John D. Guimond and Mary Grace Guimond, Individually and as Next Friends of Nicolas R. Guimond, a Minor v. Integrated Genetics Lab Corp Specialty Testing Group
14-16-00567-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 1, 2017Background
- At Nicolas Guimond’s birth, Memorial Hermann ordered cytogenetic testing (performed by LabCorp); initial report said a normal male karyotype and parents were told the child was "normal."
- Eight months later, after developmental concerns, Memorial Hermann/LabCorp retested or reviewed the original specimen and reported Nicolas has Down Syndrome.
- The Guimonds sued Memorial Hermann, LabCorp, Dr. Eason, and others for fraud, breach of contract, misrepresentation, DTPA violations, negligence, and gross negligence; they initially pled "medical malpractice" but later nonsuited the physician-defendants and removed the malpractice label.
- Memorial Hermann and LabCorp moved to dismiss under the Texas Medical Liability Act for failure to serve an expert report; the trial court granted dismissal with prejudice and awarded fees.
- On appeal, the court examined whether the claims are "health care liability claims" requiring an expert report, focusing on statutory definitions and the facts that the testing was ordered by physicians, performed for compensation, and used for diagnosis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the claims are health care liability claims under the Texas Medical Liability Act | Guimond: Claims are not health care liability claims; LabCorp provides "scientific" testing, not health care, so no expert report required | Memorial Hermann/LabCorp: Testing, interpretation, and reporting are acts of health care/medical care performed as part of diagnosis by health-care providers/agents | Held: Claims are health care liability claims because defendants are health care providers and the testing/interpretation/reporting are health‑care acts directly related to diagnosis, so expert report required |
| Whether LabCorp is a "health care provider" under the Act | Guimond: LabCorp is an independent testing lab, not a health-care provider; hospital was intermediary | Defendants: LabCorp acted as hospital’s agent/independent contractor performing physician-ordered diagnostic testing | Held: LabCorp is a health care provider as an agent/independent contractor of the hospital |
| Whether the alleged conduct falls outside the Act because evidence (LabCorp reports) shows an admission/error obviating need for expert proof | Guimond: LabCorp’s reports are admissions showing error; no expert needed; res ipsa or party admissions suffice | Defendants: Even if evidentiary rules apply, they do not exempt claims from the statutory expert‑report requirement | Held: Evidence rules (res ipsa, admissions) do not avoid expert-report requirement for health care liability claims |
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to decide this as a matter of law without an evidentiary trial | Guimond: District court lacked basis to recharacterize claims absent trial or summary-judgment evidence | Defendants: Court has general subject-matter jurisdiction and may decide statutory applicability on pleadings and evidence presented | Held: Court had jurisdiction; characterization is a legal/statutory construction and may be resolved; issue waived in part but jurisdiction upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. W. Oaks Hosp., LP v. Williams, 371 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. 2012) (statutory construction of what constitutes a health care liability claim)
- Loaisiga v. Cerda, 379 S.W.3d 248 (Tex. 2012) (look to facts underlying claim, not artful pleading, to determine if it falls under the Act)
- Haddock v. Arnspiger, 793 S.W.2d 948 (Tex. 1990) (res ipsa loquitur is evidentiary rule, not separate cause of action)
- Murphy v. Russell, 167 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2005) (even where res ipsa may be argued, statutory expert-report requirement still applies)
- Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (general principle on subject‑matter jurisdiction and waiver)
- Engelman Irrigation Dist. v. Shields Bros., Inc., 514 S.W.3d 746 (Tex. 2017) (district courts are courts of general jurisdiction)
- Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. 2000) (presumption that a court of general jurisdiction has subject-matter jurisdiction)