Carla Louise Parker VS State of Louisiana, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center - New Orleans, Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans a/k/a MCLNO and Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College d/b/a Leonard J. Cha
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2014 CA 0209 CARLA LOUISE PARKER VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA, LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER - NEW ORLEANS, MEDICAL CENTER OF LOUISIANA AT NEW ORLEANS A/K/A MCLNO AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE D/B/A LEONARD J. CHABERT MEDICAL CENTER AND JOHN LUKE, III, M.D. Judgment Rendered: ! JAN 1 5 2015 APPEALED FROM THE THIRTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF TERREBONNE STATE OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NUMBER 166,408 HONORABLE GEORGE J. LARKE, JR., JUDGE Pierre F. Gremillion Attorneys for Plaintiff/ Appellant Metairie, Louisiana Carla Louise Parker and Frank D. Ippolito Chalmette, Louisiana James D. " Buddy" Caldwell Attorneys for Defendants/ Appellees Attorney General State of Louisiana, LSU Health Sciences Center and Center-New Orleans and Board of Supervisors Kathi V. Logan of LSU d/b/a Leonard J. Chabert Medical Darius Q. Henderson Center and John Luke, III, M.D. Assistant Attorneys General Baton Rouge, Louisiana BEFORE: McDONALD, CRAIN, AND HOLDRIDGE 1, Jl. Holdridge, J., serving as Supernumerary Judge pro tempore of the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, by special appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court. McDONALD, J. Plaintiff, Carla Louise Parker, appeals the trial court's judgment: ( 1) excluding an expert witness's affidavit; ( 2) granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants, State of Louisiana through the Board of Supervisors of LSU d/b/a Leonard J. Chabert Medical Center and John Luke, III, M.D; and, ( 3) dismissing Ms. Parker's claims with prejudice. 2 The trial court determined Ms. Parker had untimely filed the affidavit, and the defendants were entitled to summary judgment and dismissal of Ms. Parker's medical malpractice suit. After a thorough review of the record, and of applicable statutes and jurisprudence, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the affidavit, nor in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. See Buggage v. Yolks Constructors, 06-0175 ( La. 5/5/06), 928 So.2d 536 ( per curiam) and Henry v. NOHSC Houma # 1, L.L.C., 11-0738 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 6/28/12), 97 So.3d 470, 472 n.3, writ denied, 12-1761 ( La. 11/2/12), 99 So.3d 677. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and because the issues involve no more than the application of well-settled rules to a recurring fact situation, we affirm the trial court's judgment in accordance with URCA Rule 2-16.2(A)(2), ( 4), and ( 7). Costs of the appeal are assessed to Carla Louise Parker. AFFIRMED. 2 We note that Ms. Parker's motion for appeal actually states that the appeal is taken from the October 28, 2013 judgment denying her motion for new trial, which ordinarily is not an appealable judgment. However, the Supreme Court has directed us to consider an appeal of the denial of a motion for new trial as an appeal of the judgment on the merits as well, when it is clear from the appellant's brief that he intended to appeal the merits of the case. McCain v. Howell, 06-1830 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 9/14/07), 971 So.2d 323, 326 n.1, writ denied, 07-2027 (La. 12/14/07), 970 So.2d 533. Such is the case here. 2
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.
