TYLER – The dismissal of malpractice suit against East Texas Medical Center Tyler (ETMC) alleging the hospital was negligent in the care of two patients has been upheld.
The plaintiffs are Jennifer Sampson and Sonya Hollis. Jennifer Sampson filed suit individually and as representative of the estate of Sindy Hamilton and as guardian of Jeanette Burton. Sonya Hollis filed suit individually and as representative of the estate of Janet Meyers. Sampson and Hollis appealed the trial court’s order excluding their expert and dismissing their cause of action. They presented three issues on appeal. The 12th Court of Appeals in Tyler affirmed the Judicial District Court of Smith County’s dismissal Jan. 18.
According to the court’s order, “Pursuant to Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Sampson and Hollis served ETMC with two expert reports and a curriculum vitae from their expert, Martha Sanford, Ph.D., R.N.”
The hospital filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice on grounds that Sanford’s reports and curriculum vitae did not establish her qualifications to offer the opinions and that the opinions in her reports were insufficient, the order states
"Sampson and Hollis replied to the motion stating that Sanford was qualified to offer her opinions because she is a nurse," the order states.
The trial court granted ETMC’s motion to dismiss without conducting an oral hearing, but after the submission date contained in ETMC’s motion, according to the applicable local rules of Smith County. Sampson and Hollis argued that Sanford was a qualified expert under the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and filed a motion for new trial, which was overruled. They appealed.
According to the court’s decision, “Sampson and Hollis argued that because the standard of care at issue is applied to nurses, Sanford, a nurse, is qualified to render opinions with regard to that standard of care.” The hospital, however, argued that as a nurse, Sanford is unqualified to offer an opinion on causation.
Sanford is a registered nurse with a doctorate of philosophy (Ph.D.) in nursing, the order states. The Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, however, requires that only a physician can be designated as an “expert” with respect to proximate cause, according to the order.
The court’s order concludes that “Under the circumstances of this case, the trial court could have reached only one decision, that Sanford was not qualified to give an expert opinion on causation and the case should be dismissed with prejudice.”
Sampson and Hollis also argued that the trial court should have granted them the 30-day grace period to amend their reports. The appellate court disagreed, stating, “Because Sampson and Hollis made no request for the trial court to grant a 30-day extension to amend or supplement Sanford’s reports, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion by failing to grant an extension.”
In their third issue, Sampson and Hollis contended the trial court erred by failing to hold an oral hearing on ETMC’s motion to dismiss. The appellate court “...has previously held that section 74.351(l)’s use of the word 'hearing' does not require a trial court to hold an oral hearing; rather the trial court may decide the matter on written submission,” the order states.
Chief Justice James T. Worthen concluded the order by noting, “Having overruled Sampson and Hollis’s first, second, and third issues, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.”