Williams — dismissed malpractice claims against Dr. Ratliff and his insurer as untimely

Case
Thomas Williams, Individually and on Behalf of Hilda Williams v. Hometown Senior Care, LLC and Stacy D. Jones, M.D.
Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit
Judge
Penzato (appointment info not available); HESTER (elected 2020)
Date Decided
August 4, 2026
Docket No.
2026 CW 0693
Topics
Medical Malpractice; Prescription; Medical Review Panels
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Thomas Williams, individually and on behalf of Hilda Williams, pursued a medical-malpractice claim. He submitted the claim to a medical review panel 20 days before the applicable one-year prescriptive period otherwise would have expired on April 21, 2022.

The panel’s term was extended by court order through August 9, 2024, but the panel did not issue an opinion by that date. Williams later amended or supplemented his petition on December 12, 2024, to name James A. Ratliff, M.D., and Kinsale Insurance Company as defendants. The district court denied those defendants’ exception of prescription, and they sought supervisory review.

The Court’s Holding

The First Circuit granted the writ and reversed the district court’s April 28, 2026 judgment. It held that the medical review panel dissolved by operation of law when the court-ordered extension expired on August 9, 2024. The Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act did not require formal notice of dissolution after the expiration of that extension.

Prescription remained suspended for 90 days after the extension expired and resumed on November 7, 2024. Because 20 days remained in the original prescriptive period when Williams requested panel review, he had until November 27, 2024, to add Dr. Ratliff and Kinsale. His December 12 filing was therefore untimely. The court granted the exception of prescription and dismissed the claims against those defendants.

Key Takeaways

  • A medical review panel dissolves by operation of law if it fails to issue an opinion before a court-ordered extension expires.
  • Formal notice of dissolution is not required when the panel’s court-ordered extension has expired.
  • After the statutory 90-day suspension ends, a claimant receives only the portion of the original prescriptive period that remained when panel review was requested.

Why It Matters

The decision emphasizes that malpractice claimants must calculate prescription from the expiration of a medical review panel’s court-ordered extension, even if they receive no formal dissolution notice. Missing the resulting deadline can bar claims against health care providers and their insurers.

Greene, J., dissented and would have denied the writ.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top