- 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 inPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011