STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
07-1087
IN RE: ELIJAH HERRING
************
APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 2006-6315 HONORABLE MARILYN CARR CASTLE, DISTRICT JUDGE
MICHAEL G. SULLIVAN JUDGE
Court composed of Oswald A. Decuir, Michael G. Sullivan, and James T. Genovese, Judges.
AFFIRMED.
Willie Hunter, Jr. Attorney at Law 900 St. John Street Monroe, Louisiana 71201 (318) 388-0883 Counsel for Appellant: Elijah Herring
Nicholas Gachassin, Jr. Brandon K. Stelly Gachassin Law Firm Post Office Box 80369 Lafayette, Louisiana 70598-0369 (337) 235-4576 Counsel for Appellee: Lafayette General Medical Center
Marc W. Judice Judice & Adley Post Office Drawer 51769 Lafayette, Louisiana 70505-1769 (337) 235-2405 Counsel for Appellee: Dr. James Garcelon SULLIVAN, Judge.
Elijah Herring appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his medical malpractice
claim. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Facts
On June 27, 2006, Mr. Herring filed a medical malpractice complaint against
two health care providers as provided in La.R.S. 40:1299.47. By letter dated July 6
and mailed July 7, the Patient’s Compensation Fund (PCF) confirmed receipt of the
complaint and notified Mr. Herring that he had forty-five days to remit filing fees in
the amount of $200. On September 7, the PCF mailed a letter to Mr. Herring and the
two defendants, notifying them that Mr. Herring had failed to timely pay the filing fee
and that his complaint “is no longer considered filed by this office.” On
September 18, Mr. Herring filed another complaint with the PCF and included the
$200 filing fee. Thereafter, one of the defendants filed an exception of prescription
with the trial court. After a hearing, the trial court granted the exception of
prescription. The second defendant then filed an exception of prescription, which the
trial court also granted. Mr. Herring appeals.
Assignments of Error
Mr. Herring urges that the trial court erred in finding that the payment of filing
fees was not merely an incidental requirement which related back to the filing of his
complaint and did not affect the running of prescription, that the PCF’s dismissal of
his complaint was not legally correct or authorized by law, and that the filing of his
complaint prior to the prescriptive date allowed him additional time within which to
pay the filing fee.
1 Discussion
Louisiana law requires that medical malpractice claims be filed within one year
of the alleged malpractice or discovery of the malpractice but no later than three years
after the malpractice. La.R.S. 9:5628. All medical malpractice complaints against
qualified health care providers must be reviewed by a medical review panel before
suit can be instituted against them. La.R.S. 40:1299.47(A). The medical review
panel procedure is initiated by filing a complaint with the PCF. Id. After receipt of
a complaint, the PCF has fifteen days to confirm receipt of the complaint and notify
the claimant of the filing fee required, the time frame within which the filing fee must
be paid, that failure to pay the filing fee timely renders a request for review “invalid
and without effect,” and that such invalid request “shall not suspend the time within
which suit must be instituted.” La.R.S. 40:1299.47(A)(3). The claimant then has
forty-five days “from the mailing date of the confirmation of the receipt of the request
for review” to pay the filing fee. La.R.S. 40:1299.47(A)(1)(c). If the claimant fails
to pay the filing fee within the forty-five-day period provided in subsection (1)(c), the
request for review is “invalid and without effect” and does “not suspend time within
which suit must be instituted.” La.R.S. 40:1299.47(A)(1)(e). The PCF must notify
the claimant and all defendants if the filing fee is not paid within the forty-five-day
period provided in subsection (1)(c). La.R.S. 40:1299.47(A)(4)(d).
Mr. Herring does not deny that he did not mail and that the division of
administration did not receive the required $200 filing fee within the forty-five days
provided in subsection (A)(1)(c). Instead, he argues that the application of other legal
principles to the facts of this case establishes that the trial court’s grant of the
exception of prescription is erroneous.
2 Is the Payment of the Filing Fee Incidental?
Mr. Herring first argues that payment of the filing fee is “incidental” to the
filing of his complaint and relates back to the date his complaint was filed. However,
as explained in Medical Review Panel of Davis v. Louisiana State University Health
Sciences Center-Shreveport, 41,273, p. 6 (La.App. 2 Cir. 8/25/06), 939 So.2d 539,
543, writ denied, 06-2343 (La. 12/8/06), 943 So.2d 1092, “both the filing of the
complaint and the payment of the fee are inexorably joined. The complaint is not
considered to be filed until the fee is paid.” La.R.S. 40:1299.47(A)(1)(e). Therefore,
payment of the filing fee is not “incidental,” and the complaint is not considered filed
if the filing fee is not paid timely. This argument is without merit.
Is Failure to Timely Pay Filing Fee a Defect?
Mr. Herring also contends that he should be given an opportunity to amend his
complaint to cure any “defect” in it, citing La.Code Civ.P. art. 934. Article 934
provides that a petitioner must be allowed to amend his petition to remove the ground
of a peremptory exception if it is possible to do so. The failure to file the filing fee
as required by the statute cannot be “removed” by an amendment to the complaint.
