State v. Emeritus Corporation, 466 S.W.3d 233

Emeritus operates Canterbury Court, an assisted living facility in Cameron County, Texas.
In August 2012, a resident with a history of exit-seeking behaviors was left unsupervised and eloped from the Memory Care unit, later found dead.
The State, acting through the Office of the Attorney General, sued Emeritus under the DTPA and ALFLA seeking civil penalties, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees.
Emeritus moved to dismiss as a health care liability claim under the TMLA, arguing the State failed to serve an expert report.
The trial court granted dismissal with prejudice and awarded Emeritus fees; the State appealed.
The court held that the State, acting in its sovereign public-interest capacity, seeks penalties and injunctive relief, not damages, and is not subject to the TMLA expert-report requirement, thus reversing and remanding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the State subject to the TMLA expert-report requirement?	State seeks penalties, not damages.	TMLA applies to any health care liability claims; State is claimant for damages.	State not subject to TMLA expert report; remand for fees
Is Emeritus entitled to attorney’s fees under 74.351(b) if the TMLA does not apply?	Fees should be denied if no health care liability claim.	Court should award fees due to dismissal improper under TMLA.	Court erred; sustain State’s second issue; remand for fee assessment

Loaisiga v. Cerda, 379 S.W.3d 248 (Tex. 2012) (expansive TMLA scope; health care liability claim focus)
Tex. W. Oaks Hosp., LP v. Williams, 371 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. 2012) (TMLA framework; limits on damages)
Am. Transitional Care Ctrs. of Tex., Inc. v. Palacios, 46 S.W.3d 873 (Tex. 2001) (expert report purposes in evaluating health care claims)
Jaster v. Comet II Const., Inc., 438 S.W.3d 556 (Tex. 2014) (statutory interpretation and textual analysis principles)
Brown v. De La Cruz, 156 S.W.3d 560 (Tex. 2004) (private damages vs. penalties; private action limitations)