Court upholds no-evidence summary judgment ruling in favor of University Place Retirement Home in fall case

By Takesha Thomas | Oct 12, 2018

HOUSTON – An appeals court has upheld a trial court's ruling involving University Place Retirement Home in a slip-and-fall case.

The 14th Court of Appeals upheld the 234th District Court of Harris County's decision on Sept. 25 involving Amir Chamie and University Place Retirement Home. The trial court had granted Memorial Hermann Health System, doing business as University Place Retirement Home, and Crothall Healthcare Inc. a no-evidence summary judgment.

Chamie claimed that he was injured when he slipped and fell while visiting a relative at the retirement home. He sued the Memorial Hermann Health System and Crothall Healthcare Inc., the company that provides janitorial services for the nursing home. 

The trial court found that the plaintiff failed to provide enough evidence in his case. He appealed over allegations that he presented more than enough evidence to support his claim. 

According to the ruling, Chamie allegedly "slipped and fell in a liquid substance left on the floor" of the nursing home facility while visiting his grandmother. Chamie sued both companies asserting negligence under a theory of premises liability.

Both Memorial Hermann and Crothall filed a joint no-evidence motion for summary judgment in March 2017 "asserting that Chamie could not produce evidence to support the causation element of any of his claims," the ruling states.

However, Chamie contends that a response to the motion was indeed filed with ample evidence regarding his injuries.

"Chamie filed a two-page response to the motion, in which he purported to attach an appendix; however, the only document attached to the response was a single-sheet table of contents," the ruling states.

"The record demonstrates that Chamie did not file any evidence in response to appellees’ no-evidence motion for summary judgment, much less any evidence that appellees’ conduct caused Chamie’s alleged injuries," the ruling states.

Additionally, Chamie argued that the trial court erred because the motion for oral hearing was filed prematurely. The Appellate Court ruled against this claim as well. 

Want to get notified whenever we write about State of Texas 14th Court of Appeals ?

Sign-up Next time we write about State of Texas 14th Court of Appeals, we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

Organizations in this Story

State of Texas 14th Court of Appeals

More News

The Record Network