Omaha Healthcare Center, LLC v. Johnson Ex Rel. Estate of Reed
344 S.W.3d 392
| Tex. | 2011Background
- Johnson, on behalf of Reed's estate, sued Omaha Healthcare Center for Reed's death allegedly caused by a brown recluse bite; claims asserted Omaha breached duties to maintain safe premises and pest control.
- Omaha moved to dismiss as the claims were health care liability claims (HCLCs) requiring an expert report under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.351(a)-(b).
- Trial court denied the motion to dismiss; the court of appeals affirmed dismissal was improper.
- Texas Supreme Court granted review and held the spider-bite claims are HCLCs that require an expert report, remanding to dismiss and consider attorney’s fees and costs.
- Dissent argues the court misreads statutes by treating all premises-safety claims in healthcare settings as HCLCs."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the spider-bite premises claims are HCLCs. | Johnson argues the claims are ordinary negligence, not HCLCs. | Omaha contends the claims are safety claims directly related to health care. | Yes; claims are HCLCs. |
| Whether safety claims can be directly related to health care under §74.001(a)(13). | Johnson contends safety-related actions within health care context should be excluded. | Omaha argues safety claims can be within HCLCs when directly related to health care. | Safety claims can be directly related to health care under the statute. |
| Whether underlying claims are inseparable from health care. | Johnson’s premises duties are not tied to medical care. | Omaha asserts the duties arise from health care context and patient care. | The underlying claims involve care during confinement and are HCLCs. |
| Whether an expert report is required and if remand for fees is proper. | Johnson failed to serve an expert report under §74.351(a)-(b). | Expert testimony is necessary to support HCLC claims. | Expert report required; case remanded to dismiss and address fees and costs. |
| Did the court misread legislative intent by classifying all premises claims as HCLCs? | Dissent warns against broad application of HCLC to all injuries in healthcare settings. | majority adheres to statutory text. | Court reversed court of appeals and held claims are HCLCs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Diversicare Gen. Partner, Inc. v. Rubio, 185 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. 2005) (health care defined broadly; safety in health care setting relevant to HCLCs)
- Yamada v. Friend, 335 S.W.3d 192 (Tex. 2010) (how to determine underlying nature of a claim; artful pleading cannot alter nature)
- Marks v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital, 319 S.W.3d 658 (Tex. 2010) (premises-based safety claims in health care must be inseparable from medical care)
- Harris Methodist Fort Worth v. Ollie, 342 S.W.3d 525 (Tex. 2011) (post-surgical safety claim may be HCLC if related to medical care judgment)