STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
NO. 2019 CA 0802
CURTIS SHEPHERD SR., DEBRA WILLIAMS, MICHAEL SHEPHERD, LINDA SHEPHERD, NATHANIEL SHEPHERD JR., STEPHEN SHEPHERD, CHRISTOPHER SHEPHERD, AND RODNEY SHEPHERD, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE HEIRS OF NADINE SHEPHERD L AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF NADINE SHEPHERD
VERSUS
BATON ROUGE CARDIOLOGY CENTER, DR. RODNEY EVENS, DR. VENKAT SURAKANTI, OUR LADY OF THE LAKE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, AND EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
Judgment Rendered: MAR 1 2 2020
K 3G 7G Z: 3C 7C ' iC
Appealed from the 19" Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Case No. 631952
The Honorable Timothy E. Kelley, Judge Presiding
Quincy M. Richard, Jr. Counsel for Plaintiffs/ Appellants
Stacy L. Christophe Curtis Shepherd, Sr., et al. Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Anderson O. " Andy" Dotson Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Arthur " Howell" Andrews, Sr. City of Baton Rouge, Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana Baton Rouge, through the Department of Emergency Medical Services
BEFORE: McDONALD, THERIOT, AND CHUTZ, JJ.
U THERIOT, J.
Curtis Shepherd, Sr., Debra Williams, Michael Shepherd, Linda Shepherd,
Nathaniel Shepherd, Jr., Stephen Shepherd, Christopher Shepherd, and Rodney
Shepherd, individually and as heirs of Nadine Shepherd and on behalf of the estate
of Nadine Shepherd, appeal the Nineteenth Judicial District Court' s judgment
granting East Baton Rouge Parish Emergency Medical Services' exception of no
right of action. For the following reasons, the Nineteenth Judicial District Court' s
judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 30, 2013, Curtis Shepherd, Sr., Debra Williams, Michael Shepherd,
Linda Shepherd, Nathaniel Shepherd, Jr., Stephen Shepherd, Christopher
Shepherd, and Rodney Shepherd, individually and as heirs of Nadine Shepherd and
on behalf of the estate of Nadine Shepherd ( collectively " Appellants"), filed a
petition for medical review panel. Appellants requested that a medical review
panel be convened to investigate the treatment of Nadine Shepherd from April 25,
2012 and thereafter by Baton Rouge Cardiology Center, Dr. Rodney Evens, Dr.
Venkat Surakanti, Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center (" OLOL"), and
East Baton Rouge Parish Emergency Medical Services (" EMS"). This appeal
concerns only Appellants' claims against EMS.
Appellants asserted in their petition for medical review panel that, on or
about July 7, 2012, EMS was called out because Mrs. Shepherd was having
complications with her heart indicative of cardiac arrest.' Appellants alleged that,
while in transit to OLOL, EMS paramedics failed to adhere to Advanced
Cardiovascular Life Support Protocol in favor of merely talking to Mrs. Shepherd
Mrs. Shepherd had recently been discharged from OLOL on June 21, 2012, after undergoing a cardiac procedure performed by Dr. Venkat Surakanti.
2 in hopes of maintaining her consciousness. Mrs. Shepherd was admitted to OLOL,
where she died due to complications experienced in cardiac arrest.
In their petition for medical review panel, Appellants asserted that they are
the children of Mrs. Shepherd, and thus entitled to maintain a wrongful death and
survival action.' Appellants further asserted that they were entitled to damages for
loss of love, affection, enjoyment of life, and society and services due to their
mother' s death, as well as past medical expenses.
On November 13, 20145 EMS filed an exception of no right of action. EMS
asserted that, at all tunes pertinent, EMS was performing its medical duties under
the direction of a physician and is thus immune from suit pursuant to La. R.S.
