Verdicts

The court determined that the amendment would be futile, because under Louisiana law, a complaint for medical malpractice may not be brought unless and until the claim has been submitted to a medical review panel and the panel has rendered its expert opinion. La. Rev. Stat. ' 40:1299.47(A)(1)(a).

The Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act makes this rule applicable not only to claims brought by a patient or his representative, but also by any other person or entity having claims arising from the death or injuries of the patient. Atkinson v. Lammico Ins. Co., 63 So. 3D 1176 (La. App. 3D Cir. 2011). As there had been no review by a medical review panel in accordance with the Medical Malpractice Act in this case, any medical malpractice claim filed ' even as a third-party claim for contribution ' would have to be dismissed at this juncture. Therefore, allowing amendment to add the third parties to the claim would simply delay and complicate the proceedings, while helping no one.

Additionally, Cayo was unsuccessful in its argument that it should be permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 14(c) to assert its third-party complaints against the medical care providers. Rule 14(c) “permits a defendant [in an admiralty or maritime case] to implead a third-party defendant for two purposes: (1) to seek contribution or indemnification from the third-party defendant, and (2) to tender the third-party defendant to the plaintiff.” Amraco Inc. v. Bossclip B.V., 570 F.3d 233, 242-43 (5th Cir. 2009). However, Rule 14(c) also “requires the third-party plaintiff (1) to assert an action sounding admiralty or maritime, (2) that arises out of 'the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences' as the plaintiff's original claim, and (3) over which the district court has jurisdiction.” Here, the third-party claim did not sound in admiralty law, but in state medical malpractice law, so Rule 14(c) was inapplicable.

'

'

In Maritime Actions, Third-Party Claim Against Health Care Providers Is Premature

Because of the intersection of state medical malpractice law and federal maritime law, an employer seeking to implead the medical care providers of its injured employee' must wait until after the employee's maritime law and Jones Act claims have been adjudicated to obtain contribution from the medical care providers. Hartzog v. Cayo, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79073 (E.D.La. 6/5/12).

The plaintiff suffered a work-related injury and sought compensation from his employer, Cayo L.L.C., in accordance with federal maritime law and the Jones Act. On the theory that they contributed to the plaintiff's injuries, Cayo sought leave to amend its answer to add third-party claims for contribution against the two doctors who treated the plaintiff's injuries, and against the hospital where that treatment was rendered.

The court determined that the amendment would be futile, because under Louisiana law, a complaint for medical malpractice may not be brought unless and until the claim has been submitted to a medical review panel and the panel has rendered its expert opinion. La. Rev. Stat. ' 40:1299.47(A)(1)(a).

The Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act makes this rule applicable not only to claims brought by a patient or his representative, but also by any other person or entity having claims arising from the death or injuries of the patient. Atkinson v. Lammico Ins. Co., 63 So. 3D 1176 (La. App. 3D Cir. 2011). As there had been no review by a medical review panel in accordance with the Medical Malpractice Act in this case, any medical malpractice claim filed ' even as a third-party claim for contribution ' would have to be dismissed at this juncture. Therefore, allowing amendment to add the third parties to the claim would simply delay and complicate the proceedings, while helping no one.

Additionally, Cayo was unsuccessful in its argument that it should be permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 14(c) to assert its third-party complaints against the medical care providers. Rule 14(c) “permits a defendant [in an admiralty or maritime case] to implead a third-party defendant for two purposes: (1) to seek contribution or indemnification from the third-party defendant, and (2) to tender the third-party defendant to the plaintiff.” Amraco Inc. v. Bossclip B.V. , 570 F.3d 233, 242-43 (5th Cir. 2009). However, Rule 14(c) also “requires the third-party plaintiff (1) to assert an action sounding admiralty or maritime, (2) that arises out of 'the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences' as the plaintiff's original claim, and (3) over which the district court has jurisdiction.” Here, the third-party claim did not sound in admiralty law, but in state medical malpractice law, so Rule 14(c) was inapplicable.

'

'