Sydney B. Mack, III VS Baton Rouge General Medical Center
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2007 CA 0439 SYDNEY B MACK III VS BATON ROUGE GENERAL MEDICAL CENTER JUDGMENT RENDERED I NOV 7 2007 jl ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT DOCKET NUMBER 540 790 DIVISION F PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE S TATE OF LOUISIANA f HONORABLE TIMOTHY E KELLEY JUDGE DONNA U ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF APPELLEE GRODNER CHARLOTTE C BA TON ROUGE McDANIEL McGEHEE SYDNEY B MACK III LA DAVID F ZUBER ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT BATON ROUGE BATON ROUGE GENERAL MEDICAL CENTER LA BEFORE GAIDRY MCDONALD AND MCCLENDON JJ MCDONALD J Baton Rouge General Medical Center appeals Nineteenth Judicial District Court following reasons On we 16 May BRGMC Treatment Mack Sydney accident for which he received Center finding that a debt had prescribed affirm the judgment of the trial 2002 and to of the For the court in injured was treatment at Baton Upon his admission Authorization judgment a automobile an Rouge General Medical BRGMC Mr Mack executed Financial which contract Assignments a provided for personal responsibility for the payment of all charges incurred for treatment and further to take legal incurred action to The total Mr Mack received resolve the As a liable to delinquent was necessitated the named as a a lawsuit injuries BRGMC did Mr Mack reasonable costs a on attorney submitted not on August to settle his 9 May 8 2003 was him to 2003 in Mr Mack at fault and treatment at BRGMC learn of the lawsuit until letter from Mr Mack s legal counsel October 10 2005 a settlement demand of 35 000 00 Subsequently correspondence offering to contact BRGMC asserted its medical services lien in accordance with La R S 9 4751 2005 filed injuries including medical his medical records 31 is supplies and treatment asserting that the plaintiff requesting August was defendant On 23 2005 when it received s additional 33 13 an account September Mr Mack of attempts by BRGMC to respond Mack for his by charge required was Mr Mack did not pay any of the debt to 4 251 50 reconventional demand to Mr a the medical services result of the accident a which Mr Mack filed the debt amount of and failed BRGMC recover was that in the event BRGMC provided claim for In November 2005 was policy limits several letters 2 submitted were on behalf of 10 000 00 sent on on plus behalf of Mr Mack to BRGMC regarding its lien and requesting of 4 251 50 The reduction in the a lien amount not being fully compensated for the accident and requested that BRGMC reduce the amount of the lien to settled BRGMC would February 23 2 800 00 reduce the not 2006 Mr Mack indicated that Mr Mack was correspondence s that the so due amount on reconventional demand could be matter the was On account dismissed with prejudice Mr Mack filed declaratory judgment alleging on that BRGMC court that the lien February improperly filed was BRGMC answered and filed Mr Mack due on for cost of collection an three years and BRGMC s on was hearing not on court a and lien insufficient seeking 4 251 50 well as a a from the RS 9 4753 seeking the balance as an additional 33 13 peremptory exception of open account for medical services prescribed defendant as ruling to La pursuant reconventional demand debt had The prescribes exception December 4 2006 the trial a concursus the BRGMC debt had trial naming BRGMC 2006 filed alternatively for was in for set December 4 2006 At the matter 21 and concursus Mack filed Mr prescription asserting that hearing a of account s for petition a alleging 1 and granted prescribed The trial a SUlll1nary BRGMC court court found that the judgment declaring that appeals this judgment of the erred as a matter of law its by application of the incorrect evidentiary standard for acknowledgment and by to strictly erred as a failing court construe matter admitted his debt to acknowledgement 3 because it does not the of law applicable prescriptive by finding that BRGMC sufficient The trial court s to statutes Sidney Mack had 2 The trial not judicially interrupt prescription based ruling is erroneous as a matter of law comport with the well established principles of 3 on tort prescription equity recovery elTed as matter a BRGMC of law and contra not by finding valentum non that subjects BRGMC claim s to the The trial Sidney Mack Treatment Authorization and Financial s 4 execution of s Assignments contract for personal prescriptive period ten year court actions The first two of BRGMC of the debt acknowledgment for services rendered to the three year Lima citing argues statutes prescriptive of the and we 595 Schmidt v are strictly be to on an subject on an 624 compensation to a 3494 art 629 liberative La BRGMC thus maintaining of opposed as two to alleged acknowledgment of the debt by the debt favor possible balTing However the construction acknowledged that 1992 against prescription and in extinguished do not agree that Mr Mack issue of open account is also La C C So 2d construed We agree adopted BRGMC is based An action years that which favors action should be fees is prescriptive period obligation sought constructions An action for the recovery of including professional prescription period of three subject assignments of elTor address the s an urged by Mr Mack sufficiently to interrupt prescription Prescription is interrupted when person against whom BRGMC asserts he had commenced to that Mr Mack demand and also in the after have September 2005 BRGMC intelTogatories lawsuit in were not September to May 16 C C art answers 2002 3464 the debt in his reconventional to BRGMC intelTogatories could because the debt inculTed propounded 2005 La prescribe intelTogatories propounded by We note that the on acknowledges the right of the acknowledged answer intelTupted prescription treatment at one prescribed in by May not Mr Mack for 2005 and the until after BRGMC had notice of the The facts here 4 are distinguishable from jurisprudence cited by BRGMC We find no legal error conclusion that the reconventional demand filed constitute by further argues that the proper acknowledgment requires a consideration of the circumstances this matter should defeat surrounding prescription equity and contra reconventional compensation for medical constitute Mack has to Nor can we urged by obligation BRGMC is consider however his tort recovery by a not sufficient to principles we of tort find that reasonable business Mr Mack legal obligation legal proceedings Mr seeking case BRGMC when BRGMC made collect the debt within the to personal injury file suit for the amount owed it moral a the the result when BRGMC failed to institute rights prescription because it Under the facts here treatment received at different result a valentem in demand to reach equity requires decision not non acknowledgement an recovery and the law BRGMC asserts that the facts and comport with the well established principles of not not totality of the surrounding We agree s Mack did s evidentiary standard of facts and circumstances Mack Mr court acknowledgment an BRGMC does in the trial Arguably was Mr extinguished necessary to preserve its of three applicable prescriptive period years We agree with the trial Authorization and Financial account for professional scheme providing years Also for there an services into by the a signing BRGMC are that many personal action with court there is service agreements contain additional contracts charge s Treatment contract did not convert a agreeing this open a ten year specific statutory that open accounts and service accounts prescriptive period provisions that Assignments As noted prescriptive period court prescribe subject to to pay a in 3 3 year including for attorney fees when necessary for 5 collection year to a To convert all of these open ten year conjunction with the BRGMC prescriptive period account also filed to be Based and this Appeal Rouge addressed on the because a motion was to a is contract a three signed supplement the record with referred by this panel opinion is issued in accordance Costs of this General Medical Center AFFIRMED 6 by a III an writ panel of this court to The motion is foregoing the judgment Rule 2 16 1 B service accounts from would defeat the entire statutory scheme additional memorandum which the merits or granted of the trial court is affirmed with Uniform Rules appeal are assessed Courts of against Baton
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
