Loaisiga v. Cerda
379 S.W.3d 248
| Tex. | 2012Background
- TMLA requires an expert report within 120 days for HCLCs against health care providers.
- Plaintiffs allege Dr. Loaisiga assaulted two patients during breast-area examinations conducted for sinus/flu symptoms.
- Plaintiffs served Kilgore, M.D., with reports predicting the conduct was not within the standard of care.
- Trial court denied dismissal; Court of Appeals held claims were not HCLCs and reports were unnecessary.
- Court of Appeals declined to address the reports’ adequacy and remand not considered.
- Texas Supreme Court holds a rebuttable presumption that claims about a physician’s conduct during care are HCLCs, and remands for further proceedings on whether the reports are adequate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an assault claim during a medical examination falls under HCLC under the TMLA | Cerda argues assaults are not HCLCs | Loaisiga argues assaults during care are HCLCs | Presumption that such claims are HCLCs; not rebutted; remand for adequacy. |
| Whether the P.A. is subject to the TMLA expert report requirement | P.A. liable via vicarious theory; subject to HCLC rules | P.A. not properly pleaded as HCLC | P.A. subject to TMLA if claims are HCLCs; remand for adequacy. |
| Whether Kilgore’s reports satisfy 74.351’s requirements | Reports adequate; rely on pleadings | Reports based only on pleadings; inadequate | Reports must be good-faith and consider more than pleadings; remand to cure. |
| Whether the record supports dismissal if reports are inadequate | Remand for cure; not mandatory dismissal | If not adequate, dismissal mandated | If required, cure extension should be allowed; dismissal only if not curable. |
| Whether the court should resolve HCLC status before evaluating reports | Lower court should determine HCLC status first | Court can evaluate both concurrently on remand | Remand to allow lower court determine HCLC status with guidance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vanderwerff v. Beathard, 239 S.W.3d 407 (Tex. 2007) (assault during examination can implicate standard of care depending on context)
- Murphy v. Russell, 167 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2005) (battery claim may be HCLC; context matters for expert testimony)
- Palacios, 46 S.W.3d 873 (Tex. 2001) (expert report threshold and cure provisions)
- Scoresby v. Santillan, 346 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. 2011) (experts must show meritorious claim; lenient standard for cure)
- Diversicare Gen. Partner, Inc. v. Rubio, 185 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. 2005) (broad application of HCLC; not all claims within health care context are HCLCs)
- Yamada v. Friend, 335 S.W.3d 192 (Tex. 2010) (claims based on underlying facts; cannot split into HCLC and non-HCLC)
- In re Jorden, 249 S.W.3d 416 (Tex. 2008) (definition of 'cause of action' for HCLC analysis)
- Mokkala v. Mead, 178 S.W.3d 66 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (contextual understanding of HCLC boundaries)
- Murphy v. Beathard, 167 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam; relevance to expert reports)