PM Management-Trinity NC, LLC v. Kumets, 404 S.W.3d 550

Trial court refused to dismiss a retaliation claim against Trinity Care Center for allegedly discharging a resident in response to family complaints.
Trial court held the retaliation claim was not an HCLC under the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA) and denied dismissal on that basis.
Kumetses asserted multiple claims, including HCLCs, but the retaliation claim stemmed from the same underlying facts as at least one HCLC.
Trial court later dismissed all claims except retaliation after finding deficiencies in expert reports; Trinity appealed the retaliation ruling.
Court of Appeals affirmed with one dissent in part, addressing whether the retaliation claim was an HCLC and the dismissal of the fraudulent billing claim.
Texas Supreme Court granted review and held that the retaliation claim is based on the same facts as an HCLC and must be dismissed, remanding for dismissal and attorney’s fees/costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the retaliation claim an HCLC requiring dismissal?	Kumetses argue the retaliation claim shares facts with an HCLC and should be dismissed without a sufficient expert report.	Trinity contends the retaliation claim is an HCLC and must be dismissed under the TMLA.	Yes; retaliation claim is an HCLC and must be dismissed.
Was the fraudulent billing claim properly dismissed as based on the same facts as HCLCs?	Kumetses contend the fraudulent billing claim is not an HCLC.	Trinity argues the billing claim rests on the same facts as HCLCs and can be dismissed.	Yes; fraudulent billing claim dismissed as based on the same facts as HCLCs.

Yamada v. Friend, 335 S.W.3d 192 (Tex.2010) (claims based on same underlying facts as HCLC must be dismissed without sufficient expert report)
Turtle Healthcare Grp., L.L.C. v. Linan, 337 S.W.3d 865 (Tex.2011) (per curiam; reiterates rule about artful pleading and HCLC dependency on underlying facts)