Slagle v. Prickett
345 S.W.3d 693
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Slagle was admitted to Harris Methodist Hospital after a motorcycle crash on June 26, 2006; initial ER x-rays were interpreted as showing a clavicle fracture but no acute knee/leg injury.
- Dr. Long and Dr. Reddy reviewed the ER x-rays; Slagle was discharged with follow-up instructions to see an orthopedist in three days.
- Slagle returned June 29, 2006 with worsening leg pain; Dr. Prickett ordered additional imaging; Dr. Reddy read the leg x-ray as negative and Dr. Richard read the ultrasound as benign; Slagle was counseled and discharged.
- Orthopedic evaluation on July 11, 2006 revealed a depressed lateral tibial plateau fracture with foot drop; Slagle underwent knee surgery on July 13, 2006 and later claimed peroneal neuropathy.
- In October 2007 Slagle provided notice of a potential health care liability claim; notices were sent to the hospital and to Drs. Long, Prickett, and Reddy in July 2008; Slagle filed suit on September 5, 2008 against hospital and doctors, asserting negligence and related claims.
- The trial court granted summary judgments in favor of Long and Prickett (May 15, 2009) and Reddy (June 17, 2009); Slagle amended to add Diane Ott but Ott was not served; the case against the hospital was nonsuited; the case was dismissed altogether in favor of the remaining doctors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal of Ott alongside others, though Ott was not a party to the doctors’ motions, was proper. | Slagle argues the court could dismiss only defendants tied to the motions, not Ott. | Ott was part of the relevant action; dismissal of all parties is permissible. | Issue overruled; inadequate briefing and no error found in full dismissal. |
| Does the two-year Health Care Liability statute violate Equal Protection? | Slagle contends the statute burdens injured patients, especially those under medication. | Record shows Slagle was not harmed by the limitations and suit was timely filed. | Issue overruled; no constitutional violation as applied to this case. |
| Did the trial court violate Open Courts provisions by dismissing the case? | Slagle asserts procedural open courts violation. | Record demonstrates adequate briefing and reasoning; issue inadequately briefed. | Issue overruled; open courts challenge inadequately briefed. |
| Whether ex parte communication affected the summary judgment against Dr. Reddy. | Slagle claims he was deprived of opportunity to respond to the letter of authorities. | Response was permitted; court acted within six days after the letter and Slagle did respond. | Issue overruled; record shows opportunity to respond and timing did not prejudice Slagle. |
| Whether the court properly ruled on Slagle’s special exceptions. | Slagle asserts the court failed to rule on his special exceptions. | Court implicitly overruled objections by granting summary judgment; no separate ruling required. | Issue overruled; special exceptions deemed implicitly addressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gant v. DeLeon, 786 S.W.2d 259 (Tex. 1990) (limitations and service relate back to filing when diligence shown)
- Zacharie v. U.S. Natural Res. Inc., 94 S.W.3d 748 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2002) (timeliness hinges on due diligence in service)
- Roark v. Stallworth Oil & Gas, Inc., 813 S.W.2d 492 (Tex.1991) (limitations defense can support summary judgment)
- Proulx v. Wells, 235 S.W.3d 213 (Tex.2007) (plaintiff must explain delay in service after limitations lapse)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex.2005) (summary judgment standards; view of evidence)