 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Barlow v. Methodist Hospitals of Dallas3/13/2000
In this medical malpractice case, appellants Shirley Barlow and Rita Hill, Individually and as Representatives of the Estate of Lodric Jones Tidwell, challenge the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Methodist Hospitals of Dallas. In two issues, appellants claim the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony of their expert witness, a medical doctor. In a third issue, appellants claim they presented sufficient evidence to defeat the hospital's no-evidence motion for summary judgment. We resolve all issues against appellants and affirm the trial court's judgment.
I.
At all times relevant to this appeal, eighty-two-year-old Lodric Jones Tidwell suffered from myasthenia gravis, a degenerative muscle disease that causes general muscle weakness and difficulty chewing and swallowing. Tidwell was taking Mestinon to treat the disease. On December 10, 1993, Tidwell was admitted to Charlton Methodist Hospital complaining of weight loss and abdominal pain. During a diagnostic procedure known as a barium swallow, Tidwell aspirated barium into his lungs. He developed aspiration pneumonia and died on January 16, 1994. The immediate cause of death listed on the certificate of death was "multi organ system failure."
Appellants allege Tidwell's death was proximately caused by the negligent conduct of the hospital's nurses. Specifically, appellants claim the nurses were negligent in their administration of Mestinon to Tidwell and, among other things, should have questioned or clarified whether Tidwell should continue receiving Mestinon despite a doctor's order that Tidwell should not receive anything by mouth before the barium swallow. Appellants also assert the nurses failed to properly monitor Tidwell's condition as it related to his myasthenia gravis.
The hospital moved to strike and exclude appellants' designated medical doctor witness, asserting appellants had not demonstrated the doctor was qualified to testify as an expert with respect to the medical issues in the case. The trial court granted the motion. The hospital then moved for summary judgment on the ground that appellants had no evidence on the element of causation. Appellants, before the trial court rendered its judgment, requested the trial court to reconsider its ruling striking the doctor's testimony and to allow the doctor to testify on the issue of causation. The trial court denied appellants' motion for reconsideration . Appellants then filed this appeal presenting three issues for us to consider:
(1) whether the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of appellants' expert witness; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying appellants' motion to reconsider; and (3) whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the hospital. If the trial court erred under either of the first two claims presented, appellants argue the trial court's error prevented them from responding to the hospital's motion for summary judgment with the medical doctor's testimony on the issue of causation and, therefore, summary judgment was improper. In their third issue, appellants argue that, even without the doctor's testimony, they presented evidence sufficient to defeat the hospital's motion.
II.
To succeed on their claims against the hospital, appellants must prove the negligent conduct of the hospital nurses proximately caused Tidwell's death. See Duff v. Yelin, 751 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1988). Specifically, appellants must establish:
(1) a duty of the nurses to act according to a certain standard of care, (2) a breach of that standard of care, (3) an injury, and (4) a causal connection between the breach and injury. See Dent
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.
|
|