HOUSTON – A trial court did not err when denying a motion to dismiss a claim against a doctor accused of negligence over the treatment of a woman at a Texas hospital, an appeals court has ruled.
"The physician contends that the trial court was required to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims against him because the plaintiffs’ expert report was inadequate to establish causation. Because we conclude that the expert’s conclusions regarding causation are sufficient, we affirm the trial court’s ruling," the 14th Court of Appeals ruled Oct. 25.
The heirs to the estate of Maggie Jackson sued Dr. Mohsen Shahpouri Arani and Tomball Texas Hospital, claiming she was administered a powerful drug without her consent and that an expert found that this probably caused her death.
Arani attempted to have the claim dismissed, but the 129th District Court of Harris County denied the motion. This was affirmed by the 14th Court of Appeals.
The doctor's main argument was that an expert report compiled on behalf of the family "was inadequate to establish causation," a position counter to the opinion of 14th District Court Justice Kevin Jewell.
Jackson's heirs - Ronnie Fisher, Claudia Graeter, Kevin Fisher and Lou Allen Beasley - filed suit claiming negligence under the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA).
According to the ruling, Jackson entered the hospital and told medical staff she was suffering from shortness of breath.
Oncologist Arani checked her white blood cell count, instructed staff to carry out a bone marrow biopsy, and to administer the "highly toxic drug” Hydrea, which is used to treat leukemia, the ruling states.
It was, according to the complaint and the ruling, administered multiple times without Jackson’s consent. She died around a week later.
Another oncologist, Dr. Harris VK Naina, was hired by the family to carry out an expert analysis of the treatment. He concluded that Arani breached care standards by failing to obtain Jackson's consent prior to administering Hydrea.
This, according to Naina, likely led to complications that released tumor cells into the blood stream, also known as tumor lysis syndrome, heart block and kidney failure.
Arani, in his motion to dismiss, argued that Naina’s report was "inadequate" because it failed to address whether "a reasonable person would have refused to take Hydrea to reduce white blood cell count" and "failed to explain how the failure to disclose the risks of Hydrea changed Jackson’s outcome," the ruling states.
The trial court dismissal and higher court's affirmation turned on the plaintiffs' argument that there was no consent at all and that Arani's motion "applied only the standard for informed consent cases."
Jewell, in his opinion, wrote that Arani "devotes the majority of his appellate arguments to the ways in which he contends Dr. Naina’s report fails the causation standard for informed consent cases."
The appellees argue against that point and also that they are claiming medical battery, which is not covered by consent, informed or otherwise.
"We agree with appellees that their live pleading sufficiently pleads a claim for medical battery," Jewell wrote.
Further, the judge opined, the administering of Hydrea without any consent "provides sufficient information regarding the causal link between Dr. Arani’s breach and Jackson’s injury to allow the trial court to reasonably conclude that appellees’ claim has merit."