In Flagg v. Stryker Corp., No. 14-31169 (5th Cir. Mar. 24, 2016) (en banc), the Fifth Circuit, acting en banc, addressed the impact of Louisiana’s Medical Malpractice Act on the propriety of the removal from state court to federal court of a combined medical malpractice/product liability lawsuit.  Plaintiff sued both the medical professionals who performed joint implant surgery on her and the manufacturers responsible for the joint that was implanted.  The defendant manufacturers were diverse from the plaintiff; the defendant medical professionals were not.  The defendant manufacturers removed plaintiff’s case from state to federal court.  They then opposed the plaintiff’s motion to remand by arguing that the non-diverse defendant medical professionals were not properly sued because plaintiff had failed to comply with the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act’s requirements that plaintiffs suing medical professionals in Louisiana must present their claims first to a medical review panel.  Louisiana law requires the dismissal of a plaintiff’s claims where the plaintiff has not satisfied that requirement before filing suit.  The district court agreed with the defendant manufacturers that plaintiff’s failure to meet this requirement meant that plaintiff had failed to state valid claims against the non-diverse defendants, and denied plaintiff’s motion for remand.  On appeal, a panel of the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the Louisiana statute was not jurisdictional in nature, that the statutory requirement to present results only in an expert opinion that is admissible in the subsequent lawsuit but is not binding, and that consequently the failure to comply should not defeat plaintiff’s remand motion.  The en banc Court, however, ruled that the Louisiana statute required dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims against the non-diverse defendant medical professionals, and that therefore removal had been proper.