TTHR, L.P. v. Coffman
338 S.W.3d 103
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Coffman sought treatment at Presbyterian Hospital of Denton; a urine test was performed and the lab report was released to the University of North Texas Police Department and then to UNT, Coffman’s university.
- The release and disclosure of Coffman’s test results were alleged to violate confidentiality and Tex. Occ. Code § 159.002(Confidential medical records).
- Coffman filed suit against Presbyterian and the University of North Texas; the University was not a party to this appeal.
- Presbyterian moved to dismiss under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 74.351, arguing Coffman failed to timely serve an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA).
- Coffman argued an expert report was unnecessary because her claims were not health care liability claims.
- The trial court denied Presbyterian’s motion; Presbyterian appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the claim involve a health care liability claim under the TMLA? | Coffman argues no TMLA applicability since the claim isn’t health care related. | Presbyterian contends the claim is based on confidentiality in health care and thus falls under TMLA. | Yes; the claim is a health care liability claim. |
| Is the duty to maintain confidentiality a professional or administrative service directly related to health care? | Coffman argues confidentiality duty is not a health care service. | Presbyterian contends confidentiality duties are professional/administrative and directly related to health care. | Yes; confidentiality is a professional/administrative service directly related to health care. |
| Can a health care liability claim proceed without a physician expert report for causation? | Coffman argues an expert report is not required due to non-healthcare-nature of the claim. | Presbyterian asserts expert report is required to establish standard of care and causation. | No; an expert report is required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garland Cmty. Hosp. v. Rose, 156 S.W.3d 541 (Tex. 2004) (use underlying acts to determine health care liability claim)
- Diversicare Gen. Partner, Inc. v. Rubio, 185 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. 2005) (cannot avoid TMLA by artful pleading; look to act or omission)
- Marks v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hosp., 319 S.W.3d 658 (Tex. 2010) (defines health care liability claim and interpretive standards)
- Fudge v. Wall, 308 S.W.3d 458 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010) (non-physical injuries can be health care claims; standard of care matters)
- Murphy v. Russell, 167 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2005) (expert report requirement serves discovery and threshold considerations)
- Pallares v. Magic Valley Electric Co-op, Inc., 267 S.W.3d 67 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2008) (health care provider status and bodily injury considerations in related claims)
- Thomas v. State, 923 S.W.2d 645 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995) (injury interpretation not controlling for TMLA; focus on health care relation)