40: 1233. 3 EMS attached two exhibits to its exception: ( 1) the affidavit of Jeremy
Landry, a unit commander for EMS who had provided care to Mrs. Shepherd, who
stated that EMS had been in contact with and followed all directions and
instructions provided by OLOL' s Medical Control throughout the transportation of
Mrs. Shepherd to OLOL; and ( 2) a Prehospital Care Report, which summarized the
care provided to Mrs. Shepherd prior to her reaching OLOL.
On February 19, 2015, Appellants filed a memorandum in opposition to
EMS' s exception of no right of action. Appellants specifically pointed out that the
Prehospital Care Report provided by OLOL lacked a signature by a physician
acknowledging that he or she had authorized the care provided to Mrs. Shepherd.
Accordingly, Appellants argued that Jeremy Landry was not following the
instructions of a physician while rendering emergency medical care to Mrs.
Shepherd, and thus did not qualify for immunity based on La. R.S. 40: 1133. 13.
In a judgment signed May 4, 2015, the trial court granted EMS' s exception
of no right of action and dismissed Appellants' claims against EMS with prejudice.
Because Appellants are Mrs. Shepherd' s children, Appellants have a right to bring both a wrongful death action and a survival action pursuant to La. Civ. Code arts. 2315. 1 and 2315. 2.
3 Louisiana Revised Statutes 40: 1233 has now been redesignated to La. R. S. 40: 1133. 13. For clarity, this statute shall be referred to as La. R. S. 40: 1133. 13 for the remainder of this opinion.
3 On July 30, 2015, Appellants filed a motion for devolutive appeal. The trial court
granted the devolutive appeal in an order signed on August 4, 2015.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
Appellants assign the following as error.
1) The trial court erred in granting Defendant, the East Baton Rouge Parish Emergency Medical Services' exception of no right of action.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of review of a ruling on an exception of no right of action,
which presents a question of law, is de novo. LeCompte v. Continental Casualty
Co., 2016- 1359 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 7/ 12/ 17); 224 So. 3d 1005, 1009, writ denied,
2017- 1525 ( La. 12/ 15/ 17); 231 So. 3d 635. The function of an exception of no
right of action is a determination of whether plaintiff belongs to the class of
persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted in the petition. The
exception of no right of action serves to question whether the plaintiff in the
particular case is a member of the class of persons that has a legal interest in the
subject matter of the litigation. Badeaux v. Southwest Computer Bureau, Inc.,
2005- 0612 ( La. 3/ 17/ 06); 929 So. 2d 1211, 1216- 17.
DISCUSSION
In their sole assignment of error, Appellants assert that the trial court erred
in granting EMS' s exception of no right of action. Although the two exceptions
are often confused, the peremptory exceptions of no right of action and no cause of
action are separate and distinct. La. Code Civ. P. art. 927( A)( 5) and ( 6); State, by
and through Caldwell v. Astra Zeneca, AB, 2016- 1073 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 4/ 11/ 18);
249 So. 3d 38, 42, writs denied, 2018- 0766, 2018- 0758 ( La. 9/ 21/ 18); 252 So. 3d
899, 904.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
NO. 2019 CA 0802
CURTIS SHEPHERD SR., DEBRA WILLIAMS, MICHAEL SHEPHERD, LINDA SHEPHERD, NATHANIEL SHEPHERD JR., STEPHEN SHEPHERD, CHRISTOPHER SHEPHERD, AND RODNEY SHEPHERD, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE HEIRS OF NADINE SHEPHERD L AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF NADINE SHEPHERD
VERSUS
BATON ROUGE CARDIOLOGY CENTER, DR. RODNEY EVENS, DR. VENKAT SURAKANTI, OUR LADY OF THE LAKE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, AND EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
Judgment Rendered: MAR 1 2 2020
K 3G 7G Z: 3C 7C ' iC
Appealed from the 19" Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Case No. 631952
The Honorable Timothy E. Kelley, Judge Presiding
Quincy M. Richard, Jr. Counsel for Plaintiffs/ Appellants
Stacy L. Christophe Curtis Shepherd, Sr., et al. Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Anderson O. " Andy" Dotson Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Arthur " Howell" Andrews, Sr. City of Baton Rouge, Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana Baton Rouge, through the Department of Emergency Medical Services
BEFORE: McDONALD, THERIOT, AND CHUTZ, JJ.
