HOUSTON - A Texas family who went to court to punish its dentist for suggesting the teenaged daughter had possibly been the victim of sexual abuse has again seen its case tossed.
The First District Court of Appeals on Dec. 3 ruled for Sealy Dental Center and Robyn Williams in a case brought by the Felder family, which represented itself in court. The Felders' January 2023 lawsuit in Austin County sought damages against the dentists but the trial court said allegations of defamation were "far too general."
The apparently vague complaint caused the defendants to file several motions to dismiss because, as the First District wrote, "they could not determine exactly what causes of action the Felders had pleaded."
"In Texas, an individual who is a party to civil litigation has the right to represent himself at trial and on appeal," Justice Peter Kelly wrote. "Thus, a pro se litigant is held to the same standard as a licensed attorney.
"Although the Felders intended to challenge the trial court's dismissal, they failed to raise an issue about the only legal basis for the trial court's action."
Williams performed a routine dental checkup on H.F. and found petechiae, tiny spots of bleeding under the skin. There are several serious causes of them, like infection, leukemia and mono.
Williams, however, approached the family with a different possibility - sexual activity and/or abuse. They can be caused by friction.
After obtaining H.F.'s permission to speak with mother Kathy, Williams told her petechiae of the soft palate is consistent with sexual activity. Kathy and husband David denied this was the case and took H.F. to a doctor.
That doctor confirmed they were caused by a recent viral infection. The Felders sued Williams and Sealy for "making false accusations of sexual misconduct/sexual abuse."
"Their pleadings utilized some legal jargon and referenced various legal terms and theories," Kelly wrote.
Sifting through the various arguments for dismissal, the trial court affirmed special exceptions. It found they were to broad to provide fair notice of their claim and allowed the Felders to file an amended complaint, which they did not do before a deadline expired.
The First District said their appellate brief failed to address that reason for dismissal.
"Even if we were to agree with the arguments made in their brief, we nevertheless could not reverse," Kelly wrote.