Estate of Patrick v. Board of Supervisors

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Estate of Patrick v. Board of Supervisors

836 So. 2d 1, 2002 La. LEXIS 3352, 2002 WL 31628770

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 22, 2002

DocketNo. 2002-CC-2570

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 836 So. 2d 1 (Estate of Patrick v. Board of Supervisors) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Estate of Patrick v. Board of Supervisors, 836 So. 2d 1, 2002 La. LEXIS 3352, 2002 WL 31628770 (La. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

liGRANTED.

Relator failed to raise, in a timely and proper manner, the issue of a link between the SV40 virus and mesothelioma being discovered after its previous testing [2]*2of the tissues taken from Dr. Patrick prior to his death. Consequently, this court cannot consider that issue.

However, the lower courts erred in utilizing the test for allowing an independent medical examination (IME) to determine whether to allow further testing of the tissue. One cannot analogize testing of the tissue in this case with an IME of a living person or with the performance of an autopsy, {see In re Certain Asbestos Cases, 112 F.R.D. 427, 433 (N.D.Tex.1986)}, both of which are intrusive procedures performed on the human body. Examination of tissue preserved more than eight years ago does not differ from examination of any inanimate substance for the purpose of discovery. Therefore, the heightened test, “for good cause shown,” of LSA-C.C.P. art. 1464 does not apply.

The rulings of the lower courts denying Relator’s motion are vacated. We remand this matter to the trial court to determine whether the SV40 virus and mesothelioma link was, in fact, not discovered until after Relator’s previous testing of the tissue and, if the link had been discovered at the time of the previous testing, whether Relator’s delay was excusable. If this fact is established, the trial court shall allow Relator to perform another examination.

KIMBALL and KNOLL., JJ., would deny the application.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

liGRANTED.

Relator failed to raise, in a timely and proper manner, the issue of a link between the SV40 virus and mesothelioma being discovered after its previous testing [2]*2of the tissues taken from Dr. Patrick prior to his death. Consequently, this court cannot consider that issue.

However, the lower courts erred in utilizing the test for allowing an independent medical examination (IME) to determine whether to allow further testing of the tissue. One cannot analogize testing of the tissue in this case with an IME of a living person or with the performance of an autopsy, {see In re Certain Asbestos Cases, 112 F.R.D. 427, 433 (N.D.Tex.1986)}, both of which are intrusive procedures performed on the human body. Examination of tissue preserved more than eight years ago does not differ from examination of any inanimate substance for the purpose of discovery. Therefore, the heightened test, “for good cause shown,” of LSA-C.C.P. art. 1464 does not apply.

The rulings of the lower courts denying Relator’s motion are vacated. We remand this matter to the trial court to determine whether the SV40 virus and mesothelioma link was, in fact, not discovered until after Relator’s previous testing of the tissue and, if the link had been discovered at the time of the previous testing, whether Relator’s delay was excusable. If this fact is established, the trial court shall allow Relator to perform another examination.

KIMBALL and KNOLL., JJ., would deny the application.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

836 So. 2d 1, 2002 La. LEXIS 3352, 2002 WL 31628770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-patrick-v-board-of-supervisors-la-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack