 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Batten v. Estate of Swope9/16/1999
r. Nor did Swope allege that he had any contact with Hunt after 1989. Swope only alleged that " etween 1989 and 1997, your Plaintiff Roy Swope had signs and symptoms to indicate the possibility of colon cancer while under the care and treatment of Dr. Parker, including severe fatigability, episodes of weight loss, severe diarrhea, and blood in his stools." (Emphasis added.) On these facts, application of the limitations statute is reasonable and not arbitrary. Even if it were unreasonable to require Swope to know in May 1989 that Hunt should have told him to have follow-up examinations, his continuing symptoms certainly provided the impetus to seek further examinations well before 1996. Once Swope reasonably should have felt the need to be examined, any failure by Hunt to tell him to get examined became a nonfactor in Swope's course of treatment. The open-courts provision did not shield Swope's causes of action against Hunt from the limitations bar.
CONCLUSION
Because Swope's causes of action against Hunt were barred by the statute of limitations, the Battens' derivative causes of action were also barred. The trial court did not err by rendering a take-nothing summary judgment of that basis on Swope's claims against Hunt. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Affirmed
Publish
Page 1 2 3 4 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|