Sedeno v. Mijares
333 S.W.3d 815
Tex. App.2010Background
- Mijares sued Sedeno, M.D. and Sedeno, P.A. for sexual assault and related claims arising from an office visit for high blood pressure.
- Mijares asserted negligence, gross negligence, invasion of privacy, and intentional tort claims against Sedeno, M.D. and Sedeno, P.A.; she alleged Sedeno, P.A. was vicariously liable for Dr. Sedeno’s conduct.
- Sedeno, P.A. moved to dismiss under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code chapter 74, claiming health care liability claims requiring expert reports and timely filing of such reports.
- The trial court stayed discovery due to criminal charges and a bankruptcy filing; after stay, trial was reset and amendments to pleadings occurred.
- Mijares’s fourth amended petition repeatedly asserted negligence and safety failures at Sedeno, P.A.; Sedeno, P.A. denied the claims were health care liability and sought dismissal under 74.351.
- The trial court denied the motion to dismiss; Sedeno, P.A. timely appealed; the court of appeals ultimately reversed and dismissed the health care liability claims with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the claims are health care liability claims under Chapter 74. | Mijares argues claims are not health care liability claims. | Sedeno, P.A. contends all claims are health care liability claims. | Yes; the claims are health care liability claims. |
| Whether Mijares timely filed an expert report as required. | Mijares contends deadline calculation should be from initial petition or earliest pleading. | Sedeno, P.A. asserts deadline had expired and dismissal should be with prejudice. | Yes; the 120-day deadline expired; dismissal with prejudice required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Diversicare Gen. P’ship, Inc. v. Rubio, 185 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. 2005) (determines whether a claim is health care–related and requires expert report)
- Holguin v. Laredo Reg’l Med. Ctr., L.P., 256 S.W.3d 349 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008) (health care liability claims include safety/monitoring failures in health care context)
- Christus Spohn Health Sys. Corp. v. Sanchez, 299 S.W.3d 868 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2009) (staffing and protection decisions implicate health care standards)
- Spectrum Health Care Resources, Inc. v. McDaniel, 306 S.W.3d 249 (Tex. 2010) (docket-control order does not extend Chapter 74 deadlines unless explicit intent)
- Herrera v. Seton Nw. Hosp., 212 S.W.3d 452 (Tex.App.-Austin 2006) (no timely expert report; mandatory dismissal applies)