Opinion ID: 1821924
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Standard for defining a medical malpractice claim

Text: In determining whether certain conduct by a qualified health care provider constitutes malpractice as defined under the MMA this court has utilized the following three factors: [1] whether the particular wrong is `treatment related' or caused by a dereliction of professional skill, [2] whether the wrong requires expert medical evidence to determine whether the appropriate standard of care was breached, and [3] whether the pertinent act or omission involved assessment of the patient's condition. Sewell v. Doctors Hospital, 600 So.2d 577, 579 n. 3 (La.1992)(quoting Holly P. Rockwell, Annotation, What Patient Claims Against Doctor, Hospital, or Similar Health Care Provider Are Not Subject to Statutes Specifically Governing Actions and Damages for Medical Malpractice, 89 A.L.R.4th 887, 1991 WL 741765 (1991)). [16] The latter annotation lists three additional factors that courts have considered, and we now add those to our Sewell list; to wit: [4] whether an incident occurred in the context of a physician-patient relationship, or was within the scope of activities which a hospital is licensed to perform, [5] whether the injury would have occurred if the patient had not sought treatment, and [6] whether the tort alleged was intentional. 89 A.L.R.4th at 898. Applying those six factors to the evidence in this case leads to the inescapable conclusion that Coleman's claim of improper transfer against Dr. Deno is within the scope of the MMA.