A Louisiana court recently ruled in favor of Ochsner LSU Health Monroe and nurse practitioner Candace Crow in a medical malpractice case brought by Barbara Coleman. The Louisiana Court of Appeal issued its decision on July 15, 2026, affirming a lower court's ruling that dismissed Coleman's claims against the healthcare providers. This ruling is significant as it underscores the challenges plaintiffs face in proving medical malpractice claims, particularly when it comes to demonstrating negligence and causation.
The case began when Barbara Coleman, the plaintiff-appellant, sought treatment at Ochsner LSU Health Monroe for vaginitis and a yeast infection on February 11, 2022. Coleman alleged that Crow prescribed Metformin, a medication that she claimed worsened her condition, leading to severe vaginal rash and painful blistering. Coleman contended that Crow ignored her medical history, which included previous gastric issues with Metformin and dietary restrictions following gallbladder surgery. Coleman also claimed that Crow failed to refer her to a physician for further treatment.
The dispute escalated when Coleman filed a medical malpractice lawsuit on July 1, 2024, after a medical review panel found no breach of the standard of care in Crow's treatment. The defendants, Ochsner LSU Health Monroe and nurse practitioner Candace Crow, filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Coleman had not provided sufficient evidence to support her claims. The trial court agreed and granted the motion, leading to Coleman's appeal.
The Louisiana Court of Appeal, led by Judge Stone, ultimately affirmed the trial court's decision. The court found that Coleman failed to present any evidence of a breach of the standard of care or causation. The ruling stated, "the plaintiff — by failing to introduce any evidence of breach of the standard of care or causation — failed to present prima facie proof of even ordinary negligence, much less gross negligence." This decision highlights the stringent requirements for plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases, particularly the need for expert testimony to establish the standard of care.
In its ruling, the court emphasized that Coleman did not provide any summary judgment evidence to counter the defendants' claims. The defense introduced the medical review panel's opinion, which found no breach of care, and Coleman did not object to its admissibility. The court noted that the plaintiff's objections to the medical review panel's findings, even if valid, did not change the outcome since she had not met her burden of proof.
Furthermore, the court addressed the Louisiana Health Emergency Powers Act (LHEPA), which provides immunity to healthcare providers from civil liability during the COVID emergency period, unless gross negligence is proven. The court determined that while the LHEPA statute provided a layer of protection for the defendants, it was not necessary for the ruling as Coleman had not established any evidence of negligence.
This ruling may have significant implications for future medical malpractice cases in Louisiana. It reinforces the necessity for plaintiffs to provide clear and compelling evidence to support their claims, particularly in the context of medical treatment during emergencies. The decision also underscores the importance of thorough documentation and adherence to standard care practices by healthcare providers.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Coleman will seek to appeal the ruling further. The court's decision is final unless a higher court, such as the Louisiana Supreme Court, agrees to hear the case. As of now, there are no related cases pending that could influence this ruling.