HOUSTON – A 1st District Court of Appeals panel of judges has affirmed a trial court’s ruling on an alleged medical malpractice-related death.
On Feb. 22, Justices Terry Jennings, Michael Massengale and Jennifer Caughey affirmed the summary judgment in favor of appellees Robert Hillery, M.D. and Southwest Surgical Associates LLP brought on by appellants Suzette Kyle, Patrice Ward, Vicki Kyle and Jamessee Kesee on behalf of the estate of Melinda Kyle. The trial 240th District Court in Fort Bend County had granted Hillery's motion for no-evidence and traditional summary judgment, which the appellants appealed.
The complaint stems from the 2008 death of Melinda Kyle, 69, who died after having a below-knee amputation due to a gangrenous left foot by Hillery at Oak Bend Hospital. After her surgery, Melinda was moved from the intensive care unit to a regular floor where she died after going into respiratory and cardiac arrest, which according to the appellants was due to Hillery not continuing Melinda’s anticoagulant that she received prior to the surgery.
However, the opinion states Hillery argued that there was no evidence of causation and was granted summary judgment.
Authoring judge Jennings began the appeal discussion citing Beverick v. Koch Power Inc. 2005, noting that “If a trial court grants summary judgment without specifying the grounds for granting the motion, we must uphold the trial court’s judgment if any of the grounds are meritorious,” according to the appeal.
Jennings pointed out that based on Hahn v. Love 2009, “to prevail on a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, the movant must establish that there is no evidence to support an essential element of the nonmovant’s claim on which the nonmovant would have the burden of proof at trial,” according to the opinion.
Furthermore, based on Mack Trucks Inc. v. Tamez 2006, “the burden then shifts to the nonmovant to present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact as to each of the elements specified in the motion,” according to the opinion.
Jennings then pointed to applicable law to further detail the panel’s focus on “causation” in their ruling. Citing Tejanda v. Gernale 2011, the judge noted four burdens of proof.
“In a medical malpractice case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed him a duty to act according to an applicable standard of care, the defendant breached the applicable standard of care, he suffered an injury, and within a reasonable medical probability, the defendant’s breach proximately caused his injury,”Jennings wrote in the opinion.
Based on the 2017 case Bustamante v. Ponte, the judge pointed out that “a defendant’s act or omission need not be the sole cause of an injury, as long as it is a substantial factor in bringing about the injury,” according to the opinion.
Jennings then referred back to Tejanda and Bustamante to further his point.
“Moreover, in a medical malpractice case, proximate cause must be established through expert testimony,” Jennings wrote, adding, ‘“[W]hen the evidence demonstrates that ‘there are other plausible causes of the injury or condition that could be negated, the plaintiff must offer evidence excluding those causes with reasonable certainty.’”
Lastly, in the appeal analysis, the judge states that evidence that was offered by Dr. Lawrence Boyle was not enough to prove Hillery was responsible Melinda’s death.
“Instead, Dr. Boyle offered mere possibilities as to cause of death, admitted that no evidence showed that the use of anticoagulants would have prevented Melinda’s death, and failed to show that any action taken or not taken by Hillery was the culprit,” the opinion stated.