Kingwood Pines Hospital, LLC v. Gomez
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 9240
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- V.G., a minor, was admitted for psychiatric evaluation after past sexual abuse history and alleged molestation by another patient at Kingwood Pines Hospital.
- Gomez sued appellants for negligence, aiding/encouraging assault, and medical malpractice, asserting failure to provide a safe environment and care.
- Gomez served an expert report by Dr. Mark Blotcky on May 28, 2010, with a supplemental report later; appellants objected to adequacy of both reports.
- The trial court denied the motions to dismiss after considering the challenges to Blotcky's qualifications, standards of care, breach, and causation.
- The court held Blotcky qualified to opine on standards of care for the hospital, nursing staff, and personnel, but found the substantive sections on standard of care and causation inadequately explained.
- The court acknowledged the possibility of a 30-day extension to cure deficiencies under section 74.351(c) and remanded for consideration of such extension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Blotcky's reports adequate under 74.351(r)(6)? | Blotcky’s reports sufficiently articulate standards, breaches, and causation. | Reports are conclusory and fail to tie standards, breach, and causation to specific conduct. | No; reports deficient; remand for cure consideration. |
| Is Blotcky qualified to render opinions on licensed professional counselors, nursing staff, and hospital personnel under 74.402? | Blotcky’s training and hospital experience establish qualification for all parties. | Qualification required specific alignment to each defendant’s role; not clearly established for all. | Blotcky qualified to opine on the hospital, Torres, and Bassett; report adequate on qualifications. |
| Do the standard of care and breach descriptions in the reports meet 74.351(r)(6) requirements? | Reports set forth applicable standards and breaches for each defendant. | Standards and breaches are vague, conclusory, and not sufficiently linked to facts. | Deficient; requires remand to address deficiencies or allow cure. |
| Can the case proceed without an expert report due to res ipsa loquitur? | Res ipsa loquitur negates need for expert report in this context. | Res ipsa does not apply here because pre-1977 categories do not cover this case. | Res ipsa not applicable; expert report still required; not dispositive. |
| Should the trial court grant a 30-day extension to cure deficiencies under 74.351(c)? | Extension should be granted if deficiencies are curable. | No extension if the report is deficient. | Remand to consider whether a 30-day extension is appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scoresby v. Santillan, 346 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. 2011) (established extension mechanics under 74.351)
- Jelinek v. Casas, 328 S.W.3d 526 (Tex. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for dismissal; four-corners rule)
- Palacios v. CHCA Mainland L.P., 46 S.W.3d 879 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001) (requires fair summary linking standards, breach, causation to facts)
- Pokluda v. Baylor College of Medicine, 283 S.W.3d 110 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (clarifies qualifications and scope of expert reports)
- Tenet Hosps. Ltd. v. Love, 347 S.W.3d 743 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2011) (addressing whether same standard of care may apply to multiple defendants)
- Earle v. Ratliff, 998 S.W.2d 882 (Tex. 1999) (expert must explain basis for statements, not mere ipse dixit)
- Davis v. Spring Branch Medical Center, 171 S.W.3d 400 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (expert must set out nonconclusory elements of the claim)
- Losier v. Ravi, 362 S.W.3d 639 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (res ipsa loquitur limited to certain pre-1977 categories in health care claims)
- Hector v. Christus Health Gulf Coast, 175 S.W.3d 832 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (res ipsa applicability in health care context)