In re Claim of Moses, 788 So.2d 1173 (La. 2001)

See: LA Supreme Court rejects continuing relationship exception to prescription in medical malpractice - In re Claim of Moses, 788 So.2d 1173 (La. 2001)

What was the initial negligence?

When did it occur?

When was it discovered?

Was that within the 3 years?

Procedurally, where are we?

Why has the defendant asked the court to stop the process?

What did the appeals court order?

Did the appeals court rely on a discovery rule?

What theory did they rely on?

What were the facts in the Bellard case they cited?

What was the continuing harm?

How did plaintiff argue that this was like the leaking tank case?

Is plaintiff's case prescribed on the face of the petition to the medical review panel?

Why does that shift the burden of proof to the plaintiff?

What is the difference between plaintiff's theory of continuing tort and defendant's theory of continuing treatment?

Was there continuing treatment?

What does the court mean by calling 5628 (the limitations statute) a hybrid statute?

How does the court see this as limiting the discovery rule?

What was plaintiff say was defendant's continuing conduct?

What did the Crump case say about the predicate for a continuing tort?

What is the basis for the special relationship exception?

How might this have applied to Truman v. Thomas?

Why did the court reject this in Taylor?

What is the third category of contra non valentem?

What was the basis of Justice's Lemmon's explanation of the continuing relationship exception?

Under this theory, when would prescription start to run?

What sort of relationship does this presume between the patient and the physician?

Is this reasonable in the modern health care world?

Does the court find a continuing tort?

What is the continuing trespass theory?

What is its relationship to property law?

What did Crump hold?

What is the radiation case example (Winder)?

What is the narcotics example (Chiasson)?

What is the continuing tort in these cases?

What three factors lead the court to overrule Bellard?

Why does plaintiff's case fail?

What question does the court leave open?

What different facts might have raised this issue?