Verdicts

TX High Court Says Med-Mal Tort Reform Provision Covers Slip and Fall

The Supreme Court of Texas has ruled that a hospital's negligent act or omission regarding patient-care equipment that causes a patient injury constitutes a lapse in the provision of health care; thus, a claim brought for such negligence is one charging health care liability, and it is subject to the State's expert affidavit requirement and to its medical malpractice damage caps. Marks v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hosp., — S.W.3d —-, 2010 WL 3373407 (Tex., 8/27/10).

The case arose after a patient at Houston's St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital fell and was injured while recovering from back surgery. He claimed that the fall was caused not only by lax medical care, but also by a faulty bed footboard, which he had tried to use to help him get up. His suit against the hospital was dismissed for failure to file expert reports. After appeals that went to the State Supreme Court, the Houston Court of Appeals ultimately upheld the trial court's dismissal. This appeal followed, in which the plaintiff argued, inter alia, that even if his medical claims failed for lack of an expert's opinion, he should be permitted to seek recovery from the hospital for premises liability. In a premises liability action, damages would not be limited by Texas' medical malpractice tort reform legislation, the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act (MLIIA).

MLIIA defines a health care liability claim as “a cause of action against a health care provider or physician for treatment, lack of treatment, or other claimed departure from accepted standards of medical care or health care or safety which proximately results in injury to or death of the patient, whether the patient's claim or cause of action sounds in tort or contract.” TEX.REV.CIV.STAT. art. 4590i ' 1.03(a)(4). The hospital asserted that under this definition, the plaintiff's claim for injuries arising from improper operation of his hospital bed, and alleging that hospital employees negligently assembled or maintained the bed, was a “health care liability” claim under the MLIIA. The Texas Supreme Court agreed with the hospital, stating, “[Plaintiff] alleges that his injury here was caused by the hospital's improper maintenance or assembly of his hospital bed. At its core, this claim alleges the failure of a piece of equipment provided during [plaintiff's] inpatient care. Medical equipment specific to a particular patient's care or treatment is an integral and inseparable part of the health care services provided. When the unsafe or defective condition of that equipment injures the patient, the gravamen of the resulting cause of action is a health care liability claim.” Thus, the plaintiff's claim was subject to the requirements and limitations placed on medical malpractice claims. As such, the plaintiff was required to file an expert report within the statutorily allotted time. This he had not done. Lacking a good excuse for this failure, the court determined the trial court had properly dismissed the claim in its entirety.

TX High Court Says Med-Mal Tort Reform Provision Covers Slip and Fall

The Supreme Court of Texas has ruled that a hospital's negligent act or omission regarding patient-care equipment that causes a patient injury constitutes a lapse in the provision of health care; thus, a claim brought for such negligence is one charging health care liability, and it is subject to the State's expert affidavit requirement and to its medical malpractice damage caps. Marks v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hosp., — S.W.3d —-, 2010 WL 3373407 (Tex., 8/27/10).

The case arose after a patient at Houston's St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital fell and was injured while recovering from back surgery. He claimed that the fall was caused not only by lax medical care, but also by a faulty bed footboard, which he had tried to use to help him get up. His suit against the hospital was dismissed for failure to file expert reports. After appeals that went to the State Supreme Court, the Houston Court of Appeals ultimately upheld the trial court's dismissal. This appeal followed, in which the plaintiff argued, inter alia, that even if his medical claims failed for lack of an expert's opinion, he should be permitted to seek recovery from the hospital for premises liability. In a premises liability action, damages would not be limited by Texas' medical malpractice tort reform legislation, the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act (MLIIA).

MLIIA defines a health care liability claim as “a cause of action against a health care provider or physician for treatment, lack of treatment, or other claimed departure from accepted standards of medical care or health care or safety which proximately results in injury to or death of the patient, whether the patient's claim or cause of action sounds in tort or contract.” TEX.REV.CIV.STAT. art. 4590i ' 1.03(a)(4). The hospital asserted that under this definition, the plaintiff's claim for injuries arising from improper operation of his hospital bed, and alleging that hospital employees negligently assembled or maintained the bed, was a “health care liability” claim under the MLIIA. The Texas Supreme Court agreed with the hospital, stating, “[Plaintiff] alleges that his injury here was caused by the hospital's improper maintenance or assembly of his hospital bed. At its core, this claim alleges the failure of a piece of equipment provided during [plaintiff's] inpatient care. Medical equipment specific to a particular patient's care or treatment is an integral and inseparable part of the health care services provided. When the unsafe or defective condition of that equipment injures the patient, the gravamen of the resulting cause of action is a health care liability claim.” Thus, the plaintiff's claim was subject to the requirements and limitations placed on medical malpractice claims. As such, the plaintiff was required to file an expert report within the statutorily allotted time. This he had not done. Lacking a good excuse for this failure, the court determined the trial court had properly dismissed the claim in its entirety.