Moore v. TrevinoMoore v. Trevino
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Lopez
Opinion by
ALMA L. LÓPEZ, Justice.
Appellant Karl Moore (“Moore”) appeals from summary judgment in favor of appel-lees Manuel Treviño, James Gonzales, Donald Spachek and David Peters. Appel-lees are all emergency medical service personnel who treated Moore’s wife, Julia Moore (“Julia”). In this case, we must decide whether, as a matter of law, the Good Samaritan Statute as codified under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
BACKGROUND
This is a tragic case. On June 21, 1998, Treviño and Gonzales were dispatched to a local restaurant as a result of alleged seizures experienced by Julia that evening. The dispatch report indicated that Julia was conscious and breathing. According to their affidavits, when Treviño and Gonzales arrived, Julia was not breathing, had no pulse, and her bps were bluish in color. Treviño attempted CPR. He then asked Gonzales to retrieve additional equipment from their unit. Following Advanced Cardiac Life Support Protocol, Treviño administered epinephrine and intubated Julia. Treviño checked Julia again and obtained a pulse. About this time, a second emergency unit arrived with Peters and Spachek. Peters and Spachek assisted in placing Julia in Treviño’s unit. Spachek rode with Treviño while Gonzales drove to Southwest Texas Methodist Hospital. Peters followed. According to hospital medical records, the endotracheal tube in Julia was “pulled back” about three to four centimeters because she was not breathing and her skin was a bluish color. Upon adjusting the tube, Julia became more pink. Although she was resuscitated, further testing revealed she had sustained a cerebral hemorrhage. Julia’s family decided to cease all life support measures based upon her previously expressed wishes that she never wanted to be connected to life support. Julia died on June 27,1998, six days after being admitted to the hospital. Moore subsequently sued Treviño, Gonzales, Spacheck, and Peters, individually, for negligence and gross negligence. Ap-pellees each moved for summary judgment on the basis that there was no evidence they acted wilfully or wantonly as required by section 74.002. Moore responded by asserting that section 74.002 did not apply to appellees. The trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of the appel-lees, but did not award them costs. All parties appealed.
The Good Samaritan Statute
Section 74.002 of the Good Samaritan Statute, entitled “Unlicensed Medical Personnel,” provides the following:
Persons not licensed in the healing arts who in good faith administer emergency care as emergency medical service personnel are not hable in civil damages for an act performed in administering the care unless the act is wilfully or wantonly neghgent. This section applies without regard to whether the care is provided for or in expectation of remuneration.
On appeal, Moore asserts
In construing a statute, the court’s purpose is to give effect to the Legislature’s intent. Cash America Int’l Inc. v. Bennett, 35 S.W.3d 12, 16 (Tex. 2000); Fleming Foods of Texas, Inc. v. Rylander, 6 S.W.3d 278, 284 (Tex.1999). To determine legislative intent, courts may consider the language of the statute, the legislative history, the nature and object to be obtained, and the consequences that would follow from alternative instructions. In re Bay Area Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, 982 S.W.2d 371, 380 (Tex.1998); see also Tex. Gov’t Code ANN. § 311.023 (Vernon 1998). However, prior laws and legislative history cannot be used to alter or disregard the express terms of a code provision when its meaning is clear when considered in its entirety, unless there is an error. See Rylander, 6 S.W.3d at 284. Moreover, the legislative intent should be determined from the entire act and not simply from isolated portions. Jones v. Fowler, 969 S.W.2d 429, 432 (Tex.1998). A statute must be read as whole and interpreted so that every part is given effect. See id. Finally, where language in a statute is unambiguous, we seek the intent of the Legislature as found in the plain and common meaning of the words and terms used. Sorokolit v. Rhodes, 889 S.W.2d 239, 241 (Tex.1994).
Healing Arts
In support of his argument that licensed emergency medical service personnel are not afforded protection under
The Good Samaritan Statute does not define the phrase “healing arts”; thus, for purposes of statutory interpretation and construction, we look to other statutes that define the term.
See
Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.023(4). There are various statutory authorities to support the proposition that the term “healing arts” is synonymous with the practice of medicine or the services provided by a health care practitioner.
