Jose Carreras, M.D., P.A. v. Marroquin
339 S.W.3d 68
| Tex. | 2011Background
- Parents sued over death of their adult daughter after surgical care; pre-suit notice was given two days before statute expired but without a required authorization form; notice and a compliant authorization are required to toll under Chapter 74; defendants moved for summary judgment asserting untimeliness; trial court denied summary judgment; court of appeals affirmed; Texas Supreme Court reversed and rendered,
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tolling requires both notice and authorization | Marroquins claim tolling via notice; defense argues authorization also required | Carreras: tolling not triggered without authorization | Yes, both notice and authorization required to toll |
| If notice lacks authorization, is tolling still available via abatement | Abatement could save timely filing | Abatement not sufficient; tolling fails without authorization | Abatement does not substitute for tolling; authorization must accompany notice |
| Proper interpretation of 'notice given as provided' in 74.051(a) and 74.052 | Notice and HIPAA-like form should suffice | Statute requires accompanying authorized form | Statutes require both components to toll |
| Effect of legislative history and purpose of MLIIA/Chapter 74 on tolling | History shows intent to encourage early resolution via information access | Text controls; combination necessary | Promotion of pre-suit settlement supports requiring both elements |
Key Cases Cited
- Helena Chem. Co. v. Wilkins, 47 S.W.3d 486 (Tex. 2001) (mandatory condition precedents; 'must' accompany requirement)
- City of Rockwall v. Hughes, 246 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. 2008) (avoid absurd results; plain meaning with limits)
- In re Collins, 286 S.W.3d 911 (Tex. 2009) (pre-suit authorization furthers settlement goals)
- Garcia v. Gomez, 319 S.W.3d 638 (Tex. 2010) (purpose of notice to encourage negotiations)
- McIntyre v. Ramirez, 109 S.W.3d 741 (Tex. 2003) (statutory construction; de novo review standard)
- Rabatin v. Kidd, 281 S.W.3d 558 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2008) (both notice and authorization required to toll (appellate holding))
- Hill v. Russell, 247 S.W.3d 356 (Tex. App.-Austin 2008) (some courts held tolling possible without proper authorization)
- Nicholson v. Shinn, 2009 WL 3152111 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (cited as contrast; official reporter not provided)