Christopher J. and Vickilynn M. McCann - Page 9

                                        - 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           
               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