See
The most persuasive of these authorities is the Healing Art Identification Act found in Chapter 104 of the Texas Occupations Code. Chapter 104 defines the “healing arts” to include “any system, treatment, operation, diagnosis, prescription, or practice to ascertain, cure, relieve, adjust, or correct a human disease, injury, or unhealthy or abnormal physical or mental condition.”
Given the treatment of the “healing arts” as the practice of medicine or an equivalent practice in other statutes, we conclude that “healing arts” as used in
Voluntary Emergency Care
In support of his argument that
Section 74.001 of the Good Samaritan Statute, entitled “Liability for Emergency Care,” provides that a higher standard of Lability must be met for a person who in good faith administers emergency care at the scene of an emergency not in a hospital, other health care facility, or means of medical transport. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ANN. § 74.001(a) (Vernon Supp.2002); see also Hernandez v. Lukefahr, 879 S.W.2d 137, 141 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no writ). The statute also affords protection, in limited circumstances, where an emergency occurs in a hospital, other health care facility, or medical transport. Id. § 74.001(c). Section 74.001 expressly provides that it does not apply to care administered for or in expectation of remuneration. Id. § 74.001(b)(1). Section 74.001 also excludes persons who regularly administer care “in a hospital emergency room” unless that person is present for reasons unrelated to his or her work in administering health care. Id. § 74.001(c)(1); see Hernandez, 879 S.W.2d at 141 (holding section 74.001 applied to physician who rendered aid). Thus, the purpose of section 74.001 is to lower the standard of care in order to encourage certain medically trained persons and laypersons to render aid in emergency situations. See Hernandez, 879 S.W.2d at 141.
Although emergency medical service personnel, such as paramedics and EMTs, are not included within the scope of section 74.001 because they administer emergency care in return for remuneration, this does not automatically lead to the conclusion that they are not within the scope of
We also reject Moore’s interpretation because it would lead to the unintended result that the same group of people would be covered under both section 74.001 and 74.002. In other words, Moore would have this court hold that both sections only afford protection from liability to a single group of individuals: those who voluntarily administer emergency care. Such an interpretation would render
Conclusion
We hold that
Costs
On cross-appeal, appellees contend the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award them costs pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 131. Under Rule 131, a successful party in a suit is entitled to recover all the taxable costs it incurred. A “successful party” is one who obtains a judgment of a competent court of jurisdiction vindicating a civil claim of right.
See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Grayson,
983 S.W.2d 769, 770 (Tex.App.San Antonio 1998, no pet.). A party is “successful” based upon its success on the merits and not on whether damages are awarded.
See Johns v. Ram-Forwarding Inc.,
29 S.W.3d 635, 638 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.). For costs to be taxed otherwise, the trial court must find good cause and state the reasons on the record.
In their motions for summary judgment, appellees specifically requested that they be awarded costs pursuant to Rule 131. The trial court summarily denied the request without reason. The record does not reflect that appellant offered any justification for not awarding costs to the ap-pellees, nor does the record indicate that appellees engaged in conduct to support the court’s ruling.
See
Conclusion
With this opinion we hold emergency medical technicians and paramedics are included within the scope of
Notes
. In this opinion, we use the term “emergency medical service personnel” to refer to paramedics and emergency medical technicians alike.
. The appellees were certified paramedics at the time they treated Julia. Moore asserts that “certified” and “licensed” are interchangeable terms, and in their depositions, appellees acknowledged that they and the State make no distinction between being “certified” and being “licensed.”
. The record reflects that appellees moved for summary judgment on multiple grounds, including official immunity. Moore responded to each motion. In particular, he asserted the issue raised on appeal and also asserted that if
. In
Wheeler v. Yettie Kersting Memorial Hosp.,
866 S.W.2d 32 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no writ), the appellate court addressed whether there was sufficient evidence to establish a question of fact that paramedics acted willfully or wantonly for purposes of
.This court has previously addressed the application of the Good Samaritan Law as encompassed under section 74.001. See Howell v. City Towing Assocs., Inc., 717 S.W.2d 729 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.). The court held that 74.001 did not apply to a tow truck driver who failed to drive a customer to the hospital and instead notified his dispatcher for EMS. See id at 732.