Mitchell v. St Paul Fire Marine ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-30411
Summary Calendar
HAYWARD J. MITCHELL; CAROLYN H. MITCHELL,
Plaintiff-Appellees,
versus
ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE CO.; et al.,
Defendants
TENET HEALTHSYSTEMS HOSPITALS, INC., d/b/a/
NORTHSHORE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 98-CV-1898
--------------------
March 27, 2000
Before JOLLY, JONES and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Tenet Healthsystems Hospitals, Inc., d/b/a
Northshore Regional Medical Center (“Northshore”) appeals from
the jury’s special finding that the claim of appellees Hayward J.
Mitchell and Carolyn H. Mitchell (collectively “the Mitchells”)
was not prescribed.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 99-40201
-2-
The Mitchells secured this jury verdict after a trial held
from March 22-25, 1999. The jury rendered judgment in favor of
the Mitchells and against Mr. Mitchell’s treating physician, Dr.
Madaelil G. Thomas (“Dr. Thomas”), his insurer, St. Paul Fire and
Marine Insurance Company, and Northshore. Only Northshore
appeals the verdict.
The parties agree that, pursuant to Louisiana law, “the
prescriptive period commences when there is enough notice to call
for an inquiry about a claim, not when an inquiry reveals the
facts or evidence that specifically outline the claim.” Luckett
v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 171 F.3d 295, 300 (5th Cir. 1999).
Northshore insists that sufficient notice to call for an inquiry
existed on March 9, 1995, when Dr. Thomas, ordered a CAT scan at
7:00 am, and the hospital did not perform the scan until 4:30 pm
of that day. The Mitchells counter that sufficient notice did
not exist until April, 1996, when Mrs. Mitchell read some
literature about stroke victims that led her to believe that the
delay in performing the CAT scan may have led to enhanced damage
from the stroke Mr. Mitchell suffered.
We hold that sufficient evidence supports the jury’s finding
that the Mitchells were not on notice that they should conduct an
inquiry into the hospital’s delay in providing the CAT scan until
April, 1996. Neither Mrs. Mitchell, nor her son or daughter,
graduated from high school; all obtained their GEDs later. Mrs.
Mitchell and her son work in the family sewer business; the
daughter is a homemaker. Mrs. Mitchell testified that she
thought the CAT scan was important because Dr. Thomas ordered it.
No. 99-40201
-3-
She had no idea that it might play a critical role in reducing
the amount of brain damage Mr. Mitchell would suffer from his
stroke. When the hospital staff failed to perform the CAT scan
at 7:00 am as ordered, Mrs. Mitchell sought an explanation. The
hospital told her the CAT scan was broken. Though the CAT scan
did not, in fact, break until 10:00 am, and though it was
repaired soon thereafter, Mrs. Mitchell had no reason to doubt
the hospital staff’s explanation of the delay. Moreover, Mrs.
Mitchell had no knowledge of Northshore’s protocol, which
dictated that, in the event that the CAT scan breaks, emergency
CAT scans should be performed at a hospital facility in Slidell,
a mile down the road.
In short, Mrs. Mitchell was not on notice that the delay in
providing the CAT scan was anything other than a routine event in
an overcrowded hospital until April, 1996, when she learned of
the vital role CAT scans play in preventing extraordinary harm to
stroke victims. At that point, she still did not know that the
Northshore staff had told her the CAT scan was broken before it
actually did break, had conducted routine CAT scans while her
husband slipped into a coma, and had failed to transport Mr.
Mitchell to Slidell for a CAT scan during the time period when
the CAT scan really was inoperative. Nonetheless, upon learning
of the CAT scan’s critical function in prevention of harm to
stroke victims, Mrs. Mitchell then was on notice that an inquiry
into the delay was necessary. Only upon attaining that
information did the prescriptive period begin to run.
No. 99-40201
-4-
We need not address Northshore’s contention that the
district court wrongfully denied it summary judgment on the issue
of prescription. “[T]his Court will not review the pretrial
denial of a motion for summary judgment where on the basis of a
subsequent full trial on the merits final judgment is entered
adverse to the movant.” Black v. J.I. Case Co., Inc., 22 F.3d
568, 570 (5th Cir. 1994).
As sufficient evidence supports the jury’s verdict in the
Mitchell’s favor, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.