Tianya Spiewak VS Dr. Sterling E. Sightler, Dr. Phillip A. Barksdale, and Woman's Hospital
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED F JR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CL CUIT NO. 2013 CA 1028 TIANYA S]' IEWAK VERSUS DR. STERLING E. SIGHTLER, DR. PHILLIP A. BARKSDALE AND WOMAN' S [ OSPITAL Judgment Rendered: ' k * * On Appeal from the 19th Judicial D_ istrict Court, In and for the Parish oi' East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana Trial Court No. 605, 228 Honorable R Michael Caldwell, Judge Presiding Tianya Spiewak Plaintiff-Appellant, Baton Rouge, LA In Proper Person Mary H. Thompson Baton Rouge, LA Attorney for Defendant- Appellee Woman' s Hospital Foundation BEFORE: KL)HN, HIGGINBOTHAM, AND THERIOT, JJ. HIGGINBOTHAM, J. In this medical malpractice case, the trial court granted a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, Woman' s Hospital Foundation, on the grounds that plaintiff, Tianyna Spiewak, failed to produce expert testimony raising issues of material fact.' Plaintiff now appeals. To prove her case of inedical malpractice, plaintiff must establish the applicable standard of care, a breach of that standard of care, and that the substandard care caused an injury the plairitiff otherwise would not have suffered. As a matter of law, an expert witness is generally necessary to meet that burden of proo£ Although there are exceptions in instances of obvious negligence, those exceptions are limited to instances in whic}i the medical and factual issues are such that a lay jury can perceive negligence in the hospital' s conduct as well as any expert can. This requirement of producing expert medical testimony is especially apt when the defendant has filed a motiori for summary judgment and supported such motion with expert opinion evidence that the treatment met the applicable standard of care. Lieux v. Mitchell, 2006- 0382 ( La. App. lst Cir. 12/ 28/ 06), 951 So. 2d 307; 314- 315, writ denied, 2007- 0905 ( La. 6/ 15/ 07), 958 So.2d 1199. Ms. Spiewak claims that Woman' s Hospital failed to provide adequate follow-up care and failed to maintain adequate medical records documenting her condition. In support of its motion far :,ummary judgment, Woman' s Hospital relied on the medical review panel' s opinion that there was no deviation from the appropriate standard of care. Woman' s Hospital also offered Ms. Spiewak' s Ms. Spiewak also filed suit against Dr. Sterling Sightler and Dr. Phillip Barksdale. Doctors Sightler and Barksdale filed motions for summary judgment which were granted in one judgment. That judgment is the subject of a related appeal. Tianya Spiewak v. Dr. Sterling E. Sightler, 2013 CA 1027 ( La. App. lst Cic 2/ 14/ 14). Ms. Spiewak addressed the summary judgment granted in £avor of Wom n' s Hospital in her brief filed in 2013 CA 1027 and the summary judgment against Dr. Sightler and Dr. Barksdale u 2013 CA 1028. Although we recognized her error, we considered her briefs for the appropriate appeal numbec Woman' s HospitaPs motion to dismiss appeal and or altemative motion to strike based on Ms. Spiewak' s error, which was referred to this panel, is denied. 2 extensive medical records, which included highly technical medical information beyond common knowledge of persons not trained in medicine. After de novo review of the recard, we find that the evidence supporting the motion for summary judgment shows ari absence of support for an essential element of plaintiff' s claim, i.e., that Wornan' s Hospital breached the applicable standard of care in its follow-up care of Ms. Spiewak or in failing to maintain adequate medical records. We further find that this is a medicaLly- complex case and not a case in which the jury could perceive negligence as well << any expert. Expert medical testimony s is necessary to support Ms. Spiewak' s claims. Ms. Spiewak failed to produce factual evidence sufficient to establish that she would be able to satisfy her evidentiary burden at trial. Considering the foregoing, the trial court' s judgment granting summary judgment is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiff, Ms. Tianya Spiewak. This memorandum opinion is is, ned in compliance with Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rule 2- 16. 1B. AFFIRMED. 3
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.
