Richard J. Malouf, DDS Richard J, Malouf, DDS, PC And Richard J. Malouf, DDS, PA v. State
461 S.W.3d 641
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Malouf Defendants are Texas-licensed health care providers participating in Medicaid.
- This TMFPA action was filed by relators Ellis and Castillo in camera under seal; State intervened in 2012.
- Plaintiffs seek civil penalties and disgorgement of Medicaid payments, plus injunctive relief, for alleged unlawful acts under TMFPA.
- Malouf moved to dismiss for failure to provide an expert report under the TMLA, arguing the TMFPA claims are health care liability claims.
- Trial court denied the motion; Malouf appealed via interlocutory appeal under section 51.014(a)(9).
- Court concludes TMFPA claims are not subject to the TMLA expert-report requirement and affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TMFPA claims fall under TMLA expert report rules | Ellis/Castillo contend TMFPA claims are not health care liability claims; not subject to TMLA report | Malouf Defendants contend claims are health care liability claims under TMLA | TMFPA claims are not subject to TMLA expert report requirement |
| Whether the State qualifies as a 'claimant' under the TMLA | State argues it is not a 'person' under TMLA, thus not a claimant | Malouf Defendants argue State fits within 'person' under TMLA | State is not a 'claimant' under TMLA; not subject to expert report requirement |
| Whether relators Ellis and Castillo are subject to TMLA expert report | Relators’ claims are brought in the State’s name, not for personal injuries | Relators fall within TMFPA framing; not health care liability claims | Relators are not subject to TMLA expert report requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas W. Oaks Hosp., LP v. Williams, 371 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. 2012) (defines claimant/health care liability claim scope under TMLA; informs 'claimant' concept)
- Crosstex Energy Servs., L.P. v. Pro Plus, Inc., 430 S.W.3d 384 (Tex. 2014) (interpretation of undefined terms under TMLA/use of common law meanings)
- Shanti v. Allstate Ins. Co., 356 S.W.3d 705 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (insurance company not neatly within 'claimant' under TMLA)
- Scott v. City of San Antonio, 309 S.W.3d 931 (Tex. 2013) (avoid exaggerated/common-law interpretation of terms)
- Presidio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Scott, 309 S.W.3d 927 (Tex. 2010) (statutory construction: plain meaning governs; avoid absurd results)
- Zanchi v. Lane, 408 S.W.3d 373 (Tex. 2013) (interpreting undefined term ‘party’ in TMLA consistent with common law)
- Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (U.S. 2000) (sovereign not a 'person' absent statutory intent)
- United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258 (U.S. 1947) (common-law meaning of 'person' generally excludes the sovereign)
- Railroad Comm’n v. United States, 317 S.W.2d 927 (Tex. 1958) (sovereign generally not bound absent express words)