Texas Cypress Creek Hospital, L.P. v. Hickman
329 S.W.3d 209
| Tex. App. | 2010Background
- Cox, a Mental health patient, died from Zyprexa toxicity during Cypress Creek admission; Hickman ( Cox’s mother) sued Cypress Creek in July 2008 for healthcare-liability, negligence, MH Code, Nursing Act, wrongful death, and survival; Hickman served an expert report by a non-physician alleging causation; Hickman amended to remove medical-malpractice claims but kept claims alleging health care deficiencies; Cypress Creek moved to dismiss for failure to comply with Chapter 74 expert requirements; trial court denied, then appellate reversal and remand for dismissal with prejudice and fees.
- Hickman alleged Cypress Creek breached standards of care in mental-health treatment, medication management, patient safety, and record-keeping, proximately causing Cox’s injuries and death; assertion included alleged violations of professional standards and nursing practice acts; Hickman claimed Chapter 321 rights claims are civil-rights-based and not governed by Chapter 74.
- The trial court conducted a brief hearing and denied the motion to dismiss; Cypress Creek challenged the sufficiency of the expert reports and the applicability of Chapter 74; the court agreed to review de novo whether Hickman’s claims are healthcare-liability claims.
- Texas 74.001(a)(13) defines healthcare-liability claims; the court held Hickman’s claims are healthcare-liability claims because they concern treatment/departure from accepted health-care standards inseparable from Cox’s care; mental-health claims fall within Chapter 74; Hickman cannot recast claims to avoid 74’s requirements.
- The court held that there was an abuse of discretion in not granting dismissal for failure to provide an adequate expert report; Grossman’s report and the autopsy report did not satisfy 74.351(r)(6) and a one-time 30-day cure could be granted; because Hickman did not cure or provide adequate reports, dismissal with prejudice was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hickman’s claims are healthcare-liability claims under Chapter 74. | Hickman argues Chapter 321 governs; not 74. | Court should apply 74; claims are healthcare-related. | Yes; claims are healthcare-liability claims. |
| Whether Hickman’s pleadings can be recast to avoid Chapter 74. | No recasting; essence remains healthcare-liability. | Yes; recasting to chapter 321 if possible. | No; essence remains healthcare-liability. |
| Whether Chapter 74 supersedes Chapter 321, requiring expert reports. | 321 provides civil-rights pathway not requiring 74 reports. | 74 governs healthcare claims; reports required. | Chapter 74 governs; reports required. |
| Whether Grossman’s report and the autopsy report meet 74.351(r)(6) requirements. | Report sufficiency conceded but irrelevant if 321 applies. | Reports deficient; not proper expert reports. | Deficient; not proper expert reports. |
Key Cases Cited
- Diversicare Gen. Partner, Inc. v. Rubio, 185 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. 2005) (healthcare is broad; mental-health care included as health care)
- Walden v. Jeffery, 907 S.W.2d 446 ( Tex. 1995) (per curiam; healthcare-related claims analyzed for 74 applicability)
- Smalling v. Gardner, 203 S.W.3d 354 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (cannot recast healthcare claims to avoid 74)
- Garland Comty. Hosp. v. Rose, 156 S.W.3d 541 (Tex.2004) (essence of claims controls; 74 applies to health care claims)
- Kelly v. Rendon, 255 S.W.3d 665 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (physician-required causation testimony for expert reports)