Murphy v. Russell

Summary

The Supreme Court of Texas held that claims arising from an anesthesiologist's alleged administration of general anesthesia without consent were health care liability claims under former Texas Revised Civil Statutes article 4590i. The court concluded that the plaintiff's battery, breach of contract, and Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims required an expert report, and it dismissed the suit because no report was filed.

Holdings

1. A patient's claim against a physician arising from treatment allegedly provided without consent is a health care liability claim when it concerns treatment or a claimed departure from accepted standards of medical care, health care, or safety, even if pleaded as battery, breach of contract, or another non-negligence theory.
2. Russell's DTPA claims were health care liability claims because the alleged representations concerned whether Murphy's administration of general anesthesia under the circumstances met the applicable standard of care.
3. Because Russell asserted health care liability claims, she was required to provide an expert report within the period prescribed by former article 4590i before proceeding with the suit.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Russell's battery, breach-of-contract, and DTPA claims arising from the administration of anesthesia without her consent were health care liability claims under former Texas Revised Civil Statutes article 4590i.
2. Whether Russell was required to file an expert report within the statutory period before proceeding with those claims.
3. Whether failure to file the required expert report required dismissal of the suit.

Disposition

reversed