 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gonzales v. Sid Peterson Memorial Hospital5/17/2000
Opinion by:Catherine Stone, Justice
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Lisa Gonzales, Individually and as Next Friend of Laura Gonzales, A Minor Child (hereinafter "Gonzales"), appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of Sid Peterson Memorial Hospital (hereinafter "the Hospital") in a medical malpractice action involving the birth of Laura Gonzales. In three points of error, Gonzales argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion for continuance and erred in granting the Hospital's summary judgment motion because it was not supported by proper evidence. Because we find that the Hospital's summary judgment proof did not entitle it to judgment as a matter of law, we reverse and remand.
Factual and Procedural Background
On April 15, 1996, at approximately 9:30 p.m., Gonzales presented herself to the labor and delivery unit at the Hospital having contractions. An initial examination revealed that Gonzales was slightly dilated, 50% effaced, with the fetus at -2 station. Gonzales was admitted for observation of labor and external fetal monitoring. Dr. Paul H. Kocay, one of Gonzales' treating obstetricians, was notified by telephone of Gonzales' admittance into the Hospital and informed of the progress of her labor. Thereafter, attending nurses implemented Dr. Kocay's orders.
On April 16, Dr. Kocay examined Gonzales twice. Gonzales continued to have contractions, but labor failed to progress. Later that day, Dr. Melissa Wampler, an obstetrician/gynecologist, took over the care of Gonzales. Dr. Wampler examined Gonzales twice and, on four separate occasions, issued orders to attending nurses who implemented such orders. At approximately 10:45 p.m. that evening, Gonzales went into active labor. After several hours of active labor, Gonzales experienced both maternal exhaustion with an inability to effectively push and non-reassuring fetal heart rate patterns of decelerations and tachycardia. Due to these complications, Dr. Wampler decided to proceed with a low forceps delivery. Upon delivery, Laura Gonzales sustained a "ping-pong" depression skull fracture and required resuscitation.
Gonzales brought a medical malpractice action against her treating physicians and Sid Peterson Memorial Hospital, alleging negligence in connection with Lisa's labor and Laura's delivery process. With respect to the Hospital, Gonzales alleged it was negligent by (1) failing to appropriately train and supervise the nurses in its employ, including those nurses responsible for the care and observation of Gonzales during her stay at the Hospital, and (2) failing to properly inform Gonzales' treating physicians of the progress of Gonzales' labor. Relying upon affidavit testimony from its Director of Nursing, the Hospital moved for summary judgment arguing that the attending nurses complied with the applicable standard of care and, therefore, the care provided to both Laura and Lisa was not a proximate cause of any injury to plaintiffs. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Hospital. This appeal follows.
Summary Judgment Proof
A defendant is entitled to summary judgment if it establishes, as a matter of law, that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to one or more of the essential elements of the plaintiff's cause of action. Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Tex. 1985). In a medical malpractice action, the defendant care provider must negate one or more of the following elements of a plaintiff's cause of action: (1) the duty of the care provider to act according to a certain standard of care; (2) a breach of that standard of care; (3) a resulting injury; and (4) a causal con
Page 1 2 3 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|