Dezma Gonerway v. Advanced Medical Optics, Inc.
442 S.W.3d 443
Tex. App.2013Background
- Gonerway, an inmate at Dawson State Jail operated by CCA under a contract with TDCJ, alleged UTMB provided medical care and CCA failed to insure timely treatment.
- She claimed CCA breached non-delegable duties to provide emergency medical care and to follow applicable regulations, and also alleged negligence for allowing cosmetic contact lenses.
- CCA moved for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment; the trial court granted the motion and severed Gonerway's claims into a separate action.
- Gonerway sought a continuance/abatement of proceedings due to her jail confinement; the record does not show a ruling on the motion or preservation of error.
- The appellate court reviewed the traditional and no-evidence summary judgments de novo, affirmed the grant of summary judgment for CCA, and held no genuine issues of material fact remained.
- The final judgment affirmed dismissals with prejudice and memorialized severance and appeal procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly denied continuance/abatement | Gonerway sought delay due to reconfinement. | No record showing a ruling or objection preserved error. | Issue not preserved; affirm. |
| Whether CCA was entitled to traditional summary judgment on negligence claims | Gonerway raised genuine issues of duty/breach. | CCA showed no duty or breach; no-evidence supported dismissal. | Traditional summary judgment affirmed; no duty found. |
| Whether CCA was entitled to no-evidence summary judgment on duty to provide medical care | Evidence showed CCA's duty under contract. | Evidence did not establish a duty; record insufficient. | No-evidence summary judgment affirmed; no duty proven. |
| Whether CCA breached any regulation by permitting cosmetic lenses | Regulatory breach evidenced by handbook. | Regulation relied upon was TDCJ/handbook and not CCA’s; no competent evidence of breach. | No breach proven; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Boys Club of Greater Dallas, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 472 (Tex. 1995) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (summary-judgment standard; reasonableness inquiries, view of evidence)
- Clear Creek Basin Auth. v. City of Houston, 589 S.W.2d 671 (Tex. 1979) (movant must prove entitlement to judgment by conclusively proving essential elements)
- Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572 (Tex. 2006) (burden shifts to nonmovant after no-evidence motion)
- Ridgway v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. 2004) (no-evidence standard requires more than a scintilla)
- Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (de novo review of traditional summary judgment)
- Gish v. City of Houston, 286 S.W.3d 310 (Tex. 2009) (standard for no-evidence summary judgment)
- Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Perez, 819 S.W.2d 470 (Tex. 1991) (essential elements must be disproved for summary judgment)
- Star-Telegram, Inc. v. Doe, 915 S.W.2d 471 (Tex. 1995) (when multiple grounds exist, movant must negate all)