Kadlec Medical Center v. Lakeview Anesthesia Associates

“The Court Decides” Kadlec Medical Center v. Lakeview Anesthesia Associates 1) Kadlec is a decision by a federal court in a lawsuit brought by a plaintiff located in the state of Washington on a question regarding Louisiana state law. Can you explain why the case was filed in Louisiana, and why the Louisiana law rather than the law of Washington applies? Jurisdiction in the legal field is a very powerful concept; this term refers to whether a court has power to hear a certain case (Edmonds, 2003). It allows for better control of how much power a court holds over that case. Without proper jurisdiction in place, chaos could erupt in courthouses due to the possible confusion of so many different courts hearing in on these cases. In state courts, for instance, a case could be brought in so long as the states in which the parties relate with are included. In other words, different states do not have jurisdiction over one another, and they stay within their own boundaries (Becraft, n.d.). A federal court, however, has more jurisdiction than state courts. Whereas state courts are restricted, the federal court system involves the entire nation. They can even hold jurisdiction over cases in which one party does not reside in this country. In this case, since both parties live in different states and more than $75,000 is at stake, the federal court takes over this subject matter jurisdiction (Illinois Legal Aid Online, 2017). In order for this case to have been correctly filed, there must be proof of the intentional misrepresentation occurring in the state of Louisiana. The defendant must provide accurate information and the breach of duty must be demonstrated; this breach must have also caused damages to the plaintiff (Showalter, 2017, 253-299). Although the plaintiff that came forward with this case was located in Washington at the time, the Louisiana Law must be the relevant one. The plaintiff sued based on the idea that Lakeview Medical and the LAA defendants breached the duty to Kadlec Medical Center (Kadlec v. LAA, 2008). The problem originated in Louisiana; from the beginning, the issue was with Dr. Berry practicing in this state. The plaintiff alleged this claim under the general Louisiana negligence law. It would not make legal sense for this case to have been considered under Washington law when the issue originated in Louisiana. 2) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is located in New Orleans. Most, if not all, of its judges are likely members of the Louisiana bar. Nevertheless, this federal court is presuming to gauge what a state court would decide if presented with these issues. What procedural mechanism might the district court or court of appeals have used to dispose of the Kadlec case without guessing what the Louisiana courts would do? The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has jurisdiction over district courts in federal judicial districts. These federal judicial districts include Eastern District of Louisiana, Middle District of Louisiana, and Western District of Louisiana (Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2014). The district court in Louisiana entered a judgment consistent with the matter in how the jury allocated the fault among the individuals found to be legally responsible. The jury divided the fault among the individuals at fault; they granted the percentage as follows: Dr. Dennis 20%; Dr. Preau 5%; Lakeview Medical 25%; Kadlec 17%; and Dr. Berry 33% (Showalter, 2017, 253-299). The final judgment of the district court was reversed and vacated in part, as well. It is believed that the Court of Appeals used the multidistrict litigation in this particular case. A multidistrict ligation is referred to as a special federal and legal procedure designed to speed the process of handling very complex cases (Borden, 2018). Physicians take an oath to save lives and do all that is necessary to help patients (Sagin, 2006) The Court of Appeals found that a hospital that chooses to respond to a reference request does not have a duty to disclose negative information about a physician to the inquiring hospital.