Sanderson v. Tulane Univ. Hosp. & Clinic

245 So. 3d 1043
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedJune 15, 2018
DocketNO. 2018–CC–0588
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 245 So. 3d 1043 (Sanderson v. Tulane Univ. Hosp. & Clinic) 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
Sanderson v. Tulane Univ. Hosp. & Clinic, 245 So. 3d 1043 (La. 2018).

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In the absence of any allegations that the medical review panel superceded its statutory authority, the panel's opinion is subject to mandatory admission. La. R.S. 40:1231.8(H) ; McGlothlin v. Christus St. Patrick Hospital , 10-2775 (La. 7/1/11), 65 So.3d 1218. The mere fact that a member of the panel may not have disclosed a potential conflict of interest is not a ground for automatic exclusion of the panel's opinion. See Elledge v. Williamson , 48, 644 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/15/14), 132 So.3d 432 ; see also Derouen v. Kolb , 397 So.2d 791 (La.1981). Plaintiff will have an adequate opportunity to explore any potential bias on the part of the panel member through cross examination, and the trier of fact may assign any appropriate weight to the opinion in light of such testimony. See Whitt v. McBride , 94-896 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 3/01/95), 651 So.2d 427, writ denied , 95-0357 (La. 3/30/95), 651 So.2d 851. Accordingly, the writ is granted. The judgment of the district court striking the panel opinion is reversed. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

JOHNSON, C.J., would deny.

HUGHES, J., recused.

GENOVESE, J., would deny.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
245 So. 3d 1043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanderson-v-tulane-univ-hosp-clinic-la-2018.