East Texas Medical Center D/B/A East Texas Medical Center Emergency Medical Services v. Jody Delaune Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Crystal Delaune, and as Next Friend of D. D., D. D. and D. A. D., Minors
12-15-00014-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 3, 2015Background
- Crystal Delaune, a psychotic/delusional patient, was transported by East Texas Medical Center EMS (ETMC). During transport she repeatedly attempted to exit the ambulance and ultimately unlocked the rear doors of the moving ambulance and jumped to her death.
- ETMC paramedics relied exclusively on verbal "talk-down" techniques and did not physically or chemically restrain Delaune despite multiple warning signs, a stopped-ambulance call for backup, and recognition that she might exit the vehicle.
- Plaintiffs sued ETMC and the individual EMS providers. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing claims against the individual providers under the Texas Good Samaritan statute (liability only for willful/wanton conduct), but the claims against ETMC for negligent formulation, implementation, and enforcement of restraint/training policies proceeded to trial.
- A jury found ETMC negligent in its policy implementation/enforcement and that this negligence proximately caused Delaune’s death; the trial court entered judgment awarding plaintiffs damages and costs.
- On appeal, ETMC challenges (1) proximate cause, arguing the summary-judgment immunity of the EMS employees precludes corporate liability; and (2) legal sufficiency of the evidence that ETMC’s training/policy breach (the applicable standard and its breach) was proven.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ETMC can be held directly liable when EMS employees got Good Samaritan protection from damages | Delaune: Corporate (direct) liability for negligent policy formulation/implementation/enforcement is independent of employee liability; Good Samaritan protection for individuals does not eliminate a hospital's ordinary-negligence duty | ETMC: Because the trial court found individual EMS providers immune (no willful/wanton conduct), ETMC argues there is no "actionable tort" by employees and thus no proximate cause for corporate liability | Court upheld jury verdict against ETMC: corporate/direct liability may attach independent of employees' statutory immunity; plaintiffs need show employer’s negligence caused a recognized injury, not a separate judgment/award against employees |
| Whether Wansey and negligent-hiring/"actionable tort" precedent bar recovery absent employee negligence finding | Delaune: Wansey and similar cases require proof that employer’s conduct caused a legally recognized injury, not a separate jury finding that employees were negligent | ETMC: Wansey requires an "actionable tort" by an employee (i.e., employee negligence) for employer liability | Court (per appellees’ brief): Wansey is not controlling here; Texas law recognizes direct hospital liability for policy failures independent of employee negligence findings |
| Whether expert testimony established the applicable standard of care (training/policy) and breach | Delaune: Dr. Wayne testified that ETMC’s training left EMS personnel unable to identify when to escalate from verbal de-escalation to physical restraints; testimony tied failures to specific moments in Delaune’s transport | ETMC: Wayne’s testimony was conclusory, relied on inference-stacking, and record evidence shows ETMC provided restraint training | Court (per appellees’ brief): Dr. Wayne’s live testimony and EMS trial testimony (Moore) provided more than a scintilla of evidence that training failed to teach when to transition to restraints; evidence was legally sufficient |
| Whether reliance on EMS providers’ deposition/testimony to show training failure was improper or speculative | Delaune: Trial testimony of EMS provider Moore corroborated depositions; the discrepancy between written policies and what personnel actually understood is actionable | ETMC: Plaintiffs improperly stacked inferences from depositions and relied on what-if questioning | Court (per appellees’ brief): Inferences were supported by events and coherent trial testimony showing employees acted consistently with deficient training; sufficiency standard favors jury verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Cash America v. Bennett, 35 S.W.3d 12 (Tex. 2000) (statutory enactments should not be construed to abrogate common-law causes of action beyond their plain meaning)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for legal-sufficiency review of evidence and instruction on evaluating expert testimony)
- Wansey v. Hole, 379 S.W.3d 246 (Tex. 2012) (discusses "actionable tort" requirement in negligent-hiring/supervision contexts)
- Denton Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. LaCroix, 947 S.W.2d 941 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1997, pet. denied) (hospital may be directly liable for negligent formulation/enforcement of policies even where individual caregivers were not found negligent)
- Chesser v. LifeCare Mgmt. Servs., L.L.C., 356 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011, pet. denied) (recognizes hospital/entity duties to formulate and implement policies and that corporate liability may be independent of individual employee negligence)