La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2794 (2026)

Physicians, dentists, optometrists, and chiropractic physicians; malpractice; burden of proof; jury charge; physician witness expert qualification

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§2794. Physicians, dentists, optometrists, and chiropractic physicians; malpractice; burden of proof; jury charge; physician witness expert qualification

           A. In a malpractice action based on the negligence of a physician licensed under R.S. 37:1261 et seq., a dentist licensed under R.S. 37:751 et seq., an optometrist licensed under R.S. 37:1041 et seq., or a chiropractic physician licensed under R.S. 37:2801 et seq., the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving:

           (1) The degree of knowledge or skill possessed or the degree of care ordinarily exercised by physicians, dentists, optometrists, or chiropractic physicians licensed to practice in the state of Louisiana and actively practicing in a similar community or locale and under similar circumstances; and where the defendant practices in a particular specialty and where the alleged acts of medical negligence raise issues peculiar to the particular medical specialty involved, then the plaintiff has the burden of proving the degree of care ordinarily practiced by physicians, dentists, optometrists, or chiropractic physicians within the involved medical specialty.

           (2) That the defendant either lacked this degree of knowledge or skill or failed to use reasonable care and diligence, along with his best judgment in the application of that skill.

           (3) That as a proximate result of this lack of knowledge or skill or the failure to exercise this degree of care the plaintiff suffered injuries that would not otherwise have been incurred.

           B. Any party to an action shall have the right to subpoena any physician, dentist, optometrist, or chiropractor for a deposition or testimony for trial, or both, to establish the degree of knowledge or skill possessed or degree of care ordinarily exercised as described in Subsection A of this Section without obtaining the consent of the physician, dentist, optometrist, or chiropractor who is going to be subpoenaed only if that physician, dentist, optometrist, or chiropractor has or possesses special knowledge or experience in the specific medical procedure or process that forms the basis of the action. The fee of the physician, dentist, optometrist, or chiropractor called for deposition or testimony, or both, under this Subsection shall be set by the court.

           C. In medical malpractice actions the jury shall be instructed that the plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, the negligence of the physician, dentist, optometrist, or chiropractic physician. The jury shall be further instructed that injury alone does not raise a presumption of the physician's, dentist's, optometrist's, or chiropractic physician's negligence. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to situations where the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is found by the court to be applicable.

           D.(1) In a medical malpractice action against a physician, licensed to practice medicine by the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners under R.S. 37:1261 et seq., for injury to or death of a patient, a person may qualify as an expert witness on the issue of whether the physician departed from accepted standards of medical care only if the person is a physician who meets all of the following criteria:

           (a) He is practicing medicine at the time such testimony is given or was practicing medicine at the time the claim arose.

           (b) He has knowledge of accepted standards of medical care for the diagnosis, care, or treatment of the illness, injury, or condition involved in the claim.

           (c) He is qualified on the basis of training or experience to offer an expert opinion regarding those accepted standards of care.

           (d) He is licensed to practice medicine by the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners under R.S. 37:1261 et seq., is licensed to practice medicine by any other jurisdiction in the United States, or is a graduate of a medical school accredited by the American Medical Association's Liaison Committee on Medical Education or the American Osteopathic Association.

           (2) For the purposes of this Subsection, "practicing medicine" or "medical practice" includes but is not limited to training residents or students at an accredited school of medicine or osteopathy or serving as a consulting physician to other physicians who provide direct patient care, upon the request of such other physicians.

           (3) In determining whether a witness is qualified on the basis of training or experience, the court shall consider whether, at the time the claim arose or at the time the testimony is given, the witness is board certified or has other substantial training or experience in an area of medical practice relevant to the claim and is actively practicing in that area.

           (4) The court shall apply the criteria specified in Paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this Subsection in determining whether a person is qualified to offer expert testimony on the issue of whether the physician departed from accepted standards of medical care.

           (5) Nothing in this Subsection shall be construed to prohibit a physician from qualifying as an expert solely because he is a defendant in a medical malpractice claim.

