Opinion ID: 1649604
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Boutte revisited

Text: Boutte relied on the MMA's expanded definition of malpractice to bring DeBattista claims within the ambit of § 5628. In support of that approach, Boutte cited several appellate decisions that purportedly took the same approach. Only two of those cases involved the prescription issue presented by § 5628; the other two cases involved the prematurity issue presented by the MMA's medical review panel requirement. [14] The latter issue undoubtedly requires utilizing the MMA's definition of malpractice; consequently, Boutte's reliance on those cases as support for utilizing that expanded definition outside of the MMA's parametersfor determining the scope of § 5628was misplaced. The principal prescription issue case Boutte cited was Walker, supra . [15] While the appellate court in Boutte rejected Walker and followed Branch's reasoning, this court in Boutte did just the opposite. This court distinguished Branch on the basis that Branch involved a pre 1976 amendment transfusion; whereas, Boutte involved a post 1976 amendment transfusion. Therefore, this court in Boutte (as in Walker ) held that the MMA's expanded definition of malpractice dictated a different result than in Branch. We conclude that the reasoning of Boutte (and Walker ) was erroneous. [16]