Thompson v. United States, 4:19-cv-00017

Background

Plaintiff Alvin L. Thompson, a federal inmate, sued the United States under the FTCA alleging medical negligence by U.S. Marshal Service and BOP medical staff for inadequate treatment of pain and assessment of a previously implanted hernia mesh (Ethicon Prolene) following 2012 surgery.
Thompson reported ongoing pain while detained at Gregg County Jail, FCI-Beaumont, and FMC–Fort Worth and alleges BOP/USMS failed to order tests, provide adequate medication, or determine mesh failure.
The USA moved for summary judgment and submitted extensive detention and medical records plus deposition excerpts; Thompson did not respond to the motion or designate any expert witnesses.
Under Texas law (applicable to FTCA claims here), proving medical malpractice generally requires expert testimony establishing the standard of care, breach, and causation unless the issue is within common knowledge of laypersons.
The court concluded Thompson’s claims required expert proof, and because he produced none (and his lay testimony conceded he did not know the cause of his pain), he could not create a genuine fact issue to defeat summary judgment.
The court granted the USA’s motion and dismissed all Thompson’s FTCA claims with prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether expert testimony is required to establish standard of care and causation for alleged medical negligence	Thompson alleges negligent treatment and inadequate pain management caused ongoing injury	USA argues Texas law requires expert proof for medical standard, breach, and causation except for matters of common knowledge	Expert proof required because hernia treatment and causation are beyond lay knowledge; exception not met — expert required
Whether Thompson produced admissible expert evidence to raise a genuine dispute	Thompson offered a verified complaint and deposition testimony describing pain and treatment requests	USA submitted medical records and points to Thompson’s failure to designate an expert and gaps in the record	Thompson did not designate an expert; verified complaint/deposition insufficient to establish standard, breach, or causation
Whether Thompson’s verified complaint can substitute for expert proof at summary judgment	Thompson’s verified complaint is evidence of his allegations	USA contends allegations alone cannot satisfy the statutory/ evidentiary requirement for expert proof on medical malpractice issues	Complaint can be competent summary-judgment evidence but cannot substitute for required expert testimony on medical issues
Whether summary judgment is appropriate	Thompson seeks damages for ongoing pain from negligent medical care	USA seeks judgment as a matter of law based on lack of expert evidence and the record	Summary judgment granted for USA; Thompson’s FTCA claims dismissed with prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard and view of evidence in favor of nonmovant)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)
Hannah v. United States, 523 F.3d 597 (5th Cir. 2008) (FTCA medical-malpractice claim requires expert proof under Texas law)
Jelinek v. Casas, 328 S.W.3d 526 (Tex. 2010) (causation in medical-malpractice cases requires proof to a reasonable medical probability)
FFE Transp. Serv., Inc. v. Fulgham, 154 S.W.3d 84 (Tex. 2004) (expert testimony required when negligence is outside lay experience)
Roark v. Allen, 633 S.W.2d 804 (Tex. 1982) (mode/form of treatment not within common knowledge requires expert proof)
Hood v. Phillips, 554 S.W.2d 160 (Tex. 1977) (plaintiff must show how a reasonably careful physician would have acted)
Barnes v. Johnson, [citation="204 F. App'x 377"] (5th Cir. 2006) (verified complaints may serve as competent summary-judgment evidence)
Quijano v. United States, 325 F.3d 654 (5th Cir. 2003) (FTCA borrows state law for medical malpractice liability)