           Added by Acts 1975, No. 807, §1. Amended by Acts 1979, No. 545, §1; Acts 1985, No. 709, §1; Acts 1995, No. 821, §1; Acts 1997, No. 623, §1, eff. July 3, 1997; Acts 2003, No. 581, §1, eff, June 27, 2003.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 762 cases (57 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: Ardoin v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 360 So. 2d 1331 (La. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ardoin v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 360 So. 2d 1331 (La. 1978). · cites it 16× “R.S. 9:2794 and that the trial court's ruling was therefore consistent with this statute.”
Benjamin v. Zeichner, 113 So. 3d 197 (La. 2013). · cites it 19× “R.S. 9:2794(A). . Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc.”
Cangelosi v. Our Lady of Lake Reg. Med. Ctr., 564 So. 2d 654 (La. 1990). · cites it 12× “R.S. 9:2794 in my opinion. My brethren do not read the statute as confirming the trial judge's traditional role of deciding whether it is permissible for the jury to infer negligence by the defendant under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.”
Carter v. Haygood, 892 So. 2d 1261 (La. 2005). · cites it 5× “The district court denied the defendants' exception of prescription and further found defendant liable under La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 9:2794. The court of appeal reversed in part and affirmed in part the district court's ruling on prescription and reversed the district court's…”
Johnson v. Morehouse Gen. Hosp., 63 So. 3d 87 (La. 2011). · cites it 10× “And I will tell you now that I believe based on his training and his past experience and continuing education that using my gatekeeper orders by the Supreme Court and by RS 9:2794 that I will allow him to testify.”
Pfiffner v. Correa, 643 So. 2d 1228 (La. 1994). · cites it 6× “Though in most cases, because of the complex medical and factual issues involved, a plaintiff will likely fail to sustain his burden of proving his claim under LSA-R.S. 9:2794's requirements without medical experts, there are instances in which the medical and factual issues are…”
Steinbach v. Barfield, 428 So. 2d 915 (La. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 14× “R.S. 9:2794 [2] and is succinctly set forth in White v.”
Campo v. Correa, 828 So. 2d 502 (La. 2002). · cites it 2× “The jurisprudence is well established that the mere fact there is an injury during or following medical care or treatment is not an indication of substandard care that either the physician or hospital provided.”
White v. McCool, 395 So. 2d 774 (La. 1981). · cites it 8× “The normal plaintiff's burden under R.S. 9:2794 (to establish the standard of care ordinarily exercised by physicians within the involved medical specialty under similar circumstances, and that the defendant failed to meet that standard of care) is applicable.”
Foster v. Patwardhan, 132 So. 3d 495 (La. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 8× “R.S. 9:2794(A). *500 Expert testimony is generally required to establish the applicable standard of care and whether or not that standard was breached, except where the negligence is so obvious that a lay person can infer negligence without the guidance of expert testimony.”
Schultz v. Guoth, 57 So. 3d 1002 (La. 2011). · cites it 2× “Though in most cases, because of the complex medical and factual issues involved, a plaintiff will likely fail to sustain his burden of proving his claim under LSA-R.S. 9:2794’s requirements without medical experts, there are instances in which the medical and factual issues are…”
Bozarth v. State Lsu Med. Ctr., 35 So. 3d 316 (La. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 8× “nces; and where the defendant practices in a particular specialty and the alleged acts of medical negligence raise issues peculiar to the particular medical specialty involved, then the plaintiff has the burden of proving the degree of care ordinarily practiced by physicians…”
Show all 762 citing cases →
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2794(1): 1 case
Walsh v. Morris, 999 So. 2d 1261 (La. Ct. App. 2009).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2794(3): 1 case
Campbell v. Hosp. Serv. Dist., 793 So. 2d 521 (La. Ct. App. 2001).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2794(A): 251 cases
Pfiffner v. Correa, 643 So. 2d 1228 (La. 1994). “Though in most cases, because of the complex medical and factual issues involved, a plaintiff will likely fail to sustain his burden of proving his claim under LSA-R.S. 9:2794's requirements without medical experts, there are instances in which the medical and factual issues are…”
Coleman v. Deno, 787 So. 2d 446 (La. Ct. App. 2001).
Perritt v. Dona, 849 So. 2d 56 (La. 2003).
Johnson v. Morehouse Gen. Hosp., 63 So. 3d 87 (La. 2011). “And I will tell you now that I believe based on his training and his past experience and continuing education that using my gatekeeper orders by the Supreme Court and by RS 9:2794 that I will allow him to testify.”
