Summary
The Supreme Court of Texas held that Texas common law does not recognize a parent's claim for loss of filial consortium arising from a child's nonfatal injury. The court upheld the admission of pediatric neurological expert testimony and concluded that a severally liable defendant's percentage-based liability is calculated from the jury's total damages before applying settlement credits to the claimant's recovery. The court also addressed allocation of a guardian ad litem's fee.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Texas common law recognizes a parent's claim for loss of consortium arising from a child's serious but nonfatal injury.
- Whether a board-certified pediatrician was qualified under Texas Rule of Evidence 702 to testify about the cause and effects of a child's neurological injuries.
- Whether a severally liable defendant's liability must be reduced by settlement credits before applying the defendant's percentage of responsibility.
- Whether the trial court stated sufficient good cause under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 141 to tax part of the guardian ad litem fee against the prevailing parties.
Holdings
- Texas common law does not recognize a parent's claim for loss of filial consortium resulting from a child's serious, permanent, and disabling nonfatal injury.
- A medical expert need not be a neurologist to testify about the cause and effects of a child's neurological injuries if the offering party establishes that the expert has knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education concerning the specific issue.
- For a defendant who is not jointly and severally liable, the defendant's liability is calculated by multiplying the damages found by the trier of fact by the defendant's percentage of responsibility; settlement credits reduce the claimant's total recovery under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 33.012 but do not reduce that calculation under section 33.013 unless the resulting liability exceeds the claimant's recovery limit.
- A trial court may tax costs against a prevailing party only for good cause stated on the record with sufficient specificity under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 141; a general appeal to fairness or incidental benefit from a guardian ad litem's services is insufficient.
Key quotations
“We therefore decline to extend a claim for loss of consortium to parents of children who have been seriously injured.” (111 S.W.3d at 120)
“Section 33.012 controls the claimant's total recovery, while section 33.013 governs the defendant's separate liability.” (111 S.W.3d at 123)
“Grounds of perceived fairness, without more, are insufficient to constitute good cause.” (111 S.W.3d at 124)
Factual background
Courtnie Williamson suffered severe acidosis and neurological injuries shortly after birth. Dr. Karen Roberts treated her, but the jury found that Roberts negligently delayed transfer to a better-equipped hospital and delayed administration of sodium bicarbonate, contributing to Courtnie's permanent injuries. The jury assigned 15 percent responsibility to Roberts, 85 percent to settling parties, and awarded damages that included loss-of-filial-consortium damages to Courtnie's parents.
Procedural history
The trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict finding Dr. Roberts 15 percent responsible for Courtnie Williamson's injuries, awarded damages including parental filial-consortium damages, declined to apply the prior settlements before calculating Dr. Roberts's liability, and divided the guardian ad litem fee between Dr. Roberts and the Williamsons. The court of appeals affirmed the damages judgment, including the filial-consortium award and settlement-credit ruling, but reversed and rendered judgment requiring Dr. Roberts to pay the full guardian ad litem fee. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the filial-consortium award and otherwise affirmed the court of appeals judgments.