Justia Texas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Respondent, on behalf of the estate of her deceased sister, filed suit against petitioner, a nursing home, alleging that while the sister was being cared for by petitioner, she was bitten by a brown recluse spider and died. At issue was whether the claims were healthcare liability claims that required an expert report to be served. The court held that the claims fell within the statutory definition of a health care liability claim and therefore, the statute required the suit to be dismissed unless respondent timely filed an expert report. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and reversed and remanded. View "Omaha Healthcare Center, LLC v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Respondent sued petitioner and two other doctors alleging that they negligently performed a medial maxillectomy to remove growth from Samuel Santillan's sinus cavity which resulted in brain damage and partial paralysis. At issue was whether a letter sent to the physicians qualified as an expert's report under the Medical Liability Act, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 74.001-.507. The court held that a document qualified as an expert report if it contained a statement of opinion by an individual with expertise indicating that the claim asserted by the plaintiff against the defendant had merit. An individual's lack of relevant qualifications and an opinion's inadequacies are deficiencies the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to cure if it was possible to do so. This lenient standard avoided the expense and delay of multiple interlocutory appeals and assured a claimant fair opportunity to demonstrate his claim was not frivolous. Therefore, the court held that the letter at issue met this test and the trial court's order allowing thirty days to cure deficiencies and denying petitioner's motions to dismiss were not appealable. Accordingly the court affirmed the judgment. View "Scoresby, M.D. v. Santillan, et al." on Justia Law