 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mason v. IHS Cedars Treatment Center of Desoto Texas8/15/2001
s independent contractor). We agree that summary judgment in favor of the Clinic would be appropriate on the basis of duty for each of these theories of recovery. However, these are not the sole allegations of negligence against the Clinic.
Appellants' lawsuit alleges the Clinic was responsible for its own negligence in failing to have adequate policies and procedures. A hospital is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to safeguard the patient from any known or reasonably apprehensible danger and to exercise such reasonable care for her safety as her mental and physical condition, if known, may require. Mounts v. St. David's Pavilion, 957 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Tex. App._Austin 1997, no pet.); see also Tenet Health Ltd., 13 S.W.3d at 471 (discussing duties of care hospitals owe to patients independent of physicians' duties). These same duties would apply to the Clinic if Mason was, in fact, a patient of the Clinic. The Clinic does not deny that Mason was its patient. It does contend, however, that it owed no duty to Mason because it was not providing any services to Mason pursuant to any of the contracts existing between the Clinic and Cedars Hospital. We find the Clinic's argument without merit. One of the contracts at issue was entitled "Adult Christian Psychiatric Program Minirth Meier Services" for the rendition of psychotherapeutic services to the hospital's patients. Under that contract, the Clinic was responsible for the development and implementation of the treatment program and was required to provide counseling and therapist personnel and services to patients such as Mason.
We conclude that this constitutes some evidence that Mason was a patient of the Clinic and that the Clinic may owe Mason duties independent of those duties owed by Mason's doctors.
Because the Clinic failed to sustain its summary judgment burden to negate its duty under each theory of recovery pleaded by appellants, the summary judgment cannot be sustained on the basis of lack of duty. We overrule the Clinic's cross-point.
Conclusion
We sustain appellants' second issue. We reverse the summary judgments granted in favor of Ramos, the Clinic, Marx, and Cedars Hospital and remand those claims to the trial court for further proceedings. We affirm the summary judgment in favor of Meier under appellants' claims that he was negligent in treating or discharging Mason or Thomas. We reverse the summary judgment and remand to the trial court plaintiff's claims against Meier for liability based on respondeat superior and the failure to develop adequate policies and procedures for the Clinic.
We overrule appellees' cross-points challenging appellants' summary judgment evidence and Ramos's and the Clinic's cross-points requesting the summary judgments be affirmed on the basis of lack of duty owed to Mason. Because of our disposition of these issues, it is unnecessary for us to address the parties' remaining issues. Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.
Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|