Lezlea Ross v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital
462 S.W.3d 496
| Tex. | 2015Background
- Visitor Lezlea Ross slipped and fell on a floor being cleaned near St. Luke’s hospital lobby exit and sued the hospital (and its maintenance contractor) on a premises-liability theory.
- Hospital moved to dismiss under the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA) for failure to serve an expert report; trial court granted dismissal and the court of appeals affirmed.
- Ross argued her claim is not a health care liability claim (HCLC) because the alleged breaches (floor maintenance/safety) have no substantive connection to provision of health care.
- Hospital relied on Texas West Oaks Hospital v. Williams to argue safety-standards claims need not be related to health care to be HCLCs, and also argued the fall implicated patient-safety standards.
- The Texas Supreme Court granted review to resolve conflicting appellate interpretations of Williams and to decide whether a safety-standards based claim must have a substantive nexus to health care to be an HCLC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a premises-based safety-standards claim that occurred in a hospital is an HCLC under the TMLA | Ross: Not an HCLC because alleged safety breaches (floor cleaning/buffing) have no substantive relationship to providing health care | St. Luke’s: Under Williams any safety-standards claim against a health-care provider can be an HCLC; here floor maintenance implicates patient safety | Held: Not an HCLC — safety claims must have a substantive nexus to provision of medical/health care beyond mere location or provider status |
| Whether the court of appeals’ reading of Williams creates binding rule that relation to health care is unnecessary | Ross: Williams should not be read to eliminate any required connection between safety standards and health care | St. Luke’s: Williams supports treating such safety claims as HCLCs regardless of relationship | Held: Williams’ safety-prong does not remove requirement that safety standards be meaningfully related to health care; Williams’ alternative holdings do not control here |
| Whether plaintiff waived her challenge by not briefing it in the court of appeals | St. Luke’s: Ross failed to properly brief the issue so it is waived | Ross: Argues she preserved the issue and cited relevant authority | Held: No waiver — court of appeals addressed the issue and Ross provided sufficient argument and citations |
| Whether dismissal for failure to serve an expert report was proper | Ross: Expert report was not required because claim is not an HCLC | St. Luke’s: Expert report required under TMLA if claim is HCLC | Held: Dismissal improper because claim is not an HCLC; expert report not required — case remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas West Oaks Hosp., L.P. v. Williams, 371 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. 2012) (addressed whether safety-prong of HCLC definition requires relation to health care and provided alternative holdings)
- Diversicare Gen. Partner, Inc. v. Rubio, 185 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. 2005) (construed “safety” and held some claims inseparable from provision of health care)
- Loaisiga v. Cerda, 379 S.W.3d 248 (Tex. 2012) (held conduct wholly unrelated to medical care — e.g., assault during an exam — is not an HCLC when only connection is setting)
- Omaha Healthcare Ctr., L.L.C. v. Johnson, 344 S.W.3d 392 (Tex. 2011) (found general negligence claims were HCLCs where safety violations were directly related to patient care)
- Harris Methodist Fort Worth v. Ollie, 342 S.W.3d 525 (Tex. 2011) (post-operative patient fall on wet bathroom floor was an HCLC because directly related to provision of care)
- Scoresby v. Santillan, 346 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. 2011) (explained purpose of TMLA expert-report requirement to deter frivolous claims without unduly restricting rights)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lopez, 156 S.W.3d 550 (Tex. 2004) (discussed stare decisis treatment for alternative holdings)