Appell v. Muguerza
329 S.W.3d 104
| Tex. App. | 2010Background
- Appellees Shari and Cyrene Muguerza sue Dr. Rodney Appell alleging unprovoked assaults in an examination room during medical treatment.
- Dr. Appell moved to dismiss under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.351(b) arguing the claims are health care liability claims requiring an expert report.
- After Dr. Appell's death, his executrix substituted as defendant and continued the motion to dismiss.
- Muguerzas amended live petition against the Executrix with similar assault allegations and medical expense/pain-and-suffering claims.
- Trial court denied the motion to dismiss; the Executrix appeals the denial, challenging whether the Medical Procedure Claims are health care liability claims.
- Court analyzes whether the Muguerzas pleaded health care liability claims and, if so, which portion of § 74.351 applies; holds Medical Procedure Claims are health care liability claims and Attack Claims are not; remands for dismissal of Medical Procedure Claims and fees assessment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Muguerzas pleaded health care liability claims. | Muguerzas' claims arise from assault during medical treatment. | Executrix asserts all claims are health care liability claims under § 74.001(a)(13). | Medical Procedure Claims are health care liability claims; Attack Claims are not. |
| Are the Medical Procedure Claims inseparable from medical services? | The alleged acts/omissions relate to how the vaginal catheterization and examination were conducted. | These acts are part of medical care; thus health care liability claims. | Yes, Medical Procedure Claims are inseparable from medical services and fall under § 74.351. |
| Are the Attack Claims health care liability claims based on safety standards? | Assault in examination room could be a departure from safety standards directly related to health care. | Assault not directly related to the delivery of health care services. | Attack Claims are not health care liability claims under the Current Definition. |
| Do Shari's discovery responses mandate the Attack Claims to be health care liability claims? | Responses suggest negligence related to the incident. | Discovery responses cannot amend pleadings and are not conclusive. | Responses do not mandate that the Attack Claims be health care liability claims. |
| What is the remedy on appeal? | Trial court denial should be sustained for the Attack Claims. | Dismiss the Medical Procedure Claims under § 74.351(b) and award fees; remand for attack claims. | Affirm denial as to Attack Claims; reverse as to Medical Procedure Claims; remand for dismissal of Medical Procedure Claims and fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Diversicare Gen. Partner, Inc. v. Rubio, 185 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. 2005) (defines inseparability test for health care liability claims)
- Garland Cmty. Hosp. v. Rose, 156 S.W.3d 541 (Tex. 2004) (addresses inseparable connection to medical care)
- Wasserman v. Gugel, 2010 WL 1992622 (Tex. App.—Houston (14th Dist) 2010) (discusses health care liability claim boundaries (official reporter cited not provided))
- Vanderwerff v. Beathard, 239 S.W.3d 406 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007) (assault within scope of care not on point for this case)
- Mata v. Calixto-Lopez, 2007 WL 3003139 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007) (urine/blood sampling context; not on point here)
- Oak Park, Inc. v. Harrison, 206 S.W.3d 133 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2006) (negligence to protect against assault by patient; not dispositive)
- St. David's Healthcare P'ship v. Esparza, 315 S.W.3d 601 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010) (addressed safety standards in health care context)
- Dual D Healthcare Operations v. Kenyon, 291 S.W.3d 486 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (safety-standard analysis in current definition context)
- Emeritus Corp. v. Highsmith, 211 S.W.3d 321 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006) (discussed safety standard scope under older definition)
- Christus Health v. Beal, 240 S.W.3d 282 (Tex. App.—Houston (1st Dist.) 2007) (construction of health care liability definition)
- Stradley v. Corpus Christi, 210 S.W.3d 770 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2006) (safety-related health care liability considerations)