Children's Medical Center of Dallas v. Durham, Sheri and Jenkins, Denise, as Adminstrator of the Estate of Jessics Haley Durham, 402 S.W.3d 391

This is an interlocutory appeal in the Fifth District of Texas (Dallas) involving health care liability claims against multiple providers for Jessica Durham’s death in 2008.
Plaintiffs allege Jessica’s death could have been prevented if defendants had timely evaluated and treated an enlarged aorta after transfer from Hawaii.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code chapter 74 for failure to file a compliant expert report; trial court denied, then amendments were allowed.
CMC sought dismissal of direct liability claims; plaintiffs cross-appealed claiming CMC’s vicarious liability and direct claims should proceed; the trial court denied in part and granted in part.
The court ultimately sustains the cross-appeal regarding direct liability against CMC and affirms the rest of the trial court’s rulings, reversing only the portion dismissing direct claims against CMC.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Qualification for causation and standards opinions	Blair is qualified to opine on causation and standards for multiple defendants	Blair’s qualifications are insufficient for causation and some standards	Blair qualified to address causation and standards; report adequate for causation and standards for all defendants
Adequacy of the expert report to establish causation	Report links breaches to Jessica’s death and explains a cause.	Report may be speculative or conclusory on causation	Report adequately links alleged breaches to the death and supports merit of claims; not conclusory
Standards of care applicability to nurse practitioners and CMC vicarious liability	Blair’s qualifications cover nurse practitioners; CMC vicarious liability supported by Potts/TTHR	Challenges to Blair’s scope for nurse practitioners; direct claims against CMC improper without detailed causation	Blair qualified on nurse practitioner standards; Potts/TTHR support limited direct liability viability; cross-appeal sustained for direct claims against CMC
Direct liability claims against CMC	Potts/TTHR allow proceeding with direct claims if expert addresses at least one theory	Trial court properly dismissed some direct claims absent adequate theory	Direct liability claims against CMC permitted to proceed; vicarious liability remains; trial court’s dismissal reversed on this point

Potts, 392 S.W.3d 625 (Tex. 2013) (establishes that one adequate expert report supports entire defendant's suit against that defendant)
TTHR Ltd. P’ship v. Moreno, 56 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 467 (Tex. 2013) (supreme court’s discussion on expert reports and theory sufficiency (cited for Potts/TTHR framework))
Palacios, 46 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. 2001) (expert report must provide fair summary and basis for meritorious claims)
Scoresby v. Santillan, 346 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. 2011) (explanation of statutory requirements for expert reports)
Bowie Mem’l Hosp. v. Wright, 79 S.W.3d 48 (Tex. 2002) (necessity of linking expert opinions to standards and causation)
Erlich v. Miles, 144 S.W.3d 620 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004) (limits expert qualification to areas within stated expertise)
Foster v. Richardson, 303 S.W.3d 833 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009) (internist qualified to opine on orthopedic diagnostic procedures when appropriate)
Pediatrix Med. Grp., Inc. v. Robinson, 352 S.W.3d 879 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (causation qualifications when expert not specialist in the exact condition)
Mosely v. Mundine, 249 S.W.3d 775 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (emergency physician’s scope may support causation opinions on abnormal findings)
Estorque v. Schafer, 302 S.W.3d 19 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009) (specialized medical issues not required to be addressed if testimony covers broader duty)