Medical Malpractice / Louisiana Health Law

Costa v. Boyd, 836 So.2d 1265 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2003)

What was the trial court's award?

Which damages was this compensation for?

Had plaintiff been seeing a physician before defendant Boyd?

What had she been treated for?

Did it work?

What was her complaint when she saw Boyd?

What diagnostic workup did Boyd do at this time?

Did defendant continue to see Boyd?

Over what period of time?

Did defendant change plaintiff's medication during this time?

Did he do any laboratory testing related to this change?

What did he look at to determine if her condition was causes problems?

Was his finding consistent with the findings when she was finally admitted to the hospital?

Did the change solve her treatment problems?

When did plaintiff start to get sicker?

When did defendant finally order lab work?

What did it show?

What did he do then?

What condition did she have?

What treatment did she start at that time?

What is the standard from LA R.S. 9:2794?

What did the medical review panel say about whether defendant followed the standard of care?

What should defendant have done?

Did the panel say that this deviation from standard of care affected her treatment?

What did they compare her treatment to?

Is that really valid - what else was going on while she was being treated by LSU?

What damages did plaintiff claim before the medical review panel?

Did she claim defendant caused her underlying condition?

Why did the defendant say he did not order the lab tests?

Why did the court discount this excuse?

What was the cost of the test?

What did he document?

How was this like Truman v. Thomas?

Would it have been a defense if what he had said was correct?

What would his duty have been?

What did the medical review panel say about the cause of her injuries?

At trial, what was the evidence supporting plaintiff's claim that the delay in diagnosis caused additional suffering?

What are examples of this suffering?

What thoughtful remark was defendant accused of making when he saw the lab results?

What was defendant's mitigation defense for delay in dialysis?

Was there evidence that effective treatment might have slowed the course of the disese?

Did defendant provide effective treatment?

Why did the court reduce some of the medical expenses?

Did they reduce the pain and suffering damages?

Did they assign any fault to the earlier treating physician?

Did he treat her any differently?

Why the different result?