Suzi G. Bishara v. Texas Health Harris Methodist Hospital Fort Worth Inc., D/B/A Texas Health Harris Methodist, Hurst-Euless-Bedford, 02-20-00316-CV

In Sept. 2017 Suzi Bishara brought her terminally ill husband Amin to Texas Health Harris Methodist HEB; he died on Sept. 15, 2017.
Bishara alleged hospital staff repeatedly ignored her specific privacy requests during Amin’s stay and postmortem (including allowing unwanted visitors to view his body), causing severe emotional distress and lost earnings.
Bishara sued (IIED, intrusion on seclusion, public disclosure of private facts) on Sept. 16, 2019; the Hospital moved to dismiss/for summary judgment, arguing Chapter 74 (TMLA) required an expert report and IIED failed as a matter of law.
The trial court dismissed Bishara’s claims with prejudice for failure to file a timely expert report and awarded the Hospital $8,290 in attorney’s fees based on an affidavit from Hospital counsel.
On appeal the court: (1) held Bishara’s IIED claim was a health‑care liability claim governed by Chapter 74 and affirmed dismissal; (2) affirmed that fees were recoverable but reversed the fee amount because the Hospital’s affidavit was legally insufficient to prove the reasonableness of the requested fees and remanded for redetermination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bishara’s IIED claim is a "health‑care liability claim" requiring a Chapter 74 expert report	IIED arises from postmortem intentional tort conduct (allowing viewers of the body) and is not a health‑care liability claim; no expert required	Allegations principally relate to Amin’s treatment/confinement and privacy during hospitalization; TMLA covers such claims and an expert report was required	Court held the IIED claim is a health‑care liability claim because the allegations relate to premortem care; dismissal for failure to file an expert report affirmed
Whether summary judgment was improper because factual disputes exist and expert reports are not required for IIED	Fact issues remain; IIED is an intentional tort not subject to expert report requirement	Summary judgment proper because Chapter 74 applies	Court did not reach merits—ruling on the Chapter 74 issue was dispositive and foreclosed the summary‑judgment challenge
Whether the attorney’s‑fee award was supported by sufficient evidence	Hospital’s counsel affidavit was conclusory, lacking hours, rates, or detailed basis; insufficient to prove reasonableness	Counsel’s affidavit and experience were sufficient to support the fee award	Court held entitlement to fees under §74.351 was mandatory but the affidavit was legally insufficient to prove the amount; remanded to redetermine reasonable fees

Baylor Scott & White, Hillcrest Med. Ctr. v. Weems, 575 S.W.3d 357 (de novo review; substance and facts control whether a claim is a health‑care liability claim)
Loaisiga v. Cerda, 379 S.W.3d 248 (intentional torts can be health‑care liability claims when tied to provision of medical services)
Christus Health Gulf Coast v. Carswell, 505 S.W.3d 528 (postmortem conduct may fall within TMLA if connected to premortem care)
Rio Grande Valley Vein Clinic, P.A. v. Guerrero, 431 S.W.3d 64 (elements and scope of a health‑care liability claim)
El Apple I, Ltd. v. Olivas, 370 S.W.3d 757 (prevailing party must adequately document attorney’s fees; trial court needs sufficient information)
Rohrmoos Venture v. UTSW DVA Healthcare, LLP, 578 S.W.3d 469 (conclusory or cursory affidavits are insufficient to establish reasonableness of fees)
Garcia v. Gomez, 319 S.W.3d 638 (award of attorney’s fees under §74.351(b) is mandatory when an expert report is not timely filed)