Rio Grande Valley Vein Clinic, P.A., D/B/A Rgv Vein Laser & Aesthetic Clinic v. Yvette Guerrero
431 S.W.3d 64
| Tex. | 2014Background
- Guerrero alleges burns from laser hair removal at RGV Clinic in Oct 2008 and sues for negligence in Oct 2010.
- RGV Clinic is a health care provider and physician under the Medical Liability Act (MLA) subject to expert-report requirements.
- The trial court denied dismissal for lack of an expert report; the court of appeals affirmed; the Texas Supreme Court granted review.
- The Court previously held in Bioderm that laser-hair-removal claims are health-care-liability claims requiring expert testimony due to federal regulations restricting laser use.
- The Court holds Guerrero’s claim is a health care liability claim and expert testimony is required to prove or refute breach of standard care; the claim is remanded for dismissal if the required expert report is not served.
- The 2009 laser-regulation statute is noted but unnecessary to decide this case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Guerrero’s claim a health care liability claim under MLA? | Guerrero contends it is not health care. | RGV Clinic contends it is health care liability. | Yes; presumption applies that it is a health care liability claim. |
| Is expert testimony necessary to prove/refute the claim? | Not specified here; implied challenge to necessity. | Expert health care testimony is necessary. | Yes; expert testimony required to prove/refute breach of standard. |
| Does a physician-patient relationship exist for purpose of MLA presumption? | Guerrero argues no physician-patient relation since a nurse performed the procedure. | Clinic is a physician under MLA; physician-patient relation exists. | Relation exists; presumption applies. |
| Does the 2009 laser-regulation statute affect the result? | Statutory provisions not essential to resolution. | Not essential to decide here. | Not necessary to determine applicability to Guerrero’s claim. |
| What is the remedy on remand? | (Not explicitly stated; focus on dismissibility.) | Defense seeks dismissal and fees. | Remand to trial court to dismiss the claim and consider attorney’s fees and costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Loaisiga v. Cerda, 379 S.W.3d 248 (Tex. 2012) (rebuttable presumption and health care liability when care involved)
- Tex. West Oaks Hosp., LP v. Williams, 371 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. 2012) (expert testimony required to prove/refute standard of care)