Certified Ems, Inc. D/B/A Cpns Staffing v. Cherie Potts
392 S.W.3d 625
| Tex. | 2013Background
- Potts, a patient, sues Christus St. Catherine’s Hospital, nurse Hardin, and Certified EMS for injuries from alleged sexual assault during hospitalization.
- Potts asserts direct liability against Certified EMS for training, supervision, standards, and protocols, and vicarious liability under respondeat superior for Hardin’s conduct.
- Potts served expert reports under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 74.351; reports initially challenged for not detailing direct liability by Certified EMS.
- The trial court allowed cure; Potts supplemented with Nurse Foster’s report and added Dr. Altschuler’s report addressing the alleged conduct and causal link.
- Certified EMS moved to dismiss, arguing the reports failed to address any direct-liability theory; the trial court denied the motion and the court of appeals affirmed.
- The Texas Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether a claimant must provide an expert report for each pleaded liability theory when pursuing a health care liability claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must expert reports address every pleaded theory? | Potts argues every theory must be covered. | Certified EMS argues each theory must be addressed. | No; not required to address all theories. |
| If at least one theory is adequately addressed, may the case proceed on all theories? | Potts contends the suit may advance beyond the report on at least one viable theory. | Certified EMS contends only theories supported by reports survive. | Yes; the case may proceed if at least one theory is adequately supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- Potts v. Certified EMS, 355 S.W.3d 683 (Tex. 2012) (interlocutory appeal on expert-report requirements; addresses multiple theories)
- In re Jorden, 249 S.W.3d 416 (Tex. 2008) (defines 'cause of action' for toxic activity of expert reports)
- Palacios v. American Transitional Care Ctrs. of Tex., Inc., 46 S.W.3d 873 (Tex. 2001) (expert report sufficiency informs defendant and assesses merit, not a litigation-ready standard)
- Scoresby v. Santillan, 346 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. 2011) (purpose of expert reports to deter frivolous claims and expedite disposition)
- Loaisiga v. Cerda, 379 S.W.3d 248 (Tex. 2012) (discussion of required elements and thresholds for admissible expert reports)
- Gardner v. U.S. Imaging, Inc., 274 S.W.3d 669 (Tex. 2008) (pure vicarious liability claims may be supported by an adequately implicating report)