U THERIOT, J.
Curtis Shepherd, Sr., Debra Williams, Michael Shepherd, Linda Shepherd,
Nathaniel Shepherd, Jr., Stephen Shepherd, Christopher Shepherd, and Rodney
Shepherd, individually and as heirs of Nadine Shepherd and on behalf of the estate
of Nadine Shepherd, appeal the Nineteenth Judicial District Court' s judgment
granting East Baton Rouge Parish Emergency Medical Services' exception of no
right of action. For the following reasons, the Nineteenth Judicial District Court' s
judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 30, 2013, Curtis Shepherd, Sr., Debra Williams, Michael Shepherd,
Linda Shepherd, Nathaniel Shepherd, Jr., Stephen Shepherd, Christopher
Shepherd, and Rodney Shepherd, individually and as heirs of Nadine Shepherd and
on behalf of the estate of Nadine Shepherd ( collectively " Appellants"), filed a
petition for medical review panel. Appellants requested that a medical review
panel be convened to investigate the treatment of Nadine Shepherd from April 25,
2012 and thereafter by Baton Rouge Cardiology Center, Dr. Rodney Evens, Dr.
Venkat Surakanti, Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center (" OLOL"), and
East Baton Rouge Parish Emergency Medical Services (" EMS"). This appeal
concerns only Appellants' claims against EMS.
Appellants asserted in their petition for medical review panel that, on or
about July 7, 2012, EMS was called out because Mrs. Shepherd was having
complications with her heart indicative of cardiac arrest.' Appellants alleged that,
while in transit to OLOL, EMS paramedics failed to adhere to Advanced
Cardiovascular Life Support Protocol in favor of merely talking to Mrs. Shepherd
Mrs. Shepherd had recently been discharged from OLOL on June 21, 2012, after undergoing a cardiac procedure performed by Dr. Venkat Surakanti.
2 in hopes of maintaining her consciousness. Mrs. Shepherd was admitted to OLOL,
where she died due to complications experienced in cardiac arrest.
In their petition for medical review panel, Appellants asserted that they are
the children of Mrs. Shepherd, and thus entitled to maintain a wrongful death and
survival action.' Appellants further asserted that they were entitled to damages for
loss of love, affection, enjoyment of life, and society and services due to their
mother' s death, as well as past medical expenses.
On November 13, 20145 EMS filed an exception of no right of action. EMS
asserted that, at all tunes pertinent, EMS was performing its medical duties under
the direction of a physician and is thus immune from suit pursuant to La. R.S.
40: 1233. 3 EMS attached two exhibits to its exception: ( 1) the affidavit of Jeremy
Landry, a unit commander for EMS who had provided care to Mrs. Shepherd, who
stated that EMS had been in contact with and followed all directions and
instructions provided by OLOL' s Medical Control throughout the transportation of
Mrs. Shepherd to OLOL; and ( 2) a Prehospital Care Report, which summarized the
care provided to Mrs. Shepherd prior to her reaching OLOL.
On February 19, 2015, Appellants filed a memorandum in opposition to
EMS' s exception of no right of action. Appellants specifically pointed out that the
Prehospital Care Report provided by OLOL lacked a signature by a physician
acknowledging that he or she had authorized the care provided to Mrs. Shepherd.
Accordingly, Appellants argued that Jeremy Landry was not following the
instructions of a physician while rendering emergency medical care to Mrs.
Shepherd, and thus did not qualify for immunity based on La. R.S. 40: 1133. 13.
In a judgment signed May 4, 2015, the trial court granted EMS' s exception
of no right of action and dismissed Appellants' claims against EMS with prejudice.
