Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

692 So. 2d 43

Masters v. Fields

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided April 2, 1997

Louisiana Court of Appeal · decided 1997-04-02

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1997-04-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 2016

6 state decisions

30199720002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*44ON REMAND

h CARAWAY, Judge.

¶2On March 14,1995, the trial court granted an exception of prescription and dismissed Ovis Master’s claims of medical malpractice against Dr. Bruce Golson, St. Francis Medical Center, and Radiology Associates. The judgment specifically stated:

[T]he constitutionality issue in this matter has been stayed pending a ruling from the Louisiana Supreme Court on the same [issue] in the Whitnell v. Silverman case, this Court’s ruling on the prescription issue is appealable at this time.

¶3Plaintiff appealed and this court issued a written opinion addressing the issues of prescription, contra non valentum, solidary obli-gors, and continuing tort. In a footnote, this court specifically stated:

The proceedings regarding the constitutionality of LSA-R.S. 9:5628, the prescriptive statute applicable to medical malpractice claims were stayed in the lower court until such time as the Louisiana Supreme Court rules in Whitnell v. Silverman, pending as No. 95-CA-0259.

¶4From our review of the record, the proceedings regarding the constitutionality of the statute remains pending in the trial court.

¶5Because the trial court had not ruled on the constitutional issues, the parties neither briefed nor argued the constitutional issues before this court nor before the Louisiana Supreme Court, which granted writs in this case. The Supreme Court has now decided Whitnell v. Silverman. Following that decision, the court remanded this case to this court for consideration “in light of Whitnell.”

¶6Because the trial court has never ruled on any of the constitutional issues raised by the plaintiff, further proceedings regarding those issues may proceed in the trial court in accordance with the law.

¶7|2Because no constitutional issue has ever been an issue in the appeal of this case, our ruling rendered on January 24, 1996 remains uneffected by Whitnell and we reaffirm our judgment expressed therein.

¶8AFFIRMED.

/692/so2d/43 · .json · Public domain