STRICT REQUIREMENTS: EXPLAINING BREACH AND CAUSATION IN MEDICAL LIABILITY EXPERT REPORTS

Senior Care Centers, LLC v. Shelton
Fifth Court of Appeals, No. 05-14-00586-CV (February 27, 2015)
Justices Bridges, Lang, and Evans (Opinion)
The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed the denial of a motion to dismiss, concluding the plaintiff’s expert report failed to satisfy the requirements of the Texas Medical Liability Act. A trial court abuses its discretion in denying such a motion if the expert report does not specifically identify the standard of care, how the defendant breached it, and how the alleged breach caused the injury.

After she suffered a stroke, Carolyn McCain was transferred to Senior Care with the proviso she not be fed by mouth, but only by a stomach tube. When McCain later went into respiratory distress, food particles were discovered in her mouth, airway, and vocal chords. After McCain died, Appellees filed suit, alleging Senior Care was negligent. Senior Care moved to dismiss, asserting the statutorily required expert report was deficient. The trial court disagreed, denied the motion, and Senior Care appealed.

The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed. The expert report properly stated the appropriate standard of care required Senior Care to refrain from feeding McCain orally. But, the Court of Appeals held, the report failed “to indicate what specifically an ordinarily prudent health care provider would do under the same or similar circumstances.” Applying what appears at first to be a very exacting standard, the Court suggested the expert report needed to address the type of training that staff, visitors, and even McCain’s roommate should have received to prevent the incident. The report here failed to do so, and failed even to rule out the possibility McCain’s family, a visitor, or her roommate was responsible. In short, the Court said, the expert report had to eliminate other equally plausible explanations for the presence of the food particles in McCain’s airway—explanations other than Senior Care’s negligence. The Court could not infer negligence by Senior Care from the mere existence of the food particles.
Print Friendly and PDF