Integrated of Amarillo, Inc. D/B/A Plum Creek Healthcare Center v. Cleo Kirkland
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 1100
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Kirkland was injured December 24, 2007 when his pickup moved in reverse as he stepped out, injuring both legs.
- Right leg sustained tibia and fibula fractures; Dr. Albracht performed open reduction internal fixation on December 25, with postoperative recovery described as benign aside from pain management.
- Kirkland developed fracture blisters; Plum Creek staff applied Silvadene without a doctor’s order, despite Kirkland’s allergy to sulfa noted in records.
- Kirkland later suffered a deep venous thrombosis, underwent multiple treatments, and, after progressive skin necrosis, had his right leg amputated above the knee on March 5, 2008.
- Kirkland alleged Silvadene caused necrosis and amputation; he pursued damages under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 74 in a bench trial that entered judgment for him.
- Plum Creek challenged the expert testimony and damages, but the trial court found in Kirkland’s favor on causation and past medical expenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Albracht was properly qualified to testify on causation | Kirkland: Plum Creek forfeited objection; qualifications timely raised. | Plum Creek: objection timely but should be preserved; failure to raise pre-trial objection. | Plum Creek's first issue is overruled |
| Whether Albracht's causation opinion was reliably reasoned | Kirkland: opinion based on medical evidence and literature; not mere speculation. | Plum Creek: opinion not supported by reliable data or methodology. | Plum Creek's second issue is overruled |
| Whether the evidence supports the amount of past medical expenses awarded | Kirkland: evidence showing necessity and reasonableness of expenses; differentiation from crush injury possible. | Plum Creek: evidence insufficient to tie all items to Silvadene-related necrosis. | Plum Creek's third issue is overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Coastal Transp. Co. v. Crown Cent. Petro. Corp., 136 S.W.3d 227 (Tex. 2004) (conclusory expert testimony may be legally insufficient evidence)
- City of San Antonio v. Pollack, 284 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. 2009) (conclusory testimony remains insufficient even if admitted without objection)
- Pollock, 284 S.W.3d 817 (Tex. 2009) (face-of-record challenge to reliability may preserve appellate review)
- Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Ellis, 971 S.W.2d 402 (Tex. 1998) (gatekeeper function and admissibility standards for expert testimony)
- Jelinek v. Casas, 328 S.W.3d 526 (Tex. 2010) (causation requires explanation of why conclusions are superior with medical evidence)
- Murdock v. Tex. Mem’l Hosp., 946 S.W.2d 838 (Tex. 1997) (differentiation required when multiple causes may contribute to injury)