Poole et al v. Hologic Inc
MEMORANDUM RULING denying 17 Motion to Remand or in the Alternative for Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark L Hornsby on 5/10/2010. (crt,Keifer, K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W E S T E R N DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA S H R E V E P O R T DIVISION
K E L L Y POOLE, ET AL V ER SU S H O L O G I C , INC.
C IV IL ACTION NO. 10-cv-0314 J U D G E HICKS M A G I S T R A T E JUDGE HORNSBY
M E M O R A N D U M RULING K e lly and Benjamin Poole ("Plaintiffs") allege that two physicians with Christus S c h u m p e rt Hospital performed on Ms. Poole an endometrial ablation surgery that involved th e use of a NovaSure machine manufactured by Hologic, Inc. Plaintiffs allege that the m a c h in e did not get a good seal, so the physicians telephoned a representative of Hologic for in s tru c tio n s . Ms. Poole's uterus was perforated during the procedure, which required an e m e rg e n c y hysterectomy on the young woman. Plaintiffs filed a petition in state court against Hologic. They alleged that it was liable b a se d on the Louisiana Product Liability Act and because its representative instructed the p h ysician s to perform the procedure in a negligent manner. P la in tif f s filed on the same day a medical malpractice complaint with the Louisiana C o m m is s io n e r of Administration. They named as defendants the two physicians who p e rf o rm e d the surgery, Christus Health System, and Hologic. A medical malpractice d e f en d a n t may have a lawsuit dismissed as premature if it is a qualified healthcare provider a n d the plaintiff has not first exhausted her remedies under the medical malpractice
a d m in is tra tiv e system. Plaintiffs report that all of the named defendants, except Hologic, w e re determined to be qualified healthcare providers under Louisiana law. Hologic removed this case based on diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Remand or Alternatively For Stay (Doc. 17). Plaintiffs argue that the court should find th e re is not diversity because they intend to add the non-diverse physicians and hospital as d e f en d a n ts once the administrative proceedings are completed. Plaintiffs acknowledge that th e undersigned has held in a very similar case that such a possible future destruction of d iv e rs ity is not a proper ground for a remand. McQuiston v. Boston Scientific Corp., 2008 W L 104210 (W.D. La. 2008). Plaintiffs urge the court to reconsider that holding, but the c o u rt remains of the opinion that the result in McQuiston is correct. P la in tif f s ask in the alternative that this case be stayed pending the conclusion of the m e d ic a l review panel, after which the physician and hospital defendants can be joined so that t h e case may proceed (after remand to state court) with all likely defendants present. D e f e n d a n ts respond that a stay would deny them the opportunity to be quickly dismissed f ro m this case based on their pending motion to dismiss that invokes a preemption defense. T h e briefing of that motion has been stayed pending the resolution of this motion. D e f en d a n ts also express concern that a stay would deny them the opportunity to conduct d is c o v e ry and explore the facts while they are fresh. Both parties have done a good job of briefing the issues and expressing the competing c o n c ern s . After due consideration, the court finds that a stay is not the best exercise of the
Page 2 of 3
c o u rt's discretion at this time. The case will be allowed to go forward so that Judge Hicks m a y address the pending motion to dismiss. If there are any claims remaining against H o lo g ic after a ruling on the motion, the undersigned will hold a scheduling conference to d isc u ss a schedule for discovery and related issues. The case may reach a point where, with a n eye toward the status of the medical review process, a stay becomes appropriate. At this p o in t, however, the case will be allowed to go forward. A c c o rd in g ly, the Motion to Remand or in the Alternative For Stay (Doc. 17) is d e n ie d . T H U S DONE AND SIGNED in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 10th day of May, 2010.
Page 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?