Opinion ID: 1821924
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: whether the tort alleged was intentional

Text: For the reasons discussed, the court of appeal's characterization of Coleman's dumping claim as an intentional tort is both procedurally and substantively flawed. Indeed, the conduct in this case bears no resemblance to the type of intentional dumping cited in Pfiffner, supra, as examples of obvious negligence for which expert testimony would not be required. 643 So.2d at 1234. Accordingly, we conclude that the entirety of the conduct on which plaintiffs claim against Dr. Deno is based fits within the ambit of the statutory definition of malpractice, which expressly includes refusal to treat and treatment which should have been performed or furnished. La. R.S. 40:1299.41 A(8) and (9). Coleman's claims are therefore entirely governed by the limitations of the MMA. We now turn to the arguments relative to the malpractice claims.