Paul Stamatis, Jr., as Independent of the Estate of Paul Stamatis v. Methodist Willowbrook Hospital, the Methodist Health Care System, Daniel Mao, M.D., and Neptune Emergency Services, P.A.
14-15-00829-CV
Tex. App.Aug 18, 2016Background
- Paul Stamatis sued Methodist Willowbrook Hospital, The Methodist Health Care System, Dr. Daniel Mao, and Neptune Emergency Services for negligence arising from care during a 2008 ER visit, alleging ordinary negligence.
- At the original trial, the court ruled (without admitting evidence) that the willful-and-wanton standard applied because the care was emergency medical care and excluded Stamatis’s expert (Dr. Paynter) on causation; the trial court then entered a take-nothing judgment; this court reversed and remanded in Stamatis I.
- On remand, appellees moved for a no-evidence summary judgment asserting (a) Stamatis produced no evidence of willful-and-wanton conduct if emergency care applied, and (b) Stamatis produced no evidence of proximate causation.
- The trial court granted the no-evidence summary judgment and sustained appellees’ objections excluding Dr. Paynter’s causation opinions; the order did not specify the grounds for dismissal.
- On appeal following remand, the court held Stamatis waived appellate challenge to some bases for exclusion because he failed to attack all possible trial-court grounds, and concluded Stamatis presented no more than a scintilla of evidence on causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Dr. Paynter’s causation opinion | Paynter is qualified under Tex. R. Evid. 702; his causation opinion should be admitted | Appellees objected to qualification and reliability; exclusion proper | Waived by Stamatis on appeal for failing to challenge all grounds; exclusion sustained |
| Sufficiency of evidence of causation (no-evidence SJ) | Medical records, deposition excerpts, and Paynter’s affidavit show appellees caused the bladder injury | No expert links defendants’ conduct to the injury; records and defendant experts do not opine causation | No-evidence SJ affirmed: Stamatis failed to produce legally sufficient evidence of causation |
| Burden regarding emergency medical care standard | Stamatis argued he pleaded ordinary negligence and appellees bore burden to prove it was emergency care | Appellees treated the visit as emergency care and moved on that basis | Court did not reach most emergency-care arguments because causation failure was dispositive |
| Reliance on temporal sequence to prove causation | Stamatis argued injury manifested after ER visit, supporting causation | Defendants argued post hoc temporal correlation is insufficient for legal causation | Court rejected post hoc causation argument; temporal proximity alone is legally insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Gulley v. Davis, 321 S.W.3d 213 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (failure to challenge all grounds for an evidentiary ruling waives appellate complaint)
- King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. 2003) (no-evidence standard and scintilla-rule explained)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. 2004) (review standard for no-evidence summary judgment)
- Carr v. Brasher, 776 S.W.2d 567 (Tex. 1989) (affirmance of summary judgment when any complained ground is meritorious)
- FM Props. Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000) (review when trial court does not specify grounds for summary judgment)
- Jelinek v. Casas, 328 S.W.3d 526 (Tex. 2010) (expert testimony required to explain how negligence caused injury)
- Guevara v. Ferrer, 247 S.W.3d 662 (Tex. 2007) (temporal proximity or post hoc sequence alone is insufficient to prove causation)
- Oliphint v. Richards, 167 S.W.3d 513 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (cited for affirmance principles when multiple grounds exist)