Access Orthodontics of East 7th Street, P .A. v. Miriam Jaimes
03-15-00081-CV
| Tex. App. | Apr 10, 2015Background
- Access Orthodontics of East 7th Street, P.A. (Access) appeals a trial court denial of a motion to dismiss.
- Jaimes (plaintiff) sued Access in the 126th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas.
- The case concerns whether the claims are health care liability claims under the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA).
- The motion to dismiss was decided on pleadings, not factual determinations, making de novo review appropriate.
- The court below allegedly misapplied standards by treating some claims as outside the TMLA, and Access seeks dismissal with prejudice and attorney’s fees.
- This appeal is from a Third Court of Appeals decision on Access’s reply brief supporting reversal and dismissal with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for HCL claims under TMLA | Jaimes argues the wrong standard was applied | Access contends de novo review governs the HCLA determination | De novo standard applied |
| Application of Mills/Sorokolit and scope of HCLA | Osuna-Mills-Sorokolit line supports HCLA framing | Line is distinguishable; Mills not controlling here | Mills inapplicable; claims not outside TMLA |
| Whether DTPA claims can proceed against Access | Jaimes should be allowed to pursue DTPA claims | DTPA claims inseparable from healthcare rendering; barred | DTPA claims barred; dismissal with prejudice |
| Disposition on appeal | Trial court erred in denial of motion to dismiss | Court should affirm dismissal or remand | Reverse; dismiss with prejudice; attorney’s fees awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Stockton v. Offenbach, 336 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. 2011) (affirms de novo review for legal determinations under pleadings)
- Jernigan v. Langley, 195 S.W.3d 91 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam; de novo standard for HCLA determinations)
- Tex. W. Oaks Hosp., L.P. v. Williams, 371 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. 2012) (deals with TMLA health care liability analysis)
- Mills v. Pate, 225 S.W.3d 277 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2006) (narrowly limited to promise-of-results context in HCA claims)
- Sorokolit v. Rhodes, 889 S.W.2d 239 (Tex. 1994) (cited regarding narrow Mills/Sorokolit applicability)
- Lopez v. Osuna, No official reporter provided (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014) (discussion on health care service contracts; cited for Lopez analysis)
- Boothe v. Dixon, 180 S.W.3d 915 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005) (distinguishes promise-of-result line)
- Gormley v. Stover, 907 S.W.2d 448 (Tex. 1995) (context on HCLA and standard of care)
- Hunsucker v. Fustok, 238 S.W.3d 421 (Tex. App.—Houston 1st Dist. 2007) (distinguishes Mills/Sorokolit approach)
- MacGregor Med. Ass’n v. Campbell, 985 S.W.2d 38 (Tex. 1998) (discussion on healthcare liability claims)