Madhusudan Shah v. Sodexo Services of Texas Limited Partnership
01-15-00141-CV
| Tex. App. | May 28, 2015Background
- Sodexo provided food and nutrition services at Ben Taub under contract with Harris County Hospital District.
- Shah, a cancer patient at Ben Taub, alleged injuries from a Sodexo beverage cart incident.
- Sodexo answered on May 23, 2014; Shah did not serve an expert report within 120 days.
- Shah eventually served an expert report on December 9, 2014; Sodexo moved to dismiss.
- The trial court granted dismissal for failure to timely file an expert report under Chapter 74.
- Shah appeals challenging classification and dismissal under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapter 74.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shah’s claim is a health care liability claim under Chapter 74. | Shah’s safety allegations relate to patient care. | Sodexo duties were not health care-related and safety claims are not health care claims. | Yes; Shah’s claim is health care liability. |
| Whether Shah waived sanctions-based objections by not pursuing sanctions. | Shah was entitled to sanctions for discovery abuse. | Waived; no sanction motion or ruling pursued. | Waived; court did not abuse discretion. |
| Whether the trial court properly dismissed for failure to serve an expert report. | Shah complied late due to discovery issues. | Delay violated 120-day deadline; mandatory dismissal. | Correctly dismissed. |
| Whether equitable estoppel precludes dismissal under Chapter 74. | Equitable estoppel bars dismissal. | No basis for equitable estoppel; not applicable to Chapter 74. | Rejected; no equitable estoppel. |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas West Oaks Hosp., L.P. v. Williams, 371 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. 2012) (defines health care liability framework and nexus)
- Finlay v. Olive, 77 S.W.3d 520 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002) (sanctions and discovery issues addressed on appeal)
- Remington Arms Co. v. Caldwell, 850 S.W.2d 167 (Tex. 1993) (sanctions and trial court discretion standards)
- R.M. Dudley Constr. Co. v. Dawson, 258 S.W.3d 694 (Tex.App.—Waco 2008) (sanctions-related considerations and discretion)
- Lake Travis Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Lovelace, 243 S.W.3d 244 (Tex.App.—Austin 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard in sanctions)
- Herrera v. Seton Nw. Hosp., 212 S.W.3d 452 (Tex.App.-Austin 2006) (abuse-of-discretion review in sanctions context)