595 S.W.3d 659
Tex.2020Background
- In Sept. 2014 Dallas Presbyterian Hospital treated an Ebola patient; nurse Amber Vinson cared for the patient, then traveled to Akron, Ohio and visited Coming Attractions Bridal.
- Vinson later fell ill and tested positive for Ebola; Ohio health authorities forced the bridal shop to close temporarily; it later cleaned, briefly reopened, then permanently closed allegedly due to continuing public fear and lost business.
- Coming Attractions sued Texas Health Resources alleging the hospital negligently failed to implement training, infection-control policies, PPE, warnings, and travel restrictions for exposed staff, causing contamination risk and business loss.
- Coming Attractions did not serve a chapter 74 expert report; the hospital moved to dismiss under the Texas Medical Liability Act’s expert-report requirement.
- The trial court denied dismissal; the Dallas Court of Appeals reversed, holding a corporation can be a “claimant” and the pleading stated a health care liability claim; the Supreme Court of Texas granted review.
- The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals: a corporation may be a claimant, the allegations fall within the Act as a health care liability claim, and an expert report was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a corporation can be a “claimant” under the TMLA | Corporations are not "persons"/"claimants" under the Act; statute aimed at patients | Statute defines "claimant" as a "person" and legislature includes corporations in "person" | A corporation may be a claimant if it asserts a health care liability claim |
| Whether Coming Attractions pleaded a health care liability claim (substantive nexus) | Injury (business loss) stems from hospital assurance to its employee — no nexus to patient care | Alleged failures relate to infection control, training, and treatment of infectious patient — direct nexus to health care | Allegations implicate safety/professional/administrative standards directly related to health care and thus state a health care liability claim |
| Whether purely economic damages fall outside chapter 74 | Claim seeks only economic damages; Act targets personal/medical injuries and malpractice reform | Act’s definition of health care liability claim is not limited to bodily injury; applies based on gravamen of claim | Economic damages do not exclude a claim from the Act where claim arises from health-care-related departures from standards |
| Whether expert medical evidence/report was required | No expert needed because plaintiff’s allegations concern nonmedical economic harm | Expert testimony is necessary to establish departures from infection-control standards and causation of contamination | Expert report required to show applicable standards, breach, and causal link between hospital conduct and asserted contamination/risk |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. W. Oaks Hosp., L.P. v. Williams, 371 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. 2012) (explains replacement of "patient" with "claimant" and broader scope)
- Ross v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hosp., 462 S.W.3d 496 (Tex. 2015) (requires substantive nexus between alleged safety standard breaches and provision of health care)
- Galvan v. Mem’l Hermann Hosp. Sys., 476 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. 2015) (infection control in hospital is related to provision of health care)
- CHRISTUS Health Gulf Coast v. Carswell, 505 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. 2016) (Act applies to injuries proximately caused by departures from standards directly related to health care)
- Baylor Scott & White, Hillcrest Med. Ctr. v. Weems, 575 S.W.3d 357 (Tex. 2019) (focus on gravamen of claim, not claimant status)
- Diversicare Gen. Partner., Inc. v. Rubio, 185 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. 2005) (defining "safety" and related precedent on health-care-related duties)
- Samlowski v. Wooten, 332 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. 2011) (describing TMLA’s purpose to identify and eliminate frivolous health care liability claims)