Salvant v. State, 935 So. 2d 646 (La. 2006).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2794(A)(1): 60 cases
Piazza v. Behrman Chiropractic Clinic, Inc., 601 So. 2d 1378 (La. 1992).
McLean v. Hunter, 495 So. 2d 1298 (La. 1986).
Steinbach v. Barfield, 428 So. 2d 915 (La. Ct. App. 1983). “R.S. 9:2794 [2] and is succinctly set forth in White v.”
Price v. Erbe USA, Inc., 42 So. 3d 985 (La. Ct. App. 2010).
LeBlanc v. Landry, 21 So. 3d 353 (La. Ct. App. 2009).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2794(A)(2): 15 cases
Steinbach v. Barfield, 428 So. 2d 915 (La. Ct. App. 1983). “R.S. 9:2794 [2] and is succinctly set forth in White v.”
Madere v. Louise Gautreaux Collins, M.D. & Ochsner Med. Ctr.-Kenner, LLC, 241 So. 3d 1143 (La. Ct. App. 2018).
Frasier v. Dep't of Health & Human, 500 So. 2d 858 (La. Ct. App. 1986).
White v. McCool, 395 So. 2d 774 (La. 1981). “The normal plaintiff's burden under R.S. 9:2794 (to establish the standard of care ordinarily exercised by physicians within the involved medical specialty under similar circumstances, and that the defendant failed to meet that standard of care) is applicable.”
Bourne v. Seventh Ward Gen. Hosp., 546 So. 2d 197 (La. Ct. App. 1989).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2794(A)(3): 27 cases
Steinbach v. Barfield, 428 So. 2d 915 (La. Ct. App. 1983). “R.S. 9:2794 [2] and is succinctly set forth in White v.”
Khammash v. Clark, 145 So. 3d 246 (La. 2014).
Smith v. State Through Dept. HHR, 523 So. 2d 815 (La. 1988).
Madere v. Louise Gautreaux Collins, M.D. & Ochsner Med. Ctr.-Kenner, LLC, 241 So. 3d 1143 (La. Ct. App. 2018).
Newsom v. Lake Charles Mem'l Hosp., 954 So. 2d 380 (La. Ct. App. 2007).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2794(A)(l): 1 case
Herman v. St. Paul Ins. Co., 947 So. 2d 785 (La. Ct. App. 2006).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2794(B): 7 cases
Pfiffner v. Correa, 643 So. 2d 1228 (La. 1994). “Though in most cases, because of the complex medical and factual issues involved, a plaintiff will likely fail to sustain his burden of proving his claim under LSA-R.S. 9:2794's requirements without medical experts, there are instances in which the medical and factual issues are…”
Carter v. Haygood, 892 So. 2d 1261 (La. 2005). “The district court denied the defendants' exception of prescription and further found defendant liable under La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 9:2794. The court of appeal reversed in part and affirmed in part the district court's ruling on prescription and reversed the district court's…”
McLean v. Hunter, 495 So. 2d 1298 (La. 1986).
Terrebonne v. Floyd, 767 So. 2d 758 (La. Ct. App. 2000).
Richardson v. Cotter, 245 So. 3d 136 (La. Ct. App. 2017).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2794(C): 42 cases
Cangelosi v. Our Lady of Lake Reg. Med. Ctr., 564 So. 2d 654 (La. 1990). “R.S. 9:2794 in my opinion. My brethren do not read the statute as confirming the trial judge's traditional role of deciding whether it is permissible for the jury to infer negligence by the defendant under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.”
Campo v. Correa, 828 So. 2d 502 (La. 2002). “The jurisprudence is well established that the mere fact there is an injury during or following medical care or treatment is not an indication of substandard care that either the physician or hospital provided.”
White v. McCool, 395 So. 2d 774 (La. 1981). “The normal plaintiff's burden under R.S. 9:2794 (to establish the standard of care ordinarily exercised by physicians within the involved medical specialty under similar circumstances, and that the defendant failed to meet that standard of care) is applicable.”
Hays v. Christus Schumpert N. Louisiana, 72 So. 3d 955 (La. Ct. App. 2011).
Barre v. Nadell, 657 So. 2d 514 (La. Ct. App. 1995).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2794(D): 12 cases
Johnson v. Morehouse Gen. Hosp., 63 So. 3d 87 (La. 2011). “And I will tell you now that I believe based on his training and his past experience and continuing education that using my gatekeeper orders by the Supreme Court and by RS 9:2794 that I will allow him to testify.”
Foster v. Patwardhan, 132 So. 3d 495 (La. Ct. App. 2014). “R.S. 9:2794(A). *500 Expert testimony is generally required to establish the applicable standard of care and whether or not that standard was breached, except where the negligence is so obvious that a lay person can infer negligence without the guidance of expert testimony.”
Cleveland Ex Rel. Cleveland v. United States, 457 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. 2006).
Price v. Erbe USA, Inc., 42 So. 3d 985 (La. Ct. App. 2010).
Johnson v. Ray, 106 So. 3d 629 (La. Ct. App. 2012).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2794(D)(1): 12 cases
