compensation Board, as intervenor, the court ultimately rendered a judgment denying the dilatory exception.
. Acts 2001, No. 108, § 1.
. Medical malpractice claims involving state-owned or state-operated hospitals in Louisiana are subject to the provisions of La. R.S. 40:1299.39 and 40:1299.39.1.