HOUSTON - The 14th Court of Appeals today reversed an order granting Houston Methodist Hospital’s motion to dismiss a med-mal lawsuit, finding that the plaintiffs’ expert report was sufficient under Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Code.
According to the opinion, David and Marlene Zinsmeister filed suit against Methodist Hospital, alleging negligence in David’s care following gastrointestinal surgery.
On appeal, David and Marlene argued the trial court erred in dismissing their case because their expert report of Dr. Mark Murray was sufficient to show that their health-care liability claim against Methodist Hospital was not frivolous.
Justices found that while Murray’s expert report does not specifically state what different treatment a hospitalist would have provided David, as opposed to the treatment provided by his surgeon, it does provide a fair summary of how proximate cause is going to be proven, provide a basis for the trial court to conclude that the plaintiffs’ claims have merit, and inform Methodist Hospital of the conduct they call into question.
“Because we conclude that Dr. Murray’s report is not conclusory as to causation, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted Methodist Hospital’s motion to dismiss,” the opinion states.
Justice Ken Wise dissented, opining that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
“I agree with the majority that the expert report in this case fails to identify what different treatment a hospitalist or internal medicine specialist would have provided to David if the hospital had made one available sooner,” he wrote.
“I part ways with the majority, however, because this failure amounts to an analytical gap in the report such that the report does not sufficiently explain causation. For this reason, I respectfully dissent.”
Appeals case No. 14-22-00873-CV