AUSTIN - The Texas Supreme Court recently reversed an appellate court judgment, finding that a suit alleging treatments at a med spa caused skin scarring and discoloration constitutes a health care liability claim.
Court records show Erika Gaytan sued Lake Jackson Medical Spa, aesthetician Jamie Gutzman, and owner Dr. Robert Yarish, complaining that Gutzman negligently performed various skin treatments that caused scarring and discoloration.
Gaytan originally sued only the Medical Spa and Gutzman, expressly asserting claims for “medical negligence” involving an “improper and negligent course of medical treatment.”
She later added Dr. Yarish as a defendant in her first amended petition, alleging he negligently allowed Gutzman to administer the “medical treatments” even though he knew or should have known they were “improper and would cause physical harm,” court records state.
Court records show the defendants moved to limit discovery because Gaytan had not yet served them with an expert report – a requirement under the Texas Medical Liability Act.
The defendants then later sought to dismiss the suit, as Gaytan still had not served an expert report.
In response, Gaytan argued the Act did not apply because she was not asserting a health care liability claim.
In her affidavit, she testified that she was not referred to the Medical Spa by a medical doctor, and that she sought only “cosmetic treatment” for acne and not to address any “disease, disorder or injury,” court records state.
Court records show that the trial court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss and that the judgment was affirmed on appeal.
On Feb. 25, the Texas Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, holding that the Act’s expert-report deadline did not prohibit Gaytan from amending her petition in response to the defendants’ dismissal motion.
“But even considering her amended petition, Gaytan’s claims against the defendants constitute health care liability claims subject to the Act’s expert-report requirements,” the opinion states. “Because Gaytan failed to serve an expert report before the Act’s 120-day deadline, her claims must be dismissed. Because the Act requires the trial court to award defendants their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs … we remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.”
Case No. 20-0802