Hospital exception in Louisiana

1995For instance, the court of appeal in Gore v. City of Pineville, 598 So.2d 1122, 1124 (La.App. 3d Cir.), writ denied, 600 So.2d 681 (La.1992), specifically held that "under the provisions of LSA-R.S. 13:3714 the blood test results were properly admitted without laying a foundation." See generally Brown v. Collins, 223 So.2d 453 (La.App. 3d Cir.1969) (affirming the admission of blood test results pursuant to the hospital exception to the hearsay rule recognized in R.S. 13:3714); Hunter v. Benson Chevrolet Co., Inc., 572 So.2d 672, 673 (La.

1992R.S. 13:3714 states: “Whenever a certified copy of the chart or record of any hospital, signed by the administrator or the medical records librarian of the hospital in question, is offered in evidence in any court of competent jurisdiction, it shall be received in evidence by such court as prima facie proof of its contents, provided that the party against whom the record is sought to be used may summon and examine those making the original of said record as witnesses under cross-examination.” In Brown v. Collins, 223 So.2d 453 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1969), we affirmed the admission of blood test res

2009In Browning v. West Calcasieu Cameron Hosp., 03-332 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/12/03) , 865 So.2d 795 , writ denied, 03-3354 (La.2/13/04), 867 So.2d 691 , this court reviewed the trial court’s denial of the defendant Hospital’s motion for summary judgment against the family of a patient who died subsequent to being treated by emergency medical technicians dispatched from the hospital.

2009In Browning v. West Calcasieu Cameron Hosp., 03-332 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/12/03) , 865 So.2d 795 , writ denied, 03-3354 (La.2/13/04), 867 So.2d 691 , this court reviewed the trial court's denial of the defendant Hospital's motion for summary judgment against the family of a patient who died subsequent to being treated by emergency medical technicians dispatched from the hospital.

2009In Browning v. West Calcasieu Cameron Hosp., 03-332 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/12/03) , 865 So.2d 795 , writ denied, 03-3354 (La.2/13/04), 867 So.2d 691 , this court reviewed the trial court’s denial of the defendant Hospital’s motion for summary judgment against the family of a patient who died subsequent to being treated by emergency medical technicians dispatched from the hospital.

2009In Browning v. West Calcasieu Cameron Hosp., 03-332 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/12/03) , 865 So.2d 795 , writ denied, 03-3354 (La.2/13/04), 867 So.2d 691 , this court reviewed the trial court's denial of the defendant Hospital's motion for summary judgment against the family of a patient who died subsequent to being treated by emergency medical technicians dispatched from the hospital.

2003If that be plain, it is the duty of the courts to enforce the law as written, provided it be within the constitutional authority of the legislative body which passed it." United States v. Standard Brewery, Inc., 251 U.S. 210, 217 , 40 S.Ct. 139, 140 , 64 L.Ed. 229 (1920).

2003If that be plain, it is the duty of the courts to enforce the law as written, provided it be within the constitutional authority of the legislative body which passed it." United States v. Standard Brewery, Inc., 251 U.S. 210, 217 , 40 S.Ct. 139, 140 , 64 L.Ed. 229 (1920).

2003Ctr., 92-3086 (La.4/28/94), 636 So.2d 211 .

2002STANDARD OF REVIEW In Pierre-Ancar v. Browne-McHardy Clinic, 2000-2410 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/16/02) , 807 So.2d 344 , cert. denied, 2002-0509 (La.4/26/02), 814 So.2d 558 , this court discussed the criteria to be used by an appellate court in reviewing a summary judgment, as follows:.

2002STANDARD OF REVIEW In Pierre-Ancar v. Browne-McHardy Clinic, 2000-2410 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/16/02) , 807 So.2d 344 , cert. denied, 2002-0509 (La.4/26/02), 814 So.2d 558 , this court discussed the criteria to be used by an appellate court in reviewing a summary judgment, as follows:.

1995For instance, the court of appeal in Gore v. City of Pineville, 598 So.2d 1122, 1124 (La.App. 3d Cir.), writ denied, 600 So.2d 681 (La.1992), specifically held that "under the provisions of LSA-R.S. 13:3714 the blood test results were properly admitted without laying a foundation." See generally Brown v. Collins, 223 So.2d 453 (La.App. 3d Cir.1969) (affirming the admission of blood test results pursuant to the hospital exception to the hearsay rule recognized in R.S. 13:3714); Hunter v. Benson Chevrolet Co., Inc., 572 So.2d 672, 673 (La.

1989As stated in Truxillo, supra, at page 495: "As between creditor and surety (`security'), the surety is governed by principles applicable to debtors in solido, art. 3045; but as between debtor and surety the surety (the master) has the right (1) to subrogation to the creditor's right against the debtor (servant) if the surety (master) has paid the debt, arts. 3052, 3053; and, (2) to indemnity against the debtor (servant) if the surety (master) has not paid the debt but suit has been filed against him ..." (Emphasis omitted). *71 Since the Hospital's claim for indemnity is not dependent upon a r

1989As stated in Truxillo, supra, at page 495: "As between creditor and surety (`security'), the surety is governed by principles applicable to debtors in solido, art. 3045; but as between debtor and surety the surety (the master) has the right (1) to subrogation to the creditor's right against the debtor (servant) if the surety (master) has paid the debt, arts. 3052, 3053; and, (2) to indemnity against the debtor (servant) if the surety (master) has not paid the debt but suit has been filed against him ..." (Emphasis omitted). *71 Since the Hospital's claim for indemnity is not dependent upon a r

1987In its reasons for judgment, the trial court based its decision on the criteria of Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., 488 So.2d 934 (La.1986) to determine plaintiff's status as a statutory employee.

1959After trial on its merits judgment was rendered by the District court in favor of the Hospital and against the defendants, but this judgment was reversed by the Supreme Court of Louisiana and the Hospital’s claim was rejected and the suit was dismissed at the Hospital’s cost. 231 La. 820 , 93 So.2d 20 .

1959After trial on its merits judgment was rendered by the District court in favor of the Hospital and against the defendants, but this judgment was reversed by the Supreme Court of Louisiana and the Hospital’s claim was rejected and the suit was dismissed at the Hospital’s cost. 231 La. 820 , 93 So.2d 20 .