DANIEL P. MCCAULEY
FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF
LAFAYETTE, NO. C-20170285 HONORABLE JOHN D. TRAHAN, DISTRICT
Jonathan C. Vidrine COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: Daniel
Michael W. Adley Judice & Adley COUNSEL FOR
DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Dr. Malcolm Stubbs
composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Marc T. Amy, and John E. Conery,
R. COOKS JUDGE.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August of 2004, Plaintiff, Daniel McCauley, injured his right
knee in a work-related accident. Plaintiff began receiving
treatment from Dr. Malcolm Stubbs in connection with his knee
injury. On September 28, 2004, Dr. Stubbs performed a right
knee arthroscopy and debridement of the chondromalacia of the
early 2010, Plaintiff returned to Dr. Stubbs complaining of
renewed pain in his right knee. On February 12, 2010, Dr.
Stubbs performed a right knee arthroscopy with patellofemoral
chondroplasty and debridement. Despite that procedure,
Plaintiff continued to complain of pain in his right knee. On
June 11, 2010, Dr. Stubbs performed a right knee arthroscopy
with open tibial tubercle anterior medialization osteotomy
still complained of continued right knee pain, and on March
20, 2013, Dr. Stubbs performed a total right knee
arthroplasty. Plaintiff continued to treat with Dr. Stubbs
until January of 2015. He claimed during this entire period
and continuing to the present he has suffered from pain in
his right knee.
August 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a medical malpractice claim
against Dr. Stubbs. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged Dr.
Stubbs committed malpractice in connection with the osteotomy
procedure performed on June 11, 2010 and in connection with
the total right knee arthroplasty performed on March 20,
2013. In response to the complaint, Dr. Stubbs filed an
exception of prescription, contending that Plaintiff's
claim was prescribed. A hearing on the exception was held on
March 1, 2017.
argued prescription was suspended until January of 2015, when
the doctor-patient relationship was terminated. He argued
prescription began to run on that date and he had one year to
bring his malpractice claim from the date the doctor-patient
relationship ended or one year from when he discovered the
act of malpractice as long as that discovery was made inside
of the three-year prescriptive period under the rule of
contra non valentum. Plaintiff claimed he did not
discover the acts of malpractice until April 29, 2016, and
thus, had one year from that date to file his claim.
arguments, the trial court allowed the parties additional
time to submit memoranda. The trial court granted the
exception of prescription, finding prescription runs from one
year of the date of discovery only when the claim is brought
within three years of the act of the alleged malpractice.
Plaintiff did not bring the claim within three years, nor
within one year after the doctor-patient relationship ended.
Accordingly, the trial court granted the exception of
prescription. On May 8, 2017, a final judgment granting the
exception of prescription was signed by the trial court. This
appeal followed, wherein Plaintiff asserts the trial court
erred in granting the exception of prescription. For the
following reasons, we affirm.
court in Allain v. Tripple B Holding, LLC, 13-673,
p. 9-10 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/11/13), 128 So.3d 1278, 1285,
discussed the appellate ...