Gullette v. State ex rel. Department of Correction
383 So. 2d 1287, 1980 La. App. LEXIS 3769 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To recover damages for alleged inadequate medical treatment, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant's breach of the standard of care was the 'cause in fact' of the injury, meaning the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's actions or inactions.
Facts:
- In the mid-to-late 1960s, the plaintiff suffered a stab wound to the lower spinal area, resulting in significant sensation loss in his right leg and the need for constant vigilance against trophic ulcers.
- Prior to entering the state prison system, the plaintiff had a right toe amputated due to nerve damage from the earlier stabbing incident.
- The plaintiff developed a trophic ulcer at parish prison in Orleans Parish, which had healed to some extent immediately prior to his transfer to Angola.
- On May 10, 1974, the plaintiff was admitted to Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola.
- Upon arrival at Angola, the plaintiff immediately requested medical attention but was not seen by a doctor until two days later.
- Dr. Katz, the Angola physician, saw the plaintiff but, in his professional judgment, did not administer antibiotics for the ulcer.
- The plaintiff's ulcer progressively worsened, leading to his admission to Earl K. Long Hospital in Baton Rouge on May 30, 1974.
- On June 21, 1974, upon strong recommendation from Dr. Cenac and other physicians at Earl K. Long Hospital, the plaintiff agreed to have his right leg amputated below the knee; the amputation was subsequently performed.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, an inmate, sued the State of Louisiana through the Department of Corrections and several individual defendants (including Elayn Hunt, Murray Henderson, Dr. Harry Katz, and security officer Juneau) in a state trial court, seeking damages for inadequate medical treatment leading to an amputation and for a stab wound.
- The trial court awarded the plaintiff $2,000 for the stab wound inflicted by security officer Juneau but refused to award any monetary damages for inadequate medical care related to the amputation, finding that the amputation would have been necessary regardless of the treatment.
- The plaintiff appealed the trial court's refusal to award damages for inadequate medical care to the Louisiana Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state's allegedly inadequate medical treatment of an inmate constitute the "cause in fact" of an injury, such as a leg amputation, entitling the inmate to damages, even when expert medical testimony indicates the amputation was necessitated by pre-existing conditions regardless of the treatment received?
Opinions:
Majority - Lottinger, Judge
No, the state's allegedly inadequate medical treatment of the plaintiff at Angola did not constitute the "cause in fact" of his leg amputation, and therefore, he is not entitled to damages for that injury. The court affirmed the trial judge's decision regarding the medical care, relying on the unequivocal testimony of Dr. Chris Cenac, the orthopedic surgeon who performed the amputation. Dr. Cenac testified that the treatment, or lack thereof, at Angola had no bearing on his recommendation to amputate the plaintiff’s leg. He explained that the amputation was primarily necessitated by the plaintiff's pre-existing sciatic nerve damage from the 1960s stab wound, and he would have recommended the amputation regardless of when or where he saw the plaintiff, emphasizing it was the most effective course of treatment for such a patient. Consequently, even if the treatment at Angola fell below the standard of care, it was not the 'cause in fact' of the amputation. Separately, the court affirmed the trial judge's award of $2,000 to the plaintiff for a stab wound incurred at the prison hospital, finding the uncontradicted testimony showed a prison guard stabbed the plaintiff without provocation when he refused to give the guard a cigarette.
Analysis:
This case underscores the critical importance of proving causation in medical malpractice claims, even in contexts like prison medical care where state responsibility for inmate well-being is high. It establishes that a plaintiff cannot recover damages simply by demonstrating substandard care; they must also prove that the substandard care was the direct 'cause in fact' of the alleged injury. This principle can make recovery difficult for plaintiffs with significant pre-existing conditions, as it allows defendants to argue that the injury would have occurred regardless of their actions, thereby limiting their liability. The case reinforces that causation is a distinct and essential element of negligence that must be independently established.
