552 S.W.3d 335
Tex. App.2018Background
- CABF (a bridal shop) sued Texas Health Resources (THR), operator of Presbyterian Hospital, alleging THR negligently failed to implement Ebola-response policies, training, and PPE after governmental warnings, leading to public exposure when an infected nurse visited CABF and causing the shop to close permanently.
- CABF pleaded negligence and gross negligence based on THR's alleged failures in infection control, staff training, and post-exposure warnings.
- THR moved to dismiss under the Texas Medical Liability Act (chapter 74) for failure to serve an expert report; CABF did not serve an expert report.
- The trial court denied THR’s motion to dismiss; THR appealed.
- The core legal question: whether CABF’s claims are health care liability claims (HCLCs) subject to chapter 74's expert-report requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CABF's claims qualify as a health care liability claim under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.001(a)(13) | CABF: Its injury is not a typical patient claim and corporations cannot be "claimants" for TMLA; thus chapter 74 does not apply | THR: Allegations challenge hospital safety/ infection-control policies and training—a safety-standards-based HCLC subject to chapter 74 | Court: CABF alleges departures from safety standards substantively related to provision of health care and is therefore asserting an HCLC |
| Whether "claimant" includes corporate entities (so CABF must serve expert report) | CABF: "Claimant" should mean a natural person only | THR: "Person" includes entities; statute’s ordinary meaning covers corporations | Court: "Person" includes entities; CABF fits the statutory claimant definition and must comply with expert-report requirement |
| Whether the alleged safety standard violations have the necessary nexus to health care (Ross factors) | CABF: Injuries occurred offsite and involved non-patients, so no HCLC | THR: Alleged failures arose from provider duties (infection control, training, PPE) and match Ross factors | Court: Several Ross factors (protecting patients, professional duties, regulatory warnings) weigh in favor of HCLC despite other factors not applying |
| Remedy for failing to serve expert report | CABF: (implicit) dismissal not appropriate because chapter 74 inapplicable or claimant definition excludes entities | THR: Statutory dismissal with prejudice under § 74.351(b) | Court: Dismiss CABF's claims with prejudice; vacate trial court order and remand to determine THR’s attorney’s fees and costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. W. Oaks Hosp., LP v. Williams, 371 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. 2012) (defines HCLC elements and statutory construction approach)
- Ross v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hosp., 462 S.W.3d 496 (Tex. 2015) (articulates substantive-nexus/Ross factors for safety-standards HCLC analysis)
- Galvan v. Mem'l Hermann Hosp. Sys., 476 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. 2015) (infection control in hospitals relates to provision of health care)
- Bowie Mem'l Hosp. v. Wright, 79 S.W.3d 48 (Tex. 2002) (standard of review for TMLA dismissal proceedings)