Baylor Scott and White, Hillcrest Medical Center v. Ruthen James Weems Iii, 575 S.W.3d 357

Background

Weems was indicted for aggravated assault; he sued Baylor Scott & White Hillcrest Medical Center alleging a nurse falsified Ernest Bradshaw’s medical record to describe a non-existent gunshot wound, which led to Weems’s indictment and prolonged incarceration.
The medical chart recorded a point-blank gunshot wound and diagnoses of GSW and traumatic hematoma; Weems alleged the nurse knowingly fabricated those entries and that the falsified record was used in the criminal investigation.
The Hospital invoked Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, which requires an adequate expert report within 120 days for health care liability claims; Weems did not serve any expert report.
The trial court dismissed Weems’s suit with prejudice under Chapter 74 and awarded fees; the court of appeals reversed, holding fabrication of records is not a health care liability claim and thus not subject to the expert-report requirement.
The Texas Supreme Court granted review to decide whether claims alleging falsification of medical records by a health‑care provider are health care liability claims under the Texas Medical Liability Act.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a claim that a health‑care provider falsified a patient’s medical record is a "health care liability claim" under Chapter 74	Weems argued his claims are torts (IIED/fraud) not governed by Chapter 74 and thus no expert report required	Hospital argued the claim arose from conduct during patient care (records created as part of treatment), so Chapter 74 applies and an expert report was required	Held: Claim is a health care liability claim; Chapter 74 applies and failure to serve an expert report requires dismissal with prejudice
Whether accurate medical‑record maintenance is a "professional or administrative service" directly related to health care	Weems disputed the Act’s reach to his intentional‑falsification claim	Hospital relied on statutory/regulatory duties requiring accurate records as a condition of licensure	Held: Maintaining accurate medical records is a professional/administrative service directly related to health care (licensure/regulations require accuracy)
Whether expert testimony is required to satisfy Chapter 74’s purpose here	Weems suggested expert testimony might not be necessary to prove falsification or its impact	Hospital argued at least some expert analysis would be required to show whether entries departed from accepted professional standards and causation	Held: Expert testimony would be necessary to establish that a trained nurse should have recognized no gunshot wound (and causation), so the claim falls within Chapter 74’s expert-report regime
Whether prior appellate precedent (Benson v. Vernon) excludes record‑fabrication claims from Chapter 74	Weems relied on Benson and the court of appeals’ transfer precedent	Hospital urged overruling Benson to the extent inconsistent	Held: Benson disapproved to the extent it conflicts with this decision; fabrication claims tied to patient care are covered by Chapter 74

Key Cases Cited

Leland v. Brandal, 257 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. 2008) (describing the Medical Liability Act’s balancing role)
Spectrum Healthcare Res., Inc. v. McDaniel, 306 S.W.3d 249 (Tex. 2010) (expert‑report requirement as a threshold substantive hurdle)
Zanchi v. Lane, 408 S.W.3d 373 (Tex. 2013) (expert‑report jurisprudence under Chapter 74)
CHRISTUS Health Gulf Coast v. Carswell, 505 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. 2016) (analyzing whether a claim is a health care liability claim by its underlying nature)
Tex. W. Oaks Hosp. v. Williams, 371 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. 2012) (Act applies to claimants who are not patients when other criteria are met)
Murphy v. Russell, 167 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2005) (expert‑report requirement does not establish an evidentiary requirement for recovery)
Loaisiga v. Cerda, 379 S.W.3d 248 (Tex. 2012) (presumption that claims implicating conduct during patient care are health care liability claims)