Kim v. Hoyt
Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-12-00278-CV (April 24, 2013)
Justices O’Neill (opinion), FitzGerald, and Lang-Miers
The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of a doctor’s motion to dismiss healthcare liability claims, concluding the plaintiff’s expert report passed muster under the Medical Liability Act. The doctor contended the report failed to demonstrate that the expert was qualified to render his opinions and that the report was conclusory with respect to causation. The court of appeals disagreed.
Hoyt’s wife died during a laparoscopic surgery performed by Dr. Kim. Hoyt sued a number of individuals, including Dr. Kim, but did not accuse Dr. Kim of causing his wife’s death. Rather, Hoyt alleged Dr. Kim falsified an operation report and participated in a cover-up of the cause of death. Hoyt asserted claims for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional stress against Dr. Kim. He timely served an expert report prepared by Dr. Cooperman, in which Cooperman opined that Dr. Kim’s failure to accurately document the operation was a deviation from the standard of care and that this deviation caused Hoyt emotional distress and mental anguish. Dr. Kim objected to the report on the grounds that it failed to demonstrate Cooperman was qualified to render an opinion regarding Hoyt’s mental and emotional injuries and that, in any event, Cooperman’s opinion regarding causation of these injuries was conclusory. The trial court found the report adequate and denied Dr. Kim’s motion to dismiss.
The court of appeals agreed that the report was adequate. The Court first observed that a plaintiff is not required to prove a medical condition to support a claim for mental anguish damages, and no expert testimony is ultimately required to support such a claim. Because Hoyt would not have to present expert testimony to demonstrate causation of his alleged damages at trial, the Court concluded Cooperman’s report did not have to demonstrate that he is qualified as an expert in “evaluating and/or treating mental and emotional injuries.” Cooperman’s years of experience dealing with patients’ families as a board-certified general surgeon and administrator provided sufficient qualifications for his opinions at this stage of the litigation. The Court also noted that Cooperman’s report recited conversations with Hoyt, in which Hoyt indicated that conflicting post-operative reports issued by Dr. Kim caused him to feel deceived, confused, anxious, nervous, and uncertain. The Court considered this explanation of the factual basis of Cooperman’s opinions regarding causation to be sufficient and not conclusory. The Court therefore affirmed the trial court’s order.
