Tenet Hospitals Ltd. v. Rivera ex rel. M.R., 445 S.W.3d 698

In 1996 M.R. suffered birth injuries allegedly from negligent care at Providence Hospital; claim accrued then.
In 2003 the Texas Legislature enacted the Medical Liability Act, creating a 10-year statute of repose for health-care liability claims (claims must be filed within 10 years of the act/omission).
Because the injury occurred in 1996, the 2003 statute left M.R. only three years (until 2006) to file before the repose expired.
In August 2004 M.R.’s mother, Elizabeth Rivera, through counsel, sent the statutorily required pre-suit notice to the hospital; no suit was filed until March 2011 (well after the repose deadline).
Hospital moved for summary judgment based on the repose; trial court granted summary judgment, the court of appeals reversed on open-courts grounds, and the Texas Supreme Court granted review.
The Supreme Court (majority) reversed the court of appeals and rendered judgment for defendants, rejecting Rivera’s as-applied open-courts and retroactivity challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 10-year statute of repose violates the Texas Constitution’s open courts provision as applied to M.R.	Rivera: the repose cuts off a minor’s claim before majority and, like Sax/Weiner, a parent’s inaction shouldn’t bar the child’s access to courts.	Hospital: the repose is constitutional; Rivera lacked diligence (knew of claim, sent notice in 2004 but delayed suit), so open-courts relief is unavailable.	Held: open-courts challenge fails — Rivera (as next friend) lacked due diligence and her delay precludes an as-applied open-courts remedy.
Whether the repose statute is unconstitutionally retroactive as applied to M.R.	Rivera: statute retroactively extinguished an already-accrued minor’s claim before she could sue; parent’s duties shouldn’t cure that retroactivity.	Hospital: statute is retroactive but justified by compelling public interest (malpractice crisis); M.R. had a 3-year grace period and Rivera knew of the claim, so impairment is not unconstitutional.	Held: retroactivity challenge fails — balancing (Robinson test) finds compelling public purpose and a three-year grace period (plus Rivera’s knowledge) render the as-applied impairment permissible.

Rankin v. Methodist Healthcare Sys., 307 S.W.3d 283 (Tex. 2010) (upheld Medical Liability Act repose against an open-courts challenge when plaintiff lacked discovery of injury).
Yancy v. United Surgical Partners Int’l, Inc., 236 S.W.3d 778 (Tex. 2007) (open-courts challenge fails where guardian did not show due diligence in bringing suit).
Shah v. Moss, 67 S.W.3d 836 (Tex. 2001) (plaintiff’s unexplained delay after discovering injury defeats open-courts challenge).
Stockton v. Offenbach, 336 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. 2011) (next friend’s lack of diligence imputed to minor; failure to raise fact issue on diligence defeats open-courts claim).
Weiner v. Wasson, 900 S.W.2d 316 (Tex. 1995) (statute of limitations that cuts off minors’ claims before majority unconstitutional as applied).
Sax v. Votteler, 648 S.W.2d 661 (Tex. 1983) (statute barring minor’s malpractice claim before majority violates open-courts provision).
Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 335 S.W.3d 126 (Tex. 2010) (three-factor test for assessing constitutionality of retroactive statutes).