Opinion ID: 1728490
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: statutory right to trial by jury

Text: La.Code Civ.P. arts. 1731 and 1732 deal with the right to trial by jury in all civil cases and the limitations on that right. In pertinent part, these articles provide: Art. 1731(A): Except as limited by Article 1732, the right to trial by jury is recognized. Art. 1732: A trial by jury shall not be available in: . . . . (6) All cases where a jury trial is specifically denied by law. We have held that, under this statutory scheme, there is a right to trial by jury in all civil cases unless this right has been expressly denied by law. Jones v. City of Kenner, 338 So.2d 606 (La.1976); Champagne v. American Southern Insurance Co., 295 So.2d 437 (La.1974). Hence, the initial inquiry is whether a law specifically denies a medical malpractice claimant who has settled with the insurer the right to trial by jury on the amount of damages recoverable from the Fund. There is no such prohibition in the medical malpractice act. The section dealing with settlement mechanics, La.R.S. 40:1299.44(C), does not specify whether a judge or jury shall determine the amount of post-settlement damages. It provides merely that the court shall set the amount of damages in excess of the amount already paid by the insurer. Nowhere in the act is there a directive that this reference to the court should mean either a judge or jury. It could be that the court is synonymous with the trier of fact. Clearly, the ambiguous reference to the court in the medical malpractice act is insufficient to deprive a claimant of a jury trial. Similarly, there is no prohibition against a jury determination of post-settlement damages in La.R.S. 13:5105. This statute provides: No suit against the state or a state agency or political subdivision shall be tried by jury. Because a suit under the medical malpractice act is against the health care provider and not against the Fund, an alleged state agency, La.R.S. 13:5105 is inapplicable. From the inception to the conclusion of a medical malpractice proceeding, the action is against only the health care provider. See Forstall v. Hotel Dieu Hospital, 429 So.2d 213 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 433 So.2d 1054 (La.1983). La.R.S. 40:1299.47(A)(1) provides that all malpractice claims against health care providers  (emphasis added) shall first be reviewed by a medical review panel. If, after an agreement to a settlement, the claimant demands an excess amount from the Fund, a petition is filed by the claimant in the court in which the action is pending against the health care provider.  Id. § 1299.44(C)(1) (emphasis added). La.R.S. 40:1299.44(B) provides that the only claim against the Fund shall be a request by the commissioner after he receives a certified copy of a final judgment, court approved settlement or final award in an arbitration proceeding in excess of one hundred thousand dollars against a health care provider  (emphasis added). Hence, the only party defendant contemplated by the medical malpractice act is the health care provider. [15] The Fund is not specified as a party defendant against whom the action can be brought under the act. [16] If the legislature had intended that the Fund may be a party defendant, it could have so provided as it has done in numerous statutes involving suits against other alleged state agencies, state officers or political subdivisions. See, e.g., La.R.S. 18:1402 (election contests); La. R.S. 23:1634 (unemployment compensation); La.R.S. 40:62 & 68 (birth certificates); La. R.S. 49:461 (suits against state ministerial officers). Therefore, a medical malpractice action is not a suit against the Fund, and La.R.S. 13:5105 is inapplicable. Because of this holding, we do not reach whether the Fund is a state agency within the definition of La.R.S. 13:5102(A). As there are no laws that expressly deny a medical malpractice claimant a jury trial on the amount of post-settlement damages recoverable from the Patient's Compensation Fund, the claimant is statutorily entitled to trial by jury. Because of this ruling, we do not reach the constitutionality of La.R.S. 40:1299.44(C)(5), La.R.S. 13:5105 and La.Code Civ.P. art. 1732.