When this case was previously before us, we affirmed the judgment of the trial court based upon a jury verdict that Dr. Pizzalotto was not responsible in damages for the removal of defendant's reproductive organs. Pizzalotto v. Wilson, 411 So.2d 1150 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983). While the Supreme Court agreed with our conclusion that Dr. Pizzalotto was not guilty of negligence or malpractice, it found he was guilty of battery in that he did not secure his patient's express or implied consent to the removal of her reproductive organs. It remanded the case for the determination of damages resulting from the battery. Pizzalotto v. Wilson, 437 So.2d 859 (La.1983).
For a recitation of the facts we refer to the two written decisions.
Since we find from a preponderance of the evidence that the patient was already sterile,
We have carefully examined the entire record again and find that an award of $10,000.00 will adequately compensate her for the actual damages she has sustained. This amount will be offset by the $880.00 award to Dr. Pizzalotto in his suit on open account.
For these reasons, judgment is rendered in favor of Ms. Wilson and against Karl J. Pizzalotto, M.D., in the sum of $9,120.00, plus interest and costs.