Madhavan Pisharodi, M.D., Individually and Madhavan Pisharodi, M.D., P.A. D/B/A Pisharodi Clinic v. Mario Saldana, Nancy Lamas, and Jesus Lamas, 13-13-00721-CV

This is a Texas Court of Appeals memorandum opinion affirming a judgment in a medical malpractice case.
Micaela Lamas died after treatment by Dr. Madhavan Pisharodi and care at Pisharodi Clinic; the jury apportioned 60% fault to Dr. Pisharodi and 40% to another neurosurgeon.
Plaintiffs alleged negligence related to two epidural steroid injections and subsequent care, culminating in death on November 4–5, 2007.
Plaintiffs sued in 2012; Pisharodi Clinic was named in the original petition, with Dr. Pisharodi later named individually; statute-of-limitations defenses were raised.
The trial court entered a final judgment against both defendants jointly and severally for medical expenses and burial costs, plus prejudgment interest; the court of appeals upheld the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Limitation and Rule 28 substitution	Pisharodi Clinic was sued in its assumed name; Rule 28 tolled limitations by substituting the individual owner.	No tolling; the claim against the individual is time-barred.	Rule 28 allowed suit and substitution; limitations issue denied.
Sufficiency of evidence for Pisharodi Clinic liability	Clinic liable under vicarious liability theory for physician's negligent acts.	No evidence tying clinic to negligent actors or management.	Sufficient evidence to impose joint and several liability on Pisharodi Clinic.
Breach of standard of care and causation	Dr. Pisharodi breached monitoring and Narcan administration standards, proximately causing death.	Evidence insufficient or inconsistent on breach and causation; death caused by other factors.	legally sufficient evidence supported breach and proximate causation.
Admissibility of Dr. Kohlmeier and Dr. Jones testimony	Testimony helpful and properly admitted given expertise and records reviewed.	Testimony improper or unreliable expert causation testimony.	Court did not abuse discretion; testimony admitted.
Admissibility of Samuel Esparza lay testimony	Esparza’s observations admissible as lay testimony about routine practice.	Testimony improperly constitutes habit evidence.	Esparza testimony ruled admissible; not improper habit evidence.

Chilkewitz v. Hyson, 22 S.W.3d 825 (Tex. 1999) (sued in assumed name; Rule 28 permits substitution of correct name; tolling issues clarified)
Battaglia, P.A. v. Alexander, 177 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. 2005) (professional associations liable for physician-principal acts; vicarious liability)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for legal sufficiency review; evidence viewed in favor of verdict)
KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison Cnty. Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. 1999) (summary judgment standard; burden to show no genuine issue of material fact)
Bailey v. Vanscot Concrete Co., 894 S.W.2d 757 (Tex. 1995) (tolling and amendment requirements under Rule 28)