Yamada v. Friend
335 S.W.3d 192
| Tex. | 2010Background
- Water park death of 12-year-old Sarah Friend after collapse at a water park; water park personnel and authorities treated her and she died from a heart condition.
- Plaintiffs Laura Friend and Luther Friend sued the City of North Richland Hills and Dr. Roy Yamada for alleged failure to timely evaluate and treat Sarah, focusing on AED use and safety procedures; no doctor-patient relationship existed between Sarah and Yamada.
- Friends did not file an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA) for health care liability claims against Yamada.
- Court of Appeals held some allegations against Yamada implicated health care liability (requiring TMLA compliance) while others were ordinary negligence claims not subject to the TMLA; court allowed the ordinary negligence claims to proceed.
- Texas Supreme Court held that when all claims against a defendant are based on the same underlying facts covered by the TMLA, they cannot be maintained as both health care liability and ordinary negligence claims; such claims must be dismissed if the expert report under the TMLA is not filed.
- Court remanded to determine attorney’s fees and costs per §74.351(b)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can the same underlying facts support both health care liability and ordinary negligence claims? | Friends contend some acts fall outside health care, enabling ordinary negligence claims. | Yamada argues claims are grounded in health care standards and must be governed by the TMLA. | No; if the underlying facts fall within the TMLA, all claims must be treated as health care liability. |
| May plaintiffs sidestep the TMLA by artfully pleading around it and splitting claims by pleading different standards of care? | Friends assert ordinary negligence claims are separate from health care claims. | Yamada argues such splitting nullifies the TMLA and allows avoidance of its requirements. | No; artful pleading cannot defeat the TMLA when the essence of the action is a health care liability claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Diversicare Gen. Partners, Inc. v. Rubio, 185 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. 2005) (health care liability claim cannot be split into non-health care actions to avoid TMLA)
- Garland Cmty. Hosp. v. Rose, 156 S.W.3d 541 (Tex. 2004) (artful pleading cannot avoid MLIIA/TMLA requirements)
- Murphy v. Russell, 167 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2005) (premise that essence of claim is health care liability)
- Valley Baptist Med. Ctr. v. Azua, 198 S.W.3d 810 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2006) (hospital employee safety claim treated as health care liability)
- Diversicare Gen. Partners, Inc. v. Rubio, 185 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. 2005) (cited for limits on splicing health care claims into others)