HOUSTON – On July 3, Texas’ 1st District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court order denying a woman’s medical malpractice claims against Houston Methodist Hospital.
Judge Laura Carter Higley wrote the court order, stating that “even if the trial court erred, (appellant Avagene) Harris has not demonstrated that she was harmed by the alleged error.”
Judges Higley, Harvey Brown and Jennifer Caughey sat on the panel for the court.
According to the ruling, Avagene Harris saw neurologist Dr. David Chiu at Houston Methodist Hospital in 2010 for injuries she suffered in a car accident in 2009. Harris saw Dr. L. Lorente and Dr. H. Gill the next month, and alleges that in May 2011, she underwent surgery to remove a cavernous angioma from her brain.
Harris sued Chiu and Gill, claiming their negligence in not diagnosing the cavernous angioma caused her to suffer “irreparable harm from not having had the required surgery when the cavernous angioma occurred and that the treatments given by the defendants were not the proper or prudent standard for the treatment of cavernous angioma.”
The 234th District Court of Harris County granted Chiu’s motion for summary judgment because Harris had not filed her suit until 2015, which surpassed the two-year limitations period established for health care liability claims. The court granted Gill's motion summary judgment and severed Chiu and Gill from Harris’ pending complaint against Lorente, which was dismissed from the suit in 2016.
In her second amended complaint, Harris added Methodist Hospital, claiming that Methodist was vicariously liable for the allegedly negligent actions of Chiu. Methodist filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that “it could not be held vicariously liable for Dr. Chiu’s medical treatment of Harris when the trial had ruled that Dr. Chiu was not liable to Harris.”
Methodist claimed that Harris’ expert reports were inadequate and asserted that “[Harris] has not pleaded a direct liability claim against Methodist and none of [her] expert reports criticize or implicate any conduct by Methodist,” the ruling states.
The trial court dismissed Harris’ suit with prejudice and Harris appealed, claiming the trial court erred in dismissing her vicarious liability claims because her medical expert reports complied with the Medical Liability Act, and that the court abused their discretion denying Harris’ motion for a new trial.
The Appellate Court order stated that “Harris can never prevail on her claim for vicarious liability against Methodist because—being dependent on her direct health care liability claim against Dr. Chiu—it is precluded as a matter of a law.”
Higley noted that “It would be meaningless and without legitimate purpose to reverse the trial court’s judgment when Harris’s vicariously liability claim cannot, as a matter of law, provide her recovery against Methodist.”
The Appellate Court order overruled both of Harris’ issues.
Court of Appeals for the 1st District of Texas case number 01-17-00544-CV