Because Appellants are Mrs. Shepherd' s children, Appellants have a right to bring both a wrongful death action and a survival action pursuant to La. Civ. Code arts. 2315. 1 and 2315. 2.
3 Louisiana Revised Statutes 40: 1233 has now been redesignated to La. R. S. 40: 1133. 13. For clarity, this statute shall be referred to as La. R. S. 40: 1133. 13 for the remainder of this opinion.
3 On July 30, 2015, Appellants filed a motion for devolutive appeal. The trial court
granted the devolutive appeal in an order signed on August 4, 2015.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
Appellants assign the following as error.
1) The trial court erred in granting Defendant, the East Baton Rouge Parish Emergency Medical Services' exception of no right of action.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of review of a ruling on an exception of no right of action,
which presents a question of law, is de novo. LeCompte v. Continental Casualty
Co., 2016- 1359 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 7/ 12/ 17); 224 So. 3d 1005, 1009, writ denied,
2017- 1525 ( La. 12/ 15/ 17); 231 So. 3d 635. The function of an exception of no
right of action is a determination of whether plaintiff belongs to the class of
persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted in the petition. The
exception of no right of action serves to question whether the plaintiff in the
particular case is a member of the class of persons that has a legal interest in the
subject matter of the litigation. Badeaux v. Southwest Computer Bureau, Inc.,
2005- 0612 ( La. 3/ 17/ 06); 929 So. 2d 1211, 1216- 17.
DISCUSSION
In their sole assignment of error, Appellants assert that the trial court erred
in granting EMS' s exception of no right of action. Although the two exceptions
are often confused, the peremptory exceptions of no right of action and no cause of
action are separate and distinct. La. Code Civ. P. art. 927( A)( 5) and ( 6); State, by
and through Caldwell v. Astra Zeneca, AB, 2016- 1073 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 4/ 11/ 18);
249 So. 3d 38, 42, writs denied, 2018- 0766, 2018- 0758 ( La. 9/ 21/ 18); 252 So. 3d
899, 904. The function of the exception of no right of action is a determination of
whether plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause
of action asserted in the petition. La. Code Civ. P. art. 927( A)(6); Caldwell, 249
11 So. 3d at 42. In examining an exception of no right of action, a court should focus
on whether the particular plaintiff has a right to bring the suit, but assume that the
petition states a valid cause of action for some person. Evidence supporting or
controverting an exception of no right of action is admissible; however, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, the averments of fact in the pleadings will be
taken as true. Determination of whether a plaintiff has a right of action is a
question of law. Caldwell, 249 So. 3d at 42- 43.
Louisiana Revised Statutes 40: 1133. 13 provides in pertinent part:
A)( 1) Any emergency medical services practitioner, licensed pursuant to the provisions of this Part who renders emergency medical care to an individual while in the performance of his medical duties and following the instructions of a physician shall not be individually liable to such an individual for civil damages as a result of acts or omissions in rendering the emergency medical care, except for acts or omissions intentionally esigned to harm, or for grossly negligent acts or omissions which result in harm to such an individual. Nothing herein shall relieve the driver of the emergency vehicle from liability arising from the operation or use of such vehicle. ( Emphasis added.)
2) The immunity granted to emergency medical services practitioners by the provisions of this Part shall extend to parish governing authorities, police departments, sheriffs' offices, fire departments, or other public agencies in rendering emergency medical engaged
services and its insurers with respect to such emergency medical services unless the emergency medical services practitioner employed by such agencies would be personally liable under the provisions of Paragraph ( 1) of this Subsection.
By enacting La. R.S. 40: 1133. 13, " the Legislature granted EMTs a qualified
immunity for liability from ordinary negligence claims; this immunity does not
cover intentional or grossly negligent acts or omissions." Miller v. Acadian
Ambulance Service, Inc., 2017- 1096 ( La. App. 3 Cir. 5/ 23/ 18); 248 So. 3d 469,
477- 78, writ denied, 2018- 1452 ( La. 11/ 20/ 18); 256 So. 3d 990, oting Rathey v. u
Priority EMS, Inc., 2004- 0199 ( La. App. 4 Cir. 1/ 12/ 05); 894 So. 2d 438, 461, writs
denied, 2005- 0789, 2005- 0802 ( La. 5/ 6/ 05); 901 So. 2d 1107, 1108.
