A high-stakes medical malpractice case has taken a dramatic turn, leaving the plaintiff's claims dismissed without prejudice. On July 16, 2024, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit of Louisiana reversed a lower court's decision and dismissed Paul L. Sylvester's lawsuit against Ochsner Clinic Foundation and Michael Santone, N.P., citing abandonment.
Paul L. Sylvester filed his complaint in Orleans Parish Civil District Court on September 2019, accusing Ochsner Clinic Foundation and Michael D. Santone of medical malpractice. The defendants responded to the petition in November 2019 and subsequently sent written discovery requests to Sylvester in December 2019. However, after several years of inactivity punctuated by informal settlement discussions and sporadic communications, Ochsner moved to dismiss the case for abandonment in January 2023.
The legal battle began when Sylvester's attorney at the time, Stephen M. Smith, withdrew from representation in 2020. The parties engaged in settlement discussions throughout 2021, with emails exchanged between February and June indicating ongoing negotiations. A pivotal meeting took place on October 20, 2021, where both parties discussed a potential settlement offer.
In June 2022, Smith—though no longer officially representing Sylvester—sent an email to Ochsner’s counsel containing supplemental IRS records for Paul Sylvester from 2013-2020. This email became a focal point of contention as it was argued whether it constituted formal discovery or merely an informal correspondence related to settlement negotiations.
By December 2023, Sylvester sent new written discovery requests to Ochsner. In response, Ochsner filed an ex parte motion to dismiss based on abandonment due to lack of activity within three years—a motion that was initially granted by the trial court.
In February 2024, Sylvester contested this dismissal by filing a Motion to Set Aside Judgment of Dismissal for Abandonment. He argued that the June 21 email should be considered formal discovery and thus interrupted the three-year abandonment period stipulated under La. C.C.P. art. 561(A)(1). The trial court found merit in this argument and reinstated the case.
However, upon review by the Court of Appeal led by Judge Rosemary Ledet along with Judges Daniel L. Dysart, Tiffany Gautier Chase, Dale N. Atkins (dissenting), and Rachael D. Johnson (dissenting), it was determined that the email did not meet the criteria for formal discovery as outlined under La. C.C.P art. 1420(A). Specifically, since Smith was not enrolled as attorney of record when he sent the email containing tax records during settlement negotiations in June 2022, it could not be considered a formal step interrupting abandonment.
Ochsner’s argument hinged on two main points: first that informal correspondence related to settlement does not qualify as formal discovery; second that any formal discovery must be signed by an attorney of record—a requirement unmet by Smith at that time.
Ultimately siding with Ochsner’s interpretation of both factual circumstances and legal standards regarding abandonment under La C.C.P art.561(B),the appellate court reversed its previous judgment reinstating Sylvester’s claims while emphasizing strict adherence towards procedural rules governing litigation processes including those concerning attorney representations during critical phases like discovery responses or submissions
As such,the appellate court granted Ochsner’s writ reversing lower court ruling thereby rendering judgment dismissing Mr.Sylvesters’claims against them without prejudice
Attorneys involved include Nairda T.Colon & Halley S.Carter from Frilot LLC representing relators while Stephen M.Smith represented respondent Honorable Kern A.Reese presided over initial proceedings before being reviewed under Case ID No .2019-09379 Division “L”.