Medical Review Panel of Davis, 939 So.2d 539. Furthermore, because the
complaint’s request for review was “invalid and without effect,” La.R.S.
40:1299.47(A)(1)(e), there is nothing to which an amendment can relate back.
Citing Hall v. Reber, 03-1482 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/31/04), 870 So.2d 424, writ
denied, 04-1012 (La. 6/18/04), 876 So.2d 809, Mr. Herring urges that his failure to
timely pay the filing fee did not render the filing of his complaint invalid. In Hall,
the plaintiff filed his complaint by facsimile transmission as provided in La.R.S.
13:850. He then submitted a check in the amount of $175 within the time period
3 provided in La.R.S. 13:850; however, the check was $125 less than the amount the
clerk of court required to file and “process” the suit. This court determined that
because the $175 check was sufficient to pay the filing fee of $150 and the $5
facsimile filing fee, the case had not prescribed, even though the check did not
include the $125 required for service of process on the defendants. Hall has no
application to the facts of this case, as Mr. Herring did not submit any of the fee
required by La.R.S. 40:1299.47(A)(1)(c).
PCF Director’s Authority
The PCF director’s September 6 letter stated in part: “We did not receive the
filing fee from you, thus you have failed to comply within the time allowed; thus, the
above-cited case is no longer considered filed by this office.” Mr. Herring contends
the PCF director was “without authority to dismiss his complaint.” This argument has
no application here because the PCF director did not dismiss Mr. Herring’s claims.
The trial court dismissed his claims pursuant to exceptions of prescription filed by the
defendants. Further, the PCF director’s letter merely restates the content of La.R.S.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
07-1087
IN RE: ELIJAH HERRING
************
APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 2006-6315 HONORABLE MARILYN CARR CASTLE, DISTRICT JUDGE
MICHAEL G. SULLIVAN JUDGE
Court composed of Oswald A. Decuir, Michael G. Sullivan, and James T. Genovese, Judges.
AFFIRMED.
Willie Hunter, Jr. Attorney at Law 900 St. John Street Monroe, Louisiana 71201 (318) 388-0883 Counsel for Appellant: Elijah Herring
Nicholas Gachassin, Jr. Brandon K. Stelly Gachassin Law Firm Post Office Box 80369 Lafayette, Louisiana 70598-0369 (337) 235-4576 Counsel for Appellee: Lafayette General Medical Center
Marc W. Judice Judice & Adley Post Office Drawer 51769 Lafayette, Louisiana 70505-1769 (337) 235-2405 Counsel for Appellee: Dr. James Garcelon SULLIVAN, Judge.
Elijah Herring appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his medical malpractice
claim. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Facts
On June 27, 2006, Mr. Herring filed a medical malpractice complaint against
two health care providers as provided in La.R.S. 40:1299.47. By letter dated July 6
and mailed July 7, the Patient’s Compensation Fund (PCF) confirmed receipt of the
complaint and notified Mr. Herring that he had forty-five days to remit filing fees in
the amount of $200. On September 7, the PCF mailed a letter to Mr. Herring and the
two defendants, notifying them that Mr. Herring had failed to timely pay the filing fee
and that his complaint “is no longer considered filed by this office.” On
September 18, Mr. Herring filed another complaint with the PCF and included the
$200 filing fee. Thereafter, one of the defendants filed an exception of prescription
with the trial court. After a hearing, the trial court granted the exception of
prescription. The second defendant then filed an exception of prescription, which the
trial court also granted. Mr. Herring appeals.
Assignments of Error
Mr. Herring urges that the trial court erred in finding that the payment of filing
fees was not merely an incidental requirement which related back to the filing of his
complaint and did not affect the running of prescription, that the PCF’s dismissal of
his complaint was not legally correct or authorized by law, and that the filing of his
complaint prior to the prescriptive date allowed him additional time within which to
pay the filing fee.
1 Discussion
Louisiana law requires that medical malpractice claims be filed within one year
of the alleged malpractice or discovery of the malpractice but no later than three years
after the malpractice. La.R.S. 9:5628. All medical malpractice complaints against
qualified health care providers must be reviewed by a medical review panel before
suit can be instituted against them. La.R.S. 40:1299.47(A). The medical review
panel procedure is initiated by filing a complaint with the PCF. Id. After receipt of
a complaint, the PCF has fifteen days to confirm receipt of the complaint and notify
the claimant of the filing fee required, the time frame within which the filing fee must
be paid, that failure to pay the filing fee timely renders a request for review “invalid
and without effect,” and that such invalid request “shall not suspend the time within
which suit must be instituted.” La.R.S. 40:1299.47(A)(3). The claimant then has
forty-five days “from the mailing date of the confirmation of the receipt of the request
for review” to pay the filing fee. La.R.S. 40:1299.47(A)(1)(c). If the claimant fails
to pay the filing fee within the forty-five-day period provided in subsection (1)(c), the
request for review is “invalid and without effect” and does “not suspend time within
which suit must be instituted.” La.R.S. 40:1299.47(A)(1)(e). The PCF must notify
the claimant and all defendants if the filing fee is not paid within the forty-five-day
period provided in subsection (1)(c). La.R.S. 40:1299.47(A)(4)(d).
