Opinion ID: 1781679
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ducote

Text: MCLNO contends this case is factually similar to Ducote, which effectively was overruled by the Louisiana Legislature. In Ducote, this court allowed the plaintiff to bring a tort action against a company doctor despite the doctor's status as a co-employee of plaintiff. Ducote, a laborer, injured his hand while on the job. He was referred to a licensed physician employed by the company on a full-time basis to render medical services to plant employees at a medical facility located on the plant grounds. The doctor treated plaintiff for a sprain, which later was diagnosed as a much more significant injury and resulted in 35% loss of wrist function. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding the doctor and plaintiff were co-employees, and therefore plaintiff's exclusive remedy was in worker's compensation. We found plaintiff's claim was not barred and adopted the dual capacity doctrine, recognizing that a company doctor functions in two capacities simultaneously, co-employee and doctor, with each carrying a different set of legal obligations. This case significantly differs from Ducote factually, which presented only the narrow issue of whether the Worker's Compensation Law provides a company doctor with immunity from civil liability for medical malpractice against a patient. 521 So.2d at 400. In Ducote, the doctor was a full-time employee of a chemical company. His sole job responsibility was to treat employees' work-related injuries. This case, however, presents the question of whether a hospital and its doctors are liable in tort for malpractice when the patient is an employee of the hospital but is not being treated pursuant to any requirement or benefit of employment. The Ducote dual capacity doctrine was adopted in the context of a company doctor whose employment contract requires him or her to treat co-employees. In that situation, the doctor simultaneously acts in a dual capacityas a co-employee and as a doctor. Here, MCLNO is a medical provider; the doctors have no obligation to only treat co-employees; co-employees have no obligation to be treated at MCLNO for work-related injuries; and plaintiff was on sick leave, was in an operating room, and was unconscious at the time of the alleged malpractice.