Benjamin v. Zeichner, 113 So. 3d 197 (La. 2013). “R.S. 9:2794(A). . Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc.”
Johnson v. Morehouse Gen. Hosp., 63 So. 3d 87 (La. 2011). “And I will tell you now that I believe based on his training and his past experience and continuing education that using my gatekeeper orders by the Supreme Court and by RS 9:2794 that I will allow him to testify.”
Benjamin v. Zeichner, 94 So. 3d 1005 (La. Ct. App. 2012).
Cheryl Detillieu; Alfred Joseph Detillieu, III; & Michelle Detillieu Seruntine Individually & on Behalf of Alfred Detillieu, Jr., Versus Louisiana Med. Mut. Ins. Co.; Shaun R. Carpenter, M.D.; Arthur Jerry Satterlee, M.D.; Camille N. Bitar. M.D.; John C. Simon, M.D.; Michael Hall, M.D.; Luis M. Alvarado, M.d; & Lakview Reg'l Med. Ctr., No. 23-CA-226 (La. Ct. App. July 9, 2024).
Thomas v. Drew, 240 So. 3d 980 (La. Ct. App. 2018).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2794(D)(1)(b): 2 cases
Nasset v. United States, No. 2:18-cv-09253 (E.D. La. June 4, 2020).
Gladys S. Gautreaux Versus West Jefferson Med. Ctr., No. 21-C-20 (La. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2021).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2794(D)(2): 1 case
Cheryl Detillieu; Alfred Joseph Detillieu, III; & Michelle Detillieu Seruntine Individually & on Behalf of Alfred Detillieu, Jr., Versus Louisiana Med. Mut. Ins. Co.; Shaun R. Carpenter, M.D.; Arthur Jerry Satterlee, M.D.; Camille N. Bitar. M.D.; John C. Simon, M.D.; Michael Hall, M.D.; Luis M. Alvarado, M.d; & Lakview Reg'l Med. Ctr., No. 23-CA-226 (La. Ct. App. July 9, 2024).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2794(D)(3): 9 cases
Foster v. Patwardhan, 132 So. 3d 495 (La. Ct. App. 2014). “R.S. 9:2794(A). *500 Expert testimony is generally required to establish the applicable standard of care and whether or not that standard was breached, except where the negligence is so obvious that a lay person can infer negligence without the guidance of expert testimony.”
Harper v. Minor, 86 So. 3d 690 (La. Ct. App. 2012).
Lejeune v. Louisiana Med. Mut. Ins. Co., 153 So. 3d 1021 (La. Ct. App. 2014).
Cheryl Detillieu; Alfred Joseph Detillieu, III; & Michelle Detillieu Seruntine Individually & on Behalf of Alfred Detillieu, Jr., Versus Louisiana Med. Mut. Ins. Co.; Shaun R. Carpenter, M.D.; Arthur Jerry Satterlee, M.D.; Camille N. Bitar. M.D.; John C. Simon, M.D.; Michael Hall, M.D.; Luis M. Alvarado, M.d; & Lakview Reg'l Med. Ctr., No. 23-CA-226 (La. Ct. App. July 9, 2024).
Andrea Lovecchio v. Renee Angelle Romain & Todd Rosenthal, 364 So. 3d 202 (La. Ct. App. 2020).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2794(D)(5): 2 cases
Bozarth v. State Lsu Med. Ctr., 35 So. 3d 316 (La. Ct. App. 2010). “nces; and where the defendant practices in a particular specialty and the alleged acts of medical negligence raise issues peculiar to the particular medical specialty involved, then the plaintiff has the burden of proving the degree of care ordinarily practiced by physicians…”
Foster v. Patwardhan, 132 So. 3d 495 (La. Ct. App. 2014). “R.S. 9:2794(A). *500 Expert testimony is generally required to establish the applicable standard of care and whether or not that standard was breached, except where the negligence is so obvious that a lay person can infer negligence without the guidance of expert testimony.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2794(D)(l): 1 case
Foster v. Patwardhan, 132 So. 3d 495 (La. Ct. App. 2014). “R.S. 9:2794(A). *500 Expert testimony is generally required to establish the applicable standard of care and whether or not that standard was breached, except where the negligence is so obvious that a lay person can infer negligence without the guidance of expert testimony.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2794(D)(l)(a): 2 cases
Johnson v. Morehouse Gen. Hosp., 63 So. 3d 87 (La. 2011). “And I will tell you now that I believe based on his training and his past experience and continuing education that using my gatekeeper orders by the Supreme Court and by RS 9:2794 that I will allow him to testify.”
Kimberly Chiasson, Individually & on behalf of her minor son, Cameron Chiasson v. Louisiana Med. Mut. Ins. Co., & John Whitaker, M.D., 307 So. 3d 204 (La. Ct. App. 2020).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2794(D)(l)(c): 1 case
Bias v. Del Toro, 77 So. 3d 993 (La. Ct. App. 2011).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2794(D)(l)(d): 2 cases
Benjamin v. Zeichner, 113 So. 3d 197 (La. 2013). “R.S. 9:2794(A). . Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc.”
Benjamin v. Zeichner, 94 So. 3d 1005 (La. Ct. App. 2012).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2794(a): 1 case
Richard v. Par. Anesthesia Assocs., Ltd., 106 So. 3d 730 (La. Ct. App. 2012).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2794(c): 1 case
Jones v. Levy, 520 So. 2d 457 (La. Ct. App. 1988).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.