Patricia Goff and Mark Goff v. Dr. Robin L. Yue

• Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana
• Decided: October 20, 2023
• Docket: 2023-C-00121
• Status: Published

Opinion

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #046

FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

The Opinions handed down on the 20th day of October, 2023 are as follows:

PER CURIAM:

2023-C-00121 PATRICIA GOFF AND MARK GOFF VS. DR. ROBIN L. YUE (Parish of Beauregard)

AFFIRMED. SEE PER CURIAM.

Crain, J., dissents and assigns reasons. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2023-C-00121

PATRICIA GOFF AND MARK GOFF

VS.

DR. ROBIN L. YUE

On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Beauregard

PER CURIAM

This matter arises from a medical malpractice action filed by plaintiffs against

Dr. Robin Yue. After a bench trial, the district court rendered judgment in favor of

Dr. Yue, finding the plaintiffs failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence

that Dr. Yue committed malpractice.

Plaintiffs appealed. The court of appeal unanimously held the district court

committed manifest error in ruling the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proving

Dr. Yue committed malpractice. Accordingly, the court of appeal reversed the

judgment of the district court and awarded damages. Goff v. Yue, 2022-78 (La. App.

3 Cir. 12/7/22), 362 So.3d 855. Upon Dr. Yue’s application, we granted certiorari

to consider the correctness of the court of appeal’s judgment.1

After a thorough review of the record, and considering the briefing and

argument of the parties, we find no reversible error in the judgment of the court of

appeal. 2 See Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120, 1127 (La. 1987) (“[a]lthough appellate

courts must accord great weight to the factual findings of the trial judge, these same

1 Plaintiffs also applied to this court under docket number 2023-C-0098. We have denied that application in a separate disposition. 2 We recognize the court of appeal’s opinion referred to some evidence which was not properly introduced into the record. However, considering the record as a whole, we find any error in this regard is harmless as it did not result in prejudice or affect the outcome of the court’s decision. See Buckbee v. United Gas Pipe Line Co. Inc., 561 So.2d 76, 85 (La. 1990) (“[e]rror has been defined as harmless when it is ‘trivial, formal, merely academic, and not prejudicial to the substantial rights of the party assigning it, and where it in no way affects the final outcome of the case’”)(citing 5 Am.Jur.2d, Appeal and Error § 776 (1962)). courts have a duty to determine if the fact finder was justified in his conclusions.”).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeal.

DECREE

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the court of appeal is affirmed.

2 SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Beauregard

CRAIN, J., dissenting.

The appellate court’s function is not to decide factual issues de novo. Rosell

v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La. 1989). Instead it must review the record in its

entirety to determine whether the trial court’s finding was clearly wrong or

manifestly erroneous. Stobart v. State of Louisiana, Through Dep’t of Transp. and

Dev., 92-1328 (La. 4/12/93), 617 So.2d 880, 882. Thus, the question is not whether

the trier of fact was right or wrong, but whether the factfinder’s conclusion was

reasonable. Id. Here, the trial court found plaintiffs failed to prove Dr. Yue

committed malpractice. Whether a plaintiff has met his burden under the Louisiana

Medical Malpractice Act is a question of fact. Martin v. East Jefferson Gen. Hosp.,

582 So.2d 1272, 1276 (La. 1991). Therefore, this finding may not be reversed on

appeal unless it is clearly wrong or no reasonable basis exists for it.

Reviewing the record in its entirety, the trial court’s judgment was not

manifestly erroneous. A medical review panel consisting of three physicians

reviewed plaintiffs’ claims and concluded Dr. Yue did not breach the standard of

care. The opinion of this medical review panel was admitted into evidence and

considered by the trial court. This piece of evidence alone is sufficient to support

the trial court’s decision.

1 In addition to the opinion of the medical review panel, the trial court also

considered the testimony of all physicians who testified in this case to conclude

plaintiffs did not meet their burden. While there is conflict in the testimony,

reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be

disturbed upon review, even though the appellate court may feel that its own

evaluations and inferences are as reasonable. Rosell, 549 So.2d at 844. Moreover,

when there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice

between them cannot be manifestly erroneous. Id. Since there is evidence and

testimony to support the trial court’s ruling, it cannot be said that this judgment was

unreasonable or clearly wrong.

When the trial court’s findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed

in its entirety the court of appeal may not reverse, “even if convinced that had it been

sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.” Stobart,

617 So.2d at 883. Finding the trial court’s decision to be reasonable, I dissent and

would reinstate the judgment of the trial court.