Wilson v. Shanti
333 S.W.3d 909
Tex. App.2011Background
- Wilson sued Dr. Shanti and the Shanti clinic for medical malpractice alleging nerve injury from injections; EMG showed pre- vs post-treatment nerve damage; Barhorst offered causation opinions based on patient history and records; trial court excluded Barhorst’s testimony as unreliable; summary judgment entered for Shanti after exclusion; Wilson moved for new trial which was overruled by operation of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability of Barhorst’s causation opinion | Barhorst’s data support causation; no reliable basis to exclude. | Barhorst relied on inconsistent timing and unreliable data. | Exclusion upheld; Barhorst’s testimony unreliable. |
| Summary judgment without causation evidence | Without Barhorst, Wilson has causation evidence. | No expert causation means no trial-worthy evidence. | Traditional and no-evidence summary judgment affirmed. |
| Consideration of Dr. Esses’ testimony on appeal | Esse’s testimony creates a fact issue. | Ground not raised below; cannot be considered on appeal. | Not considered; waived. |
| Motion for new trial——waiver | Timely motion was not adequately supported. | Waived due to inadequate briefing. | Waived. |
Key Cases Cited
- E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995) (three-part reliability inquiry for expert testimony)
- Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. 1998) (linking data, methodology, and opinion; admissibility gatekeeping)
- Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1997) (unreliable data basis disqualifies expert opinion)
- Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572 (Tex. 2006) (three-part reliability inquiry; requirements for admissibility)
- Whirlpool Corp. v. Camacho, 298 S.W.3d 631 (Tex. 2009) (reliability of underlying data and methodology; connect data to opinion)
- LMC Complete Auto., Inc. v. Burke, 229 S.W.3d 469 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007) (weight of patient history goes to credibility, not admissibility)
- Weingarten Realty Investors v. Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 93 S.W.3d 280 (Tex. 2002) (abuse of discretion standard in evidentiary rulings)