Latoya Monroe VS State of Louisiana d/b/a Leonard J. Chabert Medical Center and Charles Binford, M.D.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCiJIT NO 2012 CA 1683 LATOYA MONROE VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA DB LEONIIRD CHABERT A MEDICAL CENTER AND CHARLES BINFORD M D 7udgment Rendered APR 2 6 2 3 On Appeal from the 32nd Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Terrebonne l G State of Louisiana Trial Court No 155 914 The Honorable Timothy C Ellender Judge Presiding James D Buddy Caldwell Attorneys for Defendant Appellant Attorney General State of Louisiana d Leonard a b J Rene Williams Chabert Medical Center et al Special Assistant Attorney General Houma Louisiana Jeremiah A Sprague Attorney for Plaintiff Appellee Marrero Louisiana Latoya Monroe BEFORE GtiIDRY CRAIN AND THERIOT JJ i CRAIN J The State of Louisiana d Leonard J Chabert Medical Center and Dr a b Charles Binford appeal an award of generai damages to the plaintiff based on medical malpractice For the reas that follow we affirm ns FACTS AND PROCEDURAI HISTORY In February 2006 twenty Latoya Monroe who was pregnant old year six with her second child underwent a left breast radical mastectomy Dr Charles Binford a pathologist at Leonard J Chabert Medical Center had diagnosed Ms Monroe with breast cancer after reviewing samples from a needle core biopsy Subsequent analysis of the mastectomy specimen revealed that Ms Monroe did not have cancer She had a non breast condition that cancerous Dr Binford misdiagnosed as cancer Approximately six weeks after surgery Ms Monroe was informed that she did not have breast cancer and that her left breast had been needlessly removed Ms Monroe filed this medical malpractice action after a medical review panel concluded that both Dr Binford and the Leonard J Chabert Medical Center breached the applicable standard of care in treating her A bench trial was conducted and the trial court determined that the defendants care constituted medical malpractice The trial court awarded Ms Monroe damages including 00 000 475 in general damages for physical pain suffering mental anguish and loss of enjoyment of life This appeal followed DISCUSSION The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court award of 475 in s 00 000 general damages is excessive Both Dr Binford and the L J Chabert Medical Center were state health care eonard providers therefore judgment was rendered against the State of Louisiana 39 1299 40 2 See La R S General damages are intended to compensate an injured plaintiff for mental or physical pain and suffering in l of gratification or intellectual or anvenience ss physical enjoyment or other losses of lifestyle that cannot be measured definitely in terms of money See Th v Schex 09 La App 1 Cir ngsavanh a 1462 der Sl7l1Q 40 So d 989 1001 v nie 1 La 9124 45 So 3d 1074 rit 129 i0 There is no mecha nale or c ner maUes Stock v C iculatan td F Industries Inc 94 La App 1 Cir 12 665 So 2d 8 817 writ 2072 9S 15 2 denied 96 La 366S So 2d 428 They e inherently speculative in 4149 96 15 nature and cannot be fixed with tn c Y v Fontenot thematical rtainty ainwright 0492 00 La 10 774 So 2d 7Q 4 The facts and circumstances of each 00 17 case control Stockstill 665 So 2d at 817 The trier of fact is accorded great discretion in assessing general damages such that its award shQUld rarely be disturbed on appeal La Civ Code art 1 2324 Guillory v Lee 09 La 6 16 So 3d 1104 1127 Youn v 0075 09 26 MaNitime Overseas Corp 623 Sc 2d 257 1261 L 1993 cert denied 510 a S U 1114 1994 The role of an app cour in r llate i vieiving general damages is iiot to decide what at considerc xo be n a aah bux rath ta xeview the yi raxd r exercise of discretion bv te er t tr of act vright 4 Wain 7 So 2d at 74 Reasonable persons frequently dis ab iYie easur of general damages in a gree aut particular case Youn 623 So 2c at 1261 dt i oniy hen the award is less or more than a reasonable trier of faet could assess for the ffects of tl particular e injury to the particular plaintiff that an appell court should alter the award te Youn 623 So 2d at 1260 Ms Monroe testified that as a pregnan twenty mother of a old year aix three year old the cancer diagnosis left her an e wreck Bec of the riotional use ize caf the purportedly cans nass naaste rath erou5 tomy rthan lumpectomy was a her option She was concemed not only ft lbut for the health of her unborn rr elf child However she was advised to proceed with the surgery in spite of the risk to the baby because it was better to save her ow Fife Ms 1l had been dating roe Iora her unbom child father but facirg the mastectomy did n want to see him or s t anyone believing she w going t be Lhe a pers t asn ne n After the surgery an ultrasound revealed that the baby was okay However until she received the pathology results of the mastectomy specimen Ms Monroe believed she would face future radiation or chemotherapy treatments She worried about what that would do to herself and her baby After learning that she did not have caneer and that the mastectomy was unnecessary Ms Monroe was angry and emotional She questioned her doctor s decision to perform surgery before verifying the diagnosis A result of her experience is a distrust of doctors Ms Monroe has also been affected by the l of her breast and feelings ss about her appearance She is self conscious insecure and feels that she is less than a woman At twenty six years old she stopped dating stopped going places stopped wearing certain clothing and stopped looking in mirrors to get dressed She tesrified I feel Lhat I am disfigured I am scarred When she did begin dating the man to whom she is now marri2d she did not want to expose her upper torso and would not remave her to in front of him despite his indication that it did not bother him At triai Ms Monroe testified that she would like to have reconstructive surgery and the trial court awarded her medical expenses for breast reconstruction Dr Frank I3ellacroce the plastic surgeon witti whom Ms Monroe consulted testified that all of Ms Monroe sbreast tissue as well as the great majority of the breast skin had been rerrzoved He described the reconstruction options available a including his recommended and Ms Monroe preferred option of having her s breast reconstructed from fat and tissue harvested from her body Dr Dellacroce testified that reconstruction will involve multiple procedures including a technically complex one lasting approximat lyeight hours and requiring a three night four stay at the surgical faciiity Aatoiher procedure will be required for day finishing work including nipple reconstz scar re and maximization isior of the reconstruction Once that procedure is completed she will need to have that nipple pigmented with medical grade tattooing Additionally she will need a procedure on her right breast to achieve symmetry and balance The trial court awarded Ms Monroe 475 in generai damages After 00 000 reviewing the record in its entirety we find no abuse of discretion in the amount of damages awarded CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth herein the jud of the trial court is affirmed ment Costs of this appeal in the amount of 2 are assessed to the State of 50 672 Louisiana d Leonard ChabertMedical Centez and Dr Charles Binford a b AFFIRMED s
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.
