LA rejects the locality rule in malpractice cases - Pesantes v. United States, 621 F.2d 175 (5th Cir. 1980)

Is there an error in the first paragraph?

Where did plaintiff get care?

How does that affect jurisdiction?

What law does plaintiff have to sue under?

What did the plaintiff claim defendant did wrong?

What did the autopsy show that supported the plaintiff's theory?

Given the strong facts, why did plaintiff's case fail?

Which evidence was he unable to present and how did this affect the prime facia case?

What would be a basis for the plaintiff's res ipsa loquitur claim?

Was plaintiff's expert well qualified?

What is the locality rule?

What is the locality in this case?

Where was plaintiff's expert from?

Why does this exclude plaintiff's expert?

What is the purpose of the locality rule?

Who does it protect?

Is this good policy?

How have things changed in medical care over the past 100 years to make the locality rule less relevant?

What civil law principle did the LA SC use in Ardoin when it analyzed the effect of the medical malpractice statue on the locality rule?

Does the statute mention the locality rule?

What is the significance of this silence, given the civil law principle at issue?

Was the act applied retroactively?

What type of acts can be applied retroactively?

Why does this case control liability in an FTCA case?