Baum v. Cato

In Baum v. Cato, 599 So. 2d 909 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1992), the claimant filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant/physician who surgically inserted a penile implant into him in June 1987. Despite the pain the claimant was experiencing, he continued under the defendant's care until August 1987. In January 1990, another physician removed the implant and informed the claimant that the pain he was experiencing resulted from an penile implant which was improperly inserted. The claimant then filed suit in November 1990. The district court concluded that the claim had prescribed and dismissed the lawsuit. In reversing the district court, the Court found that it was not reasonable to presume that the claimant knew the implant was improperly inserted until the second physician informed of such in January 1990. The Court also opined that the claimant's continuation of treatment with the defendant did not establish knowledge of the misdiagnosis. By continuing treatment with the defendant for an additional two years, the Court found that the claimant did not reasonably believe that the source of his pain was from the defendant's negligence.