Teel Styles v. CVS Pharmacy, 05-21-00720-CV

In 2016 Styles’s son A.O. underwent tonsil/adenoid surgery and later had ongoing complications (asthma, sleep apnea, obesity) requiring treatment.
In 2018 A.O. was prescribed medication that Styles filled at two CVS pharmacies; in 2020 Styles sued CVS alleging incorrect prescription fills and that the medications were ineffective.
Styles sued in her individual capacity, seeking $10 million for A.O.’s pain and suffering and characterizing the claim as medical malpractice/medication errors.
CVS moved to dismiss under the Texas Medical Liability Act (Chapter 74) for failure to serve an expert report within 120 days; the trial court granted dismissal.
On appeal the court sua sponte questioned jurisdiction because the asserted injury (pain and suffering) belonged to the minor child but Styles was not suing as his representative; Styles did not respond to the court’s directive.
The Court of Appeals concluded Styles, individually, lacked standing to assert A.O.’s negligence claim, found the defect incurable (not a mere pleading defect), vacated the trial court’s judgment, and dismissed the cause for want of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Styles has standing to sue individually for A.O.’s pain-and-suffering medical-negligence claim	Styles alleged CVS misfilled prescriptions and sought relief in her own petition for A.O.’s injuries	CVS moved to dismiss under Chapter 74 for failure to timely file an expert report (procedural dismissal)	Held: Styles lacked standing; the asserted negligence claim belongs to A.O., not Styles, so the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction
Whether the jurisdictional defect is curable (opportunity to replead)	Implicitly, Styles could amend to pursue relief	CVS maintained dismissal was appropriate under Chapter 74	Held: Defect is incurable as pleaded — would require adding A.O. or a distinct claim by Styles; court dismissed rather than permitting repleading
Appellate court’s authority when trial court lacked jurisdiction	Styles appealed the dismissal on the merits	CVS defended the dismissal order	Held: Appellate court must ensure subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte; lacking jurisdiction it can only vacate the trial-court judgment and dismiss the cause

S.C. v. M.B., 650 S.W.3d 428 (Tex. 2022) (appellate courts must ensure subject-matter jurisdiction)
Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012) (standing is a constitutional, jurisdictional prerequisite)
Sax v. Votteler, 648 S.W.2d 661 (Tex. 1983) (a child’s pain-and-suffering claim for medical negligence belongs to the child, not the parent)
Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Ramirez, 74 S.W.3d 864 (Tex. 2002) (distinguishing incurable jurisdictional defects from curable pleading defects)
County of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549 (Tex. 2002) (jurisdictional inquiry looks to the pleadings)
M.O. Dental Lab v. Rape, 139 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. 2004) (claims discontinued by dismissal; limits on relief when defendants unserved)
Brashear v. Victoria Gardens of McKinney, L.L.C., 302 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (appellate courts may raise jurisdictional defects sua sponte)