W. Carl Reynolds, P.C. v. McKeithen

Supreme Court of Louisiana

W. Carl Reynolds, P.C. v. McKeithen

176 So. 3d 399, 2015 La. LEXIS 2151, 2015 WL 5944302

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedOctober 9, 2015

DocketNo. 2015-C-1122

StatusPublished

This text of 176 So. 3d 399 (W. Carl Reynolds, P.C. v. McKeithen) 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

W. Carl Reynolds, P.C. v. McKeithen, 176 So. 3d 399, 2015 La. LEXIS 2151, 2015 WL 5944302 (La. 2015).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

I,We find that in the medical malpractice arena where liability must be first established against a medical provider for a maximum recovery of $100,000, and then a further claim may be pursued for certain specified damages against the Plaintiffs Compensation Fund, that the two claims, at least in the matter before us, are so integrally related that they must be considered together as one claim. This is so because, in most cases, as in the case now before us, establishing medical liability is the most difficult phase of the litigation.

Here, Relator worked on the case for 10 years and was then terminated. Two months later a settlement was reached with the Patient’s Compensation Fund. Liability was established and a settlement reached with medical providers before relator was terminated.

Under these circumstances, as outlined by Judge Welch joined by Judge Pettigrew at the Court of Appeal, relator is entitled to a portion of the fee from the second settlement on the basis of quantum meruit. We therefore reverse the ruling of the Court of Appeal in part and remand to the trial court for consideration of relator’s claim on the basis of quantum meruit.

REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.

WEIMER, J., dissents and would grant and docket and assigns reasons. GUIDRY, J., dissents.

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

PER CURIAM.

I,We find that in the medical malpractice arena where liability must be first established against a medical provider for a maximum recovery of $100,000, and then a further claim may be pursued for certain specified damages against the Plaintiffs Compensation Fund, that the two claims, at least in the matter before us, are so integrally related that they must be considered together as one claim. This is so because, in most cases, as in the case now before us, establishing medical liability is the most difficult phase of the litigation.

Here, Relator worked on the case for 10 years and was then terminated. Two months later a settlement was reached with the Patient’s Compensation Fund. Liability was established and a settlement reached with medical providers before relator was terminated.

Under these circumstances, as outlined by Judge Welch joined by Judge Pettigrew at the Court of Appeal, relator is entitled to a portion of the fee from the second settlement on the basis of quantum meruit. We therefore reverse the ruling of the Court of Appeal in part and remand to the trial court for consideration of relator’s claim on the basis of quantum meruit.

REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.

WEIMER, J., dissents and would grant and docket and assigns reasons. GUIDRY, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 So. 3d 399, 2015 La. LEXIS 2151, 2015 WL 5944302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/w-carl-reynolds-pc-v-mckeithen-la-2015.