Lover Compton v. Lance Jue, D.D.S, and Lance Jue, D.D.S. D/B/A Beautifiul Smile at Lake Pointe
01-16-00412-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 8, 2017Background
- Compton sued her dentist, Dr. Lance Jue, alleging multiple claims (dental malpractice, negligence, breach of warranty, lack of informed consent, medical battery, promissory estoppel, fraud, and DTPA violations) arising from implant surgeries and ill-fitting dentures performed in 2012–2013.
- After multiple procedures and continued pain/infection, Compton sought a second opinion and additional treatment from another dentist. She filed suit on March 3, 2015, seeking damages between $200,000 and $1,000,000.
- Dr. Jue moved for summary judgment arguing all claims are, in substance, health care liability claims governed by Texas’s chapter 74 two-year limitations period; the complained-of treatment occurred by December 17, 2012, so suit was time-barred.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Dr. Jue without specifying grounds; Compton did not contest the limitations ruling on appeal.
- The court of appeals analyzed whether Compton’s various common-law and statutory claims were properly characterized as health care liability claims (thus subject to chapter 74 limits) or independently actionable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DTPA, promissory estoppel, informed consent, medical battery, and negligence claims are independent of health-care-liability claims | Compton: these causes are independent and not recast health-care-liability claims | Dr. Jue: all arise from alleged negligent dental services and are health-care-liability claims subject to chapter 74 limits | Held: Claims are health-care-liability claims; summary judgment on those claims proper under limitations (not challenged on appeal) |
| Whether fraud and breach-of-warranty claims were not addressed in the summary-judgment motion | Compton: Dr. Jue did not specifically address fraud and warranty claims, so summary judgment on them was error | Dr. Jue: his motion sought judgment on "all claims" as based on negligent dental services and barred by chapter 74 | Held: Fraud and warranty claims are health-care-liability claims and thus precluded by limitations; omission in motion harmless because those claims are intertwined with the addressed ground |
| Whether the trial court erred because defendant did not disprove essential elements of each claim | Compton: summary judgment improper because Dr. Jue failed to negate essential elements of each cause | Dr. Jue: moved on affirmative defense of limitations; claims are time-barred health-care-liability claims | Held: No reversible error; limitations defense disposed of the claims and Compton did not contest that ground on appeal |
| Whether the pleadings improperly recast malpractice as other causes to avoid chapter 74 | Compton: attempted to plead alternative causes | Dr. Jue: underlying nature/essence shows departure from standard of care, so recasting is impermissible | Held: Court looks to underlying nature; Compton’s allegations amount to departures from standard of care and are subject to chapter 74 |
Key Cases Cited
- Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2005) (standard: de novo review of summary judgment)
- Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (summary-judgment standards)
- Diversicare Gen. Partner, Inc. v. Rubio, 185 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. 2005) (defines health-care-liability claims; examine essence of claim)
- Walden v. Jeffrey, 907 S.W.2d 446 (Tex. 1995) (dental ill-fitting dentures are part of professional services—health-care-liability claim)
- Gormley v. Stover, 907 S.W.2d 448 (Tex. 1995) (representations about surgical results implicate standard of care)
- Cathey v. Booth, 900 S.W.2d 339 (Tex. 1995) (defendant summary-judgment burdens)
- KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison Cty. Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. 1999) (summary-judgment burdens)
- G&H Towing Co. v. Magee, 347 S.W.3d 293 (Tex. 2011) (limits on granting summary judgment for claims not expressly presented)
- Yamada v. Friend, 335 S.W.3d 192 (Tex. 2010) (look to nature of claim, not form of pleading)