Malladi Sudhakar Reddy, M.D. v. Dianna Lynn Veedell and Maury Veedell
509 S.W.3d 435
Tex. App.2014Background
- Dianna Veedell (bicyclist) was severely injured when Dr. Malladi Reddy backed his car into the street while allegedly distracted by a phone, colliding with her bicycle.
- The Veedells sued Reddy for negligence and negligence per se, alleging unsafe backing, failure to keep lookout, failure to yield, and violation of Tex. Transp. Code § 545.415(a).
- Reddy, a physician, moved to dismiss under the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA), arguing the claims were "health care liability claims" (HCLCs) requiring an expert report.
- Reddy relied on precedent construing the TMLA’s "safety" prong broadly; he also suggested (based on his testimony) the call may have been from a hospital to argue an indirect relation to health care.
- The trial court denied dismissal; on interlocutory appeal the court of appeals reviewed whether the claims implicate TMLA’s safety-based HCLC definition.
- The court held the bicyclist’s garden-variety negligence claim was not an HCLC because it lacked even an indirect connection to the provision of health care, and affirmed denial of dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Veedells’ negligence claims are "health care liability claims" under the TMLA requiring an expert report | Veedells: The accident is a garden-variety motor-vehicle negligence claim unrelated to health care, so TMLA doesn’t apply | Reddy: As a physician, alleged safety departure triggers TMLA; call may have been from his hospital, creating an indirect relation to health care | Held: Not an HCLC; no evidence of an indirect relation to health care, so no expert report required |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. W. Oaks Hosp., L.P. v. Williams, 371 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. 2012) (interprets TMLA "safety" category and discusses when claims implicate health care standards)
- Am. Transitional Care Ctrs. of Tex., Inc. v. Palacios, 46 S.W.3d 873 (Tex. 2001) (standard of review for expert-report dismissal and purpose of TMLA to deter frivolous claims)
- Diversicare Gen. Partner, Inc. v. Rubio, 185 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. 2005) (broad language of TMLA evidences intent for expansive application)
- Scoresby v. Santillan, 346 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. 2011) (explains requirement to produce suitable expert opinion early to show nonfrivolous HCLC)
- DHS Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Castro, 435 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.) (holding transport/equipment presence did not make collision claim an HCLC)