Hickory Trail Hospital, L.P. D/B/A Hickory Trail Hospital v. Christopher Webb and Melissa Hayes Individually and as Next of Friends for H.H., a Minor
05-16-00663-CV
| Tex. App. | Feb 21, 2017Background
- H.H., a minor, was admitted to Hickory Trail Hospital; a male mental-health technician (Shawn McAfee) allegedly sexually assaulted her in March 2014.
- Plaintiffs (Webb & Hayes as next friends) sued Hickory Trail in Feb 2015 alleging healthcare-liability/negligence.
- Plaintiffs served an initial nurse report; the trial court found deficiencies but granted a 30-day cure period.
- Plaintiffs then served a supplemental expert report and CV from Dr. Mitchell Dunn (psychiatrist, forensic background) in April 2016; Hickory Trail moved to dismiss as the report was inadequate.
- The trial court denied dismissal; Hickory Trail appealed. The court of appeals reversed, holding Dr. Dunn’s report failed to (1) establish his qualification to opine on hospital policies/procedures and (2) provide a nonconclusory causation opinion; claims were dismissed with prejudice and fees remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Dunn was qualified to opine on hospital policies/procedures | Dr. Dunn’s CV and role as Medical Director show he has relevant institutional policy experience | Dr. Dunn’s report/CV do not demonstrate knowledge/experience about formulating/implementing hospital policies | Not qualified — report fails to show expertise on standards for creating/implementing policies; dismissal proper |
| Whether Dr. Dunn’s causation opinion is non-conclusory | Lack of policies/training and insufficient supervision created an environment that allowed the assault; proper policies/supervision would have prevented it | Report does not explain how the specific policies/supervision would have prevented this incident—too conclusory | Inadequate — causation opinion is conclusory and lacks the required how/why linkage to the facts; dismissal proper |
| Adequacy of expert report under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §74.351 | Report and CV satisfy statutory requirements and cure prior deficiencies | Report does not fairly summarize standard of care, breach, and causation with requisite factual linkage | Report inadequate under §74.351; trial court abused discretion in denying dismissal |
| Remedy / fees after dismissal | Plaintiffs opposed dismissal; did not contest fee remand | Defendant requested dismissal with prejudice and fees under §74.351(b)(1) | Court rendered dismissal with prejudice and remanded for determination of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Nexion Health at Duncanville, Inc. v. Ross, 374 S.W.3d 619 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (standard of review and expert-report purposes under chapter 74)
- Palacios v. American Transitional Care Centers of Texas, 46 S.W.3d 873 (Tex. 2001) (expert report must include opinions on standard of care, breach, and causation)
- Certified EMS, Inc. v. Potts, 392 S.W.3d 625 (Tex. 2013) (three-element structure for a valid expert report)
- Jelinek v. Casas, 328 S.W.3d 529 (Tex. 2010) (expert must explain how and why the breach caused the injury)
- Reed v. Grandbury Hosp. Corp., 117 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003) (expert must show knowledge of hospital protocols/policies to opine on them)
- Hendrick Medical Ctr. v. Conger, 298 S.W.3d 784 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2009) (proponent bears burden to show expert qualifications)
- Baylor Memorial Hospital v. Wright, 79 S.W.3d 48 (Tex. 2002) (abuse-of-discretion review scope; trial court has no discretion in applying the law)
- Gray v. CHCA Bayshore L.P., 189 S.W.3d 855 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (expert report cannot be merely conclusory; must link facts to conclusions)