Mr. Herring does not deny that he did not mail and that the division of
administration did not receive the required $200 filing fee within the forty-five days
provided in subsection (A)(1)(c). Instead, he argues that the application of other legal
principles to the facts of this case establishes that the trial court’s grant of the
exception of prescription is erroneous.
2 Is the Payment of the Filing Fee Incidental?
Mr. Herring first argues that payment of the filing fee is “incidental” to the
filing of his complaint and relates back to the date his complaint was filed. However,
as explained in Medical Review Panel of Davis v. Louisiana State University Health
Sciences Center-Shreveport, 41,273, p. 6 (La.App. 2 Cir. 8/25/06), 939 So.2d 539,
543, writ denied, 06-2343 (La. 12/8/06), 943 So.2d 1092, “both the filing of the
complaint and the payment of the fee are inexorably joined. The complaint is not
considered to be filed until the fee is paid.” La.R.S. 40:1299.47(A)(1)(e). Therefore,
payment of the filing fee is not “incidental,” and the complaint is not considered filed
if the filing fee is not paid timely. This argument is without merit.
Is Failure to Timely Pay Filing Fee a Defect?
Mr. Herring also contends that he should be given an opportunity to amend his
complaint to cure any “defect” in it, citing La.Code Civ.P. art. 934. Article 934
provides that a petitioner must be allowed to amend his petition to remove the ground
of a peremptory exception if it is possible to do so. The failure to file the filing fee
as required by the statute cannot be “removed” by an amendment to the complaint.
Medical Review Panel of Davis, 939 So.2d 539. Furthermore, because the
complaint’s request for review was “invalid and without effect,” La.R.S.
40:1299.47(A)(1)(e), there is nothing to which an amendment can relate back.
Citing Hall v. Reber, 03-1482 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/31/04), 870 So.2d 424, writ
denied, 04-1012 (La. 6/18/04), 876 So.2d 809, Mr. Herring urges that his failure to
timely pay the filing fee did not render the filing of his complaint invalid. In Hall,
the plaintiff filed his complaint by facsimile transmission as provided in La.R.S.
13:850. He then submitted a check in the amount of $175 within the time period
3 provided in La.R.S. 13:850; however, the check was $125 less than the amount the
clerk of court required to file and “process” the suit. This court determined that
because the $175 check was sufficient to pay the filing fee of $150 and the $5
facsimile filing fee, the case had not prescribed, even though the check did not
include the $125 required for service of process on the defendants. Hall has no
application to the facts of this case, as Mr. Herring did not submit any of the fee
required by La.R.S. 40:1299.47(A)(1)(c).
PCF Director’s Authority
The PCF director’s September 6 letter stated in part: “We did not receive the
filing fee from you, thus you have failed to comply within the time allowed; thus, the
above-cited case is no longer considered filed by this office.” Mr. Herring contends
the PCF director was “without authority to dismiss his complaint.” This argument has
no application here because the PCF director did not dismiss Mr. Herring’s claims.
The trial court dismissed his claims pursuant to exceptions of prescription filed by the
defendants. Further, the PCF director’s letter merely restates the content of La.R.S.
40:1299.47(A)(1)(e).
Suspension of Time
In his June 27, 2006 complaint, Mr. Herring acknowledged that he became
aware of Defendants’ malpractice on August 17, 2005. He asserts that because he
filed his complaint prior to the lapse of one year from the date the alleged malpractice
occurred, he had the time remaining in the one-year period to pay the filing fee.
This argument is based upon the supreme court’s holdings in Guitreau v.
Kucharchuk, 99-2570 (La. 5/16/00), 763 So.2d 575, and LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221
(La. 7/8/98), 714 So.2d 1226. In LeBreton, the supreme court held that the filing of
4 a medical malpractice complaint suspends prescription and prevents prescription from
lapsing during the pendency of the medical review panel process until ninety days
following notification of the medical review panel’s opinion. In Guitreau, 763 So.2d
at 576, the supreme court held “that when the ninety-day period of suspension after
the decision of the medical review panel is completed, plaintiffs in medical
malpractice actions are entitled to count the period of time, under La.R.S. 9:5628, that
remains unused at the time the request for a medical review panel is filed.” These
cases deal with the ninety-day filing period applicable to claims that were properly
filed and considered by a medical review panel. They are not applicable here because
Mr. Herring’s claims were not considered by a medical review panel.
The clear language of subsection La.R.S. 40:1299.47(A)(1)(e) negates the
application of this argument here, as it provides that failure to timely pay filing fees
renders a complaint’s request for review “invalid and without effect” and that such
an invalid request does “not suspend time within which suit must be instituted.”
Mr. Herring’s complaint had no effect because he failed to pay his filing fee as
required by La.R.S. 40:1299.47(A)(1)(c). Therefore, it did not suspend the time
within which suit had to be instituted, and there was no time remaining which
allowed him to pay the filing fee more than forty-five days after the PCF’s
September 6 letter was mailed. La.R.S. 40:1299.47(A)(1)(e).
Disposition
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. All costs are assessed to Elijah
Herring.