- 9 -
because LPCF was concerned that the malpractice cap would be
ruled unconstitutional by the Louisiana Supreme Court, which
could expose LPCF to even greater liability. Petitioners contend
that LPCF’s concern about the constitutionality of the
malpractice cap caused it to agree to pay the entire $839,000
payment for personal injuries. Petitioners’ contention is
unconvincing because the Louisiana Supreme Court held the
malpractice cap constitutional before the parties in this case
signed the RRC agreement, Butler v. Flint Goodrich Hosp., 607 So.
2d 517, 521 (La. 1992), and because there is no evidence that
LPCF was concerned about the constitutionality of the malpractice
cap.
Petitioners contend that LPCF negotiated to pay no interest.
We disagree. There is no evidence about what transpired during
the settlement negotiations or that the parties discussed
allocation of the settlement payment between interest and damages
on account of personal injuries. Cf. Dotson v. United States, 87
F.3d 682 (5th Cir. 1996).
In the RRC agreement, petitioners released various claims
including damages and interest in exchange for the $839,000
payment. Petitioners contend that this release shows that none
of the $839,000 payment is for interest. Petitioners also
contend that the RRC agreement shows that LPCF paid them wholly
on account of personal injuries and that we should give effect to
the RRC agreement here as we did to the settlement agreement in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011