Coleman v. Deno,
Nos. 01-C-1517, 01-C-1519, 01-C-1521 (La. Jan. 25, 2002)

A patient sued his physician for malpractice and EMTALA violations after the physician transferred him to a charity hospital for treatment of cellulitis of the arm, which eventually resulted in amputation. The patient claimed, and the physician admitted, that at least one of the reasons for the transfer to a charity hospital was the fact that the patient was uninsured and unable to pay for the medical services he received.

Before trial, the trial court dismissed the EMTALA action because EMTALA applies only to hospitals, not physicians. The jury returned a verdict of over $6 million in favor of the patient, finding that the doctor's treatment fell below the standard of care. The trial court limited these damages, pursuant to the Medical Malpractice Act, and entered a final award of approximately $400,000.

On appeal, the appellate court created a new cause of action – an intentional tort – for improper patient transfer. This cause of action, said the court, was outside the scope of the Medical Malpractice Act and, thus, is not subject to its limitations on damages. Accordingly, the appellate court reinstated the $6 million damage award. The physician appealed.

First, the Louisiana Supreme Court chastised the appellate court for creating a new cause of action that was not pleaded in the complaint, argued, tried, or submitted to the jury. According to the Supreme Court, the nature of the patient's claim was that the physician failed to properly diagnose and treat him. The Louisiana Supreme Court determined that the facts of the case clearly demonstrated that this was a malpractice action, not an intentional tort. As such the court determined that the physician's decision of where to treat the patient was a matter of professional judgment regarding medical treatment.

In conclusion, the court held that there is no separate intentional tort cause of action against physicians for patient dumping. All such claims fall within the purview of the Medical Malpractice Act and must be tried as malpractice claims. Based on this finding, the court remanded the case for a reduction in damages in accordance with its opinion.