Methodist Hospitals of Dallas A/K/A/ Methodist Health System D/B/A Methodist Charlton Medical Center v. Janice Winn, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Doris Hunt
496 S.W.3d 148
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Janice Winn sued Methodist Charlton Medical Center alleging inadequate care and supervision of her mother Doris Hunt during an August 2012 hospitalization, leading to decubitus ulcers, sepsis, and Hunt’s death in November 2012.
- Winn served an expert report and CV from Dr. Wright W. Singleton; Methodist objected and moved to dismiss under Texas’s health-care-liability expert-report statute (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 74).
- The trial court found the original report deficient but allowed Winn 30 days to amend; Winn filed an amended expert report by Singleton.
- Methodist moved again to dismiss, arguing Singleton was not qualified on the issues and his causation opinions were conclusory.
- The trial court denied Methodist’s second motion to dismiss; Methodist appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding Singleton’s CV and report failed to show he was qualified to opine on the hospital’s care and that his causation opinion was conclusory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of amended expert report under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §74.351 | Singleton’s amended report and CV fairly summarize opinions on standard of care, breach, and causation | Singleton lacks relevant, active practice and specific qualifications; report’s causation statements are conclusory | Court reversed trial court: report inadequate — expert not shown qualified and causation insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Palacios v. Gonzales, 46 S.W.3d 873 (Tex. 2001) (expert-report purpose and required content)
- Bowie Mem’l Hosp. v. Wright, 79 S.W.3d 48 (Tex. 2002) (four-corners review of report)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (abuse-of-discretion standard review principles)
- Palladian Bldg. Co. v. Nortex Found. Designs, Inc., 165 S.W.3d 430 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005) (discretion not abused merely because appellate court would decide differently)
- Ehrlich v. Miles, 144 S.W.3d 620 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004) (expert must show specialized knowledge beyond medical license)
- Collini v. Pustejovsky, 280 S.W.3d 456 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009) (courts cannot fill gaps in expert reports by inference)
- Roberts v. Williamson, 111 S.W.3d 113 (Tex. 2003) (qualification requires knowledge, skill, experience for specific issue)
- Windsor v. Maxwell, 121 S.W.3d 42 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003) (report must address claims in pleadings)