605 F. App'x 293
5th Cir.2015Background
- Pierson, a federal prisoner, brought a FTCA medical malpractice claim against the Government for alleged strokes during imprisonment.
- District court granted summary judgment on lack of admissible expert testimony.
- Pierson sought leave to file amended expert opinion; district court treated as a motion for reconsideration and denied.
- We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment and review the Rule 59(e) denial for abuse of discretion.
- Under Texas law, medical malpractice requires duty, breach, injury, and causation, with expert testimony generally required to prove the standard of care.
- Internal policies or procedures of a health care facility do not alone set the standard of care; expert testimony is still required if standard of care is at issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper for lack of admissible expert testimony | Pierson argues a genuine factual issue exists. | Government contends no admissible expert testimony; standard of care not established. | Affirmed; summary judgment proper due to lack of admissible expert testimony. |
| Whether the Rule 59(e) denial was proper | Pierson contends new evidence avoided prior deficiency. | Government contends pro se status and prior evidence; no error. | Affirmed; denial of Rule 59(e) proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hood v. Phillips, 554 S.W.2d 160 (Tex. 1977) (expert testimony generally required unless common knowledge applies)
- Quijano v. United States, 325 F.3d 564 (5th Cir. 2003) (standard of care in FTCA medical malpractice; facility policies do not set standard)
- Mills v. Angel, 995 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. App. 1999) (internal policies do not alone determine standard of care)
- Ayres v. United States, 750 F.2d 449 (5th Cir. 1985) (state law governs FTCA medical malpractice liability)
- Templet v. HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2004) (absence of timely expert evidence affects summary judgment)
- Ellis v. United States, 673 F.3d 367 (5th Cir. 2012) (necessity of expert testimony for medical causation issues)
- Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993) (pro se status does not excuse failure to comply with summary judgment rules)
- Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702 F.3d 177 (5th Cir. 2012) (review of Rule 59(e) motions for abuse of discretion)