Semien Et Al vs. Laboratory Corporation Of America Et Al

Case Background

On October 1, 2020, Plaintiff Karla Semien and others filed a Medical malpractice lawsuit in the United States District Court, Louisiana Western (Case number: 2:20cv1284). Judge  Thomas P LeBlanc presided over the case.

Cause

In August 2019, Karla Semien took her 10-year-old daughter, MDS, to the Southwest Louisiana Oberlin Clinic. MDS needed a doctor’s note to use the bathroom more frequently at school due to bladder incontinence. Nurse practitioner Colleen Unkel examined MDS and requested a urine sample. Nurse Abby Walker collected the urine sample from a cabinet between the bathroom and the lab. She performed a dipstick urinalysis on the specimen labeled with MDS’s name. The test revealed a large amount of blood in the urine, prompting Unkel to send the sample to LabCorp for further testing.

LabCorp’s results matched the clinic’s initial test. Additional testing by LabCorp revealed Spermatozoa in the specimen. LabCorp rechecked and confirmed these results due to MDS’s young age and subsequently informed Unkel of their findings. Unkel called MDS’s parents to discuss the results. As a mandatory reporter, she had to report suspected abuse of a minor. Mr. Semien, a sheriff’s deputy, agreed to report the issue to local authorities. An investigation ensued, with authorities suspecting either Mr. Semien or MDS’s brother, Malachi, as potential contributors of the Spermatozoa. Later, it was discovered that the tested urine specimen actually came from a male, not from MDS.

Injuries

The misidentified urine sample and the subsequent investigation caused significant distress to MDS and her family for Medical malpractice. They experienced emotional trauma, pain and suffering, and mental anguish. The incident also led to medical expenses and a loss of enjoyment of life for MDS.

Damages

MDS sought general damages for the pain and suffering she endured due to the incident. She also claimed compensation in  for past and future mental anguish, as well as past and future loss of enjoyment of life. Additionally, MDS requested reimbursement for past medical expenses and coverage for anticipated future medical costs related to the incident.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Karla Semien | Malachi Semien | Madison Semien | Corey Semien | Tyler Semien | LaQuanna Semien
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: David Harmon Hanchey| Todd A. Townsley | Craig Ray Hill | David Grant Castillo | Jordan Zachary Taylor

 

  • Defendant(s): USA
    • Counsel for Defendants: Desiree C. Williams| Jennifer B. Frederick | Kristen H. Bayard

 Claims

The plaintiffs alleged that LabCorp was negligent in its handling and analysis of the urine sample purportedly belonging to MDS. The Semien family argued that LabCorp’s actions or inactions constituted negligence, claiming that the company failed to exercise the proper standard of care in handling and analyzing the specimen in a Medical malpractice lawsuit.

Defense

LabCorp presented a robust defense against the claims made by the Semien family in their lawsuit. In their answer, LabCorp denied most of the allegations due to a lack of sufficient information or belief. They admitted to receiving and analyzing a specimen marked as belonging to MDS but emphasized that they correctly analyzed and reported on the specimen as it was labeled by a third party.

LabCorp asserted numerous defenses in their response. They claimed that the plaintiffs had no cause of action against them and denied that any LabCorp employee or agent injured the plaintiffs. They argued that the sole proximate cause of the alleged damages, if any, was the actions or inactions of the plaintiffs or others for whom LabCorp was not responsible. LabCorp maintained that they and their employees exercised the appropriate standard of care and skill in their work.

The company also raised defenses related to intervening causes, comparative fault, and assumption of risk. They contended that any injuries or damages resulted from intervening and superseding causes not related to LabCorp’s actions. LabCorp claimed they had no direct duty to the plaintiffs, as their services were only available through a physician’s order, invoking the “learned intermediary” doctrine.

Additionally, LabCorp asserted that their methods and techniques conformed to the recognized state of the art and were approved by appropriate federal agencies. They raised constitutional defenses and argued that the plaintiffs’ claims might be barred or reduced due to a failure to mitigate damages. LabCorp also pleaded defenses related to privilege, informed consent, and prescription (statute of limitations). Finally, they reserved the right to amend their answer with additional defenses that might become available during the discovery process.

Jury Verdict

On Septemer 16, 2024, the jury rendered a verdict against LabCorp and in favor of the plaintiffs, which included the Estate of Darrell Semien, Karla Semien, Malachi Semien, MDS, and Madison Semien, as follows:

  • The Estate of Darrell Semien received $90,000 in general damages and $3,000 for past medical expenses.
  • Karla Semien was awarded $90,000 in general damages and $11,625 for past medical expenses.
  • Madison Semien received $20,000 in general damages.
  • Malachi Semien was granted $150,000 in general damages and $3,000 for past medical expenses.
  • MDS Semien was awarded $150,000 in general damages and $9,815 for past medical expenses.

The jury’s verdict resulted in a total damages award of $527,440 to the Semien family, combining both general damages and past medical expenses for all plaintiffs in a Medical malpractice lawsuit.

Court Documents:

Available Upon Request