Gilbert v. Akins

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Gilbert v. Akins

631 So. 2d 117, 93 La.App. 3 Cir. 463, 1994 La. App. LEXIS 241, 1994 WL 31035

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 2, 1994

DocketNo. 93-463

StatusPublished

This text of 631 So. 2d 117 (Gilbert v. Akins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gilbert v. Akins, 631 So. 2d 117, 93 La.App. 3 Cir. 463, 1994 La. App. LEXIS 241, 1994 WL 31035 (La. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

LABORDE, Judge.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

For the reasons we articulated in Hillman v. Akins, 614 So.2d 234, 237 (La.App. 3d Cir.1993), which were largely adopted by the Louisiana Supreme Court (La.1994), 631 So.2d 1, plaintiffs have not shown fraud, intentional concealment, misrepresentation, or ill practice.

We are unable to conclude that doctors or hospitals are strictly liable for the good faith use of a device that they have no reason to know lacks approval by the Food and Drug Administration, LSA-R.S. 9:2794 C (doctors); Hunt v. Bogalusa Community Medical Center, 303 So.2d 745, 747 (La.1974) (hospitals); rather, the question is one of negligence.

The trial court concluded that neither defendant was negligent insofar as neither knew the device was unapproved. Our careful review of the evidence furnishes no grounds for reversing that conclusion. See Martin v. East Jefferson General Hospital, 582 So.2d 1272, 1277 (La.1991).

AFFIRMED. Costs assessed to plaintiffs-appellants.

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