Carter v. Haygood, 892 So.2d 1261 (La. 2005)

See: LA Supreme Court analyzes the continuing tort exception in medical malpractice - Carter v. Haygood, 892 So.2d 1261 (La. 2005)

What was the problem with the plaintiff's claim of a discovery rule on the tooth extraction?

What part of the claim did the court find was under the discovery rule?

Why did the appeals court throw out Dr. Bolton's testimony?

What is the standard for reviewing the trial court's decision on prescription?

Does that slow down the appeals courts?

Para - 48 - The three year rule implies that there is a discovery rule for the 1 year, otherwise why have a 3 year?

Where did contra non valentem come from?

What are the four types?

Could 1 include that the court house was washed away?

What is the plaintiff's theory for why #3 applies?

What is the continuous representation rule in legal malpractice?

Why is there such a rule?

What would be the implication of not having the rule in legal malpractice cases?

How did the Lima court limit the continuous representation rule?

What would the plaintiff need to show to apply this rule in medical malpractice cases?

Was there continuous treatment in this case?

When did plaintiff claim was the first time she realized that defendant was not going to fix her problems?

What did plaintiff claim were the fraudulent misrepresentations?

What did defendant do that limited her ability to get care elsewhere?

What did the court find support apply contra non valentem in this case?

Why does the court say it would be unjust not to apply contra non valentem?

What about the locality rule?