Weatherford Texas Hospital Company, LLC D/B/A Weatherford Regional Medical Center, Peggy Gentzel, R.N., Alisha Bullard, R.N., and Bonnie Calhoun, R.N. v. Amy Lynn Laudermilt and Steven Melton, 02-17-00075-CV

Background

Plaintiff Amy Lynn Laudermilt underwent attempted central venous line placement at Weatherford Regional Medical Center; several feet of guidewire were left in her and remained for nearly two years, fragmenting and migrating, requiring multiple procedures.
Laudermilt and her husband sued three nurses (Peggy Gentzel, Alisha Bullard, Bonnie Calhoun) and the Hospital for negligence and for negligent hiring/training/supervision by the Hospital.
Plaintiffs served two expert reports: Theresa Posani, MS, RN (nursing expert) and Ralph Terpolilli, MD (physician expert). Defendants moved to dismiss under the Texas Medical Liability Act, arguing the reports were deficient as to standard of care, breach, and causation.
Trial court denied the motions to dismiss; defendants appealed the denial to the Fort Worth Court of Appeals.
The central dispute: whether the two expert reports constituted a good‑faith effort that sufficiently summarized the applicable standards of care for each defendant, how those standards were breached, and how the breaches caused Laudermilt’s injuries.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether expert reports set forth an identifiable standard of care for nurses and Hospital	Reports identify duties (monitoring, documentation, time‑out, informed consent) and state breaches	Reports fail to define specific nursing standard or distinguish each nurse’s role; Dr. Terpolilli improperly uses a global standard	Reports were sufficient: they describe applicable nursing duties and breaches and put defendants on notice
Whether reports identify breaches by individual nurses	Experts explained documentation failures made identification difficult and asserted the nurses collectively breached duties	Reports must tie specific acts to each named nurse	Sufficient: collective breach and failure to document can fairly notify each nurse; experts explained why specifics were lacking due to defendants’ omissions
Whether the physician expert may establish causation (and whether causation is adequately tied to nursing breaches)	Dr. Terpolilli (physician) ties nursing failures to physician’s loss/retention of guidewire and resulting injuries	Defendants say nursing breaches aren’t linked to the injuries or only physician opinion controls causation	Sufficient: physician may opine on causation; Dr. Terpolilli linked nursing failures to the physician’s error and to plaintiff’s harm, permitting reasonable inferences
Whether nurse expert may opine on causation or whether opinions are conclusory	Posani focused on nursing breach (documentation) but did not offer causation; plaintiffs rely on physician for causation	Defendants contend Posani cannot offer causation and reports are conclusory	Court held causation requirement satisfied by Dr. Terpolilli; Posani’s lack of causation opinions was not fatal to sufficiency

Key Cases Cited

Fagadau v. Wenkstern, 311 S.W.3d 132 (trial court may dismiss if expert report is not a good‑faith effort to meet statutory definition)
Otero v. Richardson, 326 S.W.3d 363 (abuse of discretion standard for denial of §74.351 motion)
Am. Transitional Care Ctrs. of Tex., Inc. v. Palacios, 46 S.W.3d 873 (requirement that an expert report provide a fair summary of standard, breach, and causation)
Gonzalez v. Padilla, 485 S.W.3d 236 (consider entire report; expert may state same standard applies to multiple providers)
Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston v. Kai Hui Qi, 370 S.W.3d 406 (when multiple providers sued, report must either differentiate standards or state same standard applies)
Columbia N. Hills Hosp. Subsidiary, L.P. v. Alvarez, 382 S.W.3d 619 (physician causation rule and report sufficiency principles)
Certified EMS, Inc. v. Potts, 392 S.W.3d 625 (one adequate theory can allow suit against provider even if other theories not addressed)
Gardner v. U.S. Imaging, Inc., 274 S.W.3d 669 (expert report that implicates employee actions can support vicarious liability claim)
Benish v. Grottie, 281 S.W.3d 184 (experts may draw inferences from facts in report)