Mitchell v. Methodist Hospital
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 6066
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Mitchell family pursued health care liability claims arising from Frank Mitchell's 2005 hospital stay and subsequent death, against Methodist and several staff.
- Mitchell was hospitalized for a myocardial infarction on November 27–30, 2005, during which an IV catheter was placed in his left arm, followed by infection and multi-system organ failure; he died December 27, 2005.
- Presuit health care notice was given on November 26, 2007, but the attached medical authorization form did not conform to the statutorily required 74.052 form.
- The Mitchells filed suit on January 28, 2008, more than two years after accrual, arguing tolling of limitations due to proper presuit notice.
- Methodist moved for summary judgment arguing the seventy-five-day tolling was not triggered due to the defective authorization form; Mitchell argued tolling due to fraud and continued investigation.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Methodist, and the Mitchells appealed claiming tolling should apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether seventy-five day tolling requires exact statutory form | Mitchells contend substantial compliance suffices to toll. | Methodist argues only exact 74.052(c) form tolls; deviations bar tolling. | No tolling; noncompliant form defeats tolling. |
| Whether HIPAA form suffices to satisfy 74.052(c) and 74.051(a) | HIPAA form provides authorization and enables presuit investigation. | HIPAA form lacks required identifiers (entity and treating physicians) and thus is insufficient. | HIPAA form not sufficient; cannot toll under §74.051–74.052. |
| Whether Canoras/abate provisions apply to tolling disputes | Abatement or waiver should not revive tolling when not properly invoked. | Canoras allows abatement where tolling isn't at issue; here tolling is at issue, so abatement not applicable. | Abatement not applicable; tolling not triggered; suit time-barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carreras v. Marroquin, 339 S.W.3d 68 (Tex.2011) (tolling requires both notice and authorization)
- KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison Cnty. Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746 (Tex.1999) (burden on movant for limitations determinations)
- Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex.2005) (summary judgment standard and burden-shifting framework)
- Woods v. William M. Mercer, Inc., 769 S.W.2d 515 (Tex.1988) (matter in avoidance of limitations not pleaded is waived)