Nathan v. Touro Infirmary
512 So.2d 352 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A personal injury action commenced by the victim prior to death does not abate upon the victim's death but is transformed into a heritable property right. This right is transmitted to the decedent's succession representative or heirs, even if the decedent leaves no surviving beneficiaries as designated in the survival action statute, Louisiana Civil Code article 2315.
Facts:
- Herbert Nathan received treatment for a broken hip from Dr. Gordon P. Nutik at Touro Infirmary in September and October 1983.
- Nathan allegedly suffered injuries as a result of medical malpractice during this treatment.
- On October 10, 1984, Herbert Nathan commenced a malpractice action by filing a complaint with the Medical Review Panel.
- On August 5, 1985, Herbert Nathan died of causes unrelated to the alleged malpractice.
- Herbert Nathan died without a surviving spouse, child, parent, or sibling.
- Max Nathan, Jr. was named an heir or legatee in Herbert Nathan's will and was appointed the executor of his succession.
Procedural Posture:
- Herbert Nathan filed a medical malpractice complaint against Dr. Nutik and Touro Infirmary with the Medical Review Panel.
- After Herbert Nathan died, Max Nathan, Jr., as executor, filed a petition for damages in the district court.
- The defendants filed exceptions of no right of action, arguing Max Nathan, Jr. was not a beneficiary designated under C.C. art. 2315.
- The district court (trial court) granted the exception and dismissed the suit.
- The court of appeal (intermediate appellate court) affirmed the district court's judgment, finding Max Nathan, Jr. lacked the requisite relationship to the decedent.
- Max Nathan, Jr. (applicant) successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of Louisiana for a writ of certiorari.
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 personal injury action, commenced by the victim before death, abate upon the victim's death if the victim leaves no surviving beneficiaries as designated in Louisiana Civil Code article 2315?
Opinions:
Majority - Dixon, Chief Justice
No. A personal injury action commenced by the victim before death does not abate but survives as a heritable property right. The court reasoned that filing a claim with the mandatory Medical Review Panel constitutes the commencement of an action. Once an action is instituted, it is no longer merely a "right to recover" governed by the beneficiary limitations of C.C. art. 2315, but becomes an "action," which is a property right under C.C.P. art. 426. Pursuant to C.C.P. art. 428, such an action does not abate upon death because it is not strictly personal. Consequently, the succession representative (or heirs if no administration) is the proper "legal successor" under C.C.P. art. 801 to continue the suit when there are no C.C. art. 2315 beneficiaries.
Concurring - Marcus, Justice
No. The critical distinction is that Herbert Nathan instituted his action before he died. Because the action was already commenced, the non-abatement and substitution rules of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P. art. 801) apply, allowing Max Nathan, Jr. to be substituted as the legal successor. Had Herbert Nathan died before instituting the action, then the limitations of C.C. art. 2315 would have applied, and Max Nathan, Jr. would not have had a right to institute the action.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant exception to the strict beneficiary limitations of Louisiana's survival action statute, C.C. art. 2315. It establishes that the act of commencing a lawsuit transforms a personal injury claim from a 'right of action,' which is limited to specific relatives, into a heritable property right that belongs to the decedent's estate. This prevents the defendant from receiving a windfall dismissal simply because the plaintiff dies mid-litigation without the statutorily designated relatives. The ruling solidifies the distinction between inheriting the right to initiate a suit versus inheriting a suit already in progress, impacting estate planning and tort litigation strategy.
Unlock the full brief for Nathan v. Touro Infirmary