Summary
The Supreme Court of Texas held that claims arising from a physician’s alleged administration of general anesthesia without the patient’s consent were health care liability claims under former article 4590i. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s battery, breach-of-contract, and DTPA claims required an expert report and dismissed the suit because no report was filed within the statutory period.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Russell's battery, contract, and DTPA claims arising from the administration of anesthesia were health care liability claims under former article 4590i.
- Whether Russell was required to file an expert report within the statutory period to proceed with those claims.
- Whether the failure to file the required expert report required dismissal of the suit.
Holdings
- A patient's claims against a physician arising from treatment, including treatment allegedly provided without consent, are health care liability claims when they concern treatment or an alleged departure from accepted standards of medical care, health care, or safety, regardless of whether the claims are pleaded as tort or contract claims.
- Russell's DTPA allegations were health care liability claims because the alleged representations concerned whether Murphy's administration of general anesthesia met the applicable standard of care.
- Because Russell asserted health care liability claims, she was required to provide Murphy with an expert report within the statutory period, even though expert testimony might ultimately not be necessary to prevail at trial.
Key quotations
“Former article 4590i and its expert report requirements apply to a patient’s claims, regardless of whether they are tort or contract claims, when those claims come within the statutory definition of a “health care liability claim.””
“A claim may be a health care liability claim to which the damage caps and expert report requirements are applicable and yet not require expert testimony to prevail at trial.”
Factual background
Johnette Russell went to Zale Lipshy Hospital for a biopsy and told hospital personnel and anesthesiologist Mark Murphy that she would permit only a local anesthetic and did not want to be sedated or lose consciousness. Murphy allegedly assured her that he would not sedate her, but Russell lost consciousness after an air tube was inserted in her nose and later learned that Murphy had administered a sedative. She sued for battery, breach of contract, and DTPA violations, but did not file the statutorily required expert report.
Procedural history
Russell sued Murphy for battery, breach of contract, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act based on the administration of general anesthesia allegedly contrary to her instructions. The trial court dismissed the suit because Russell failed to provide the expert report required by former Texas Revised Civil Statutes article 4590i. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the claims were not health care liability claims. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals and dismissed the suit.