An immunity from liability destroys the plaintiff' s substantive cause of
action against the immune party, whereas an immunity from suit merely restricts
5 the plaintiff' s right to sue the defendant. Descant v. Administrators of Tulane
Educational Fund, 93- 3098 ( La. 7/ 5/ 94); 639 So. 2d 246, 249. Louisiana Revised
Statutes 40: 1133. 13 does not grant emergency medical personnel immunity from
suit, only immunity from liability under certain circumstances. First, the EMT
must be rendering emergency medical care to an individual while in the
performance of his medical duties. Second, the EMT must be following the
instructions of a physician. Third, the immunity from liability does not apply to
acts or omissions intentionally designed to harm, or for grossly negligent acts or
omissions which result in harm to such an individual. La. R. S. 40: 1133. 13( A)( 1);
Kyser v. Metro Ambulance, Inc., 33, 600 ( La. App. 2 Cir. 6/ 21/ 00); 764 So. 2d 215,
219, writ denied, 2000- 2212 ( La. 10/ 27/ 00); 772 So.2d 650; see also Ratbey, 894
So. 2d at 461.
Thus, EMS is not immune from suit, but is instead immune from liability if
the above circumstances apply. Accordingly, any immunity from liability would
not have destroyed Appellants' right of action against EMS. The exception of no
right of action should have been denied by the trial court.4
DECREE
For the above and foregoing reasons, the Nineteenth Judicial District Court' s
judgment granting East Baton Rouge Parish Emergency Medical Services'
exception of no right of action is reversed and the matter is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
4 Statutory immunity may be raised as an affirmative defense in a defendant' s answer to a petition after the medical review panel process is complete and a lawsuit has been filed. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 1005; see also Davis v. Hoogacker, 2018- 0921 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 21/ 18); 2018 WL 6718507 at * 3 ( finding that an employer' s immunity from tort provided by workers' compensation law is an affirmative defense and thus not properly raised by the objection of no right of action); Sauceberry v. Webre, 2016- 0719 ( La. App. I Cir. 5/ 5/ 17); 2017 WL 1788096 at * 4, n. 2, writ denied, 2017- 1524 ( La. 11/ 17/ 17); 229 So. 3d 931 ( noting that a claim of discretionary immunity from liability arising from policymaking or discretionary acts under La. R. S. 9: 2798. 1 is an affirmative defense); White v. New Orleans Center for Creative Arts, 2019- 0213 ( La. App. 4 Cir. 9/ 25/ 19); 281 So. 3d 813, 822, writ denied, 2019- 01725 ( La. 12/ 20/ 19); 286 So. 3d 428 ( finding that the immunity created by La. Ch. C. art. 611, which applies to mandatory reporters of child abuse, is an affirmative defense and is not properly raised via peremptory exception).
I STATE OF LOUISIANA
McDONALD, J., concurring.
I agree with reversal of the judgment in this case. I write separately to discuss
one issue.
During the pendency of a medical review process, it appears that, under La. R. S.
40: 1231B( 2)( a), a health care provider against whom a medical malpractice claim has
been filed may only raise peremptory exceptions of no right of action under La. C. C. P.
art. 927( 6) or prescription defenses under La. R. S. 9: 5628. In this case, while the
medical review process was pending, EMS improperly tried to use an exception of no
right of action to raise the defense of statutory immunity. As pointed out in footnote 4
of Judge Theriot's opinion, this court has indicated that the proper means to raise
statutory immunity is by an affirmative defense in an answer to a petition after the
medical review process is complete and a lawsuit has been filed — not by an exception
of no right of action while the medical review process is pending.