426 S.W.3d 343
Tex. App.2014Background
- Reddic moved for rehearing of the December 4, 2013 opinion; the court overruled the rehearing, withdrew the prior opinion, and issued a new one.
- ETMC-Crockett (ETMC) moved to dismiss, arguing Reddic’s claims are health care liability claims (HCLCs) requiring an expert report under the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA).
- Reddic claimed her fall-related claims were not HCLCs and thus did not require an expert report.
- The trial court denied ETMC’s motion to dismiss; ETMC appealed interlocutorily under Section 74.351(b).
- The court held Reddic’s slip-and-fall safety claims in the hospital lobby are HCLCs under the TMLA and reversed and remanded for dismissal with prejudice and for ETMC’s fees and costs.
- The dissent would have held the claims were not within the TMLA and would affirm the trial court’s denial of dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reddic’s slip-and-fall claims against ETMC are HCLCs requiring an expert report | Reddic argues claims are premises/safety claims not tied to health care | ETMC argues claims fall under TMLA safety prong of HCLC | Yes; claims are HCLCs under the TMLA |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying ETMC’s motion to dismiss | Reddic contends not HCLC, so dismissal was improper | ETMC contends HCLC classification requires dismissal for failure to serve expert report | No; the trial court erred; reversed and remanded for dismissal with fees/costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Diversicare Gen. Partner, Inc. v. Rubio, 185 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. 2005) (safety claims related to health care involve a nexus to health care)
- Harris Methodist Fort Worth v. Ollie, 342 S.W.3d 525 (Tex. 2011) (health care duties and safety claims within health-care context)
- Loaisiga v. Cerda, 379 S.W.3d 248 (Tex. 2012) (expert report not required where conduct is unrelated to medical care)
- Texas West Oaks Hospital, L.P. v. Williams, 371 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. 2012) (definition of HCLC includes safety departures with nexus to health care; patient status not determinative)
- Good Shepherd Med. Ctr.-Linden, Inc. v. Twilley, 422 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2013) (safety claims entirely unrelated to health care may not be HCLCs; context matters)
- Williams v. Tex., 371 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. 2012) (framework for HCLC analysis and safety prong scope)