Zumo v. Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center

| iKUHN, Judge

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding under the facts of this case.

In holding that the trial court properly denied the Fund’s motion for new trial, the majority states that R.S. 40:1299.44(0(6) gives the Fund an interest in a malpractice claim only during the appeal process. The majority finds further support for this position in the supreme court’s statement in Felix v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, 417 So.2d 676, 682 (La.1985) that “the fund may intervene for the purpose of appealing an excess judgment against [itself].” It then concludes…