 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Barlow v. Methodist Hospitals of Dallas3/13/2000
of showing [the doctor's] qualifications to testify as to the medical issues presented in this lawsuit." This language generally challenges the doctor's qualifications to testify in the case and is not limited to a particular element of appellants' cause of action.
We next address appellants' claim that they presented sufficient evidence, even in the absence of the doctor's testimony, to defeat the hospital's no-evidence motion for summary judgment. In its motion, the hospital claimed appellants had no evidence that the nurses' alleged negligence was the proximate cause of Tidwell's death.
When reviewing a no-evidence summary judgment motion, we apply the same standard used to review a directed verdict. Moore v. K Mart Corp., 981 S.W.2d 266, 269 ( Tex. App._San Antonio 1998, pet. denied). After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant and disregarding all contrary evidence and inferences, we will reverse the summary judgment only if it appears the non-movant presented more than a scintilla of evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to the challenged elements. See id.
To raise a fact issue on proximate cause in the face of the hospital's no-evidence summary judgment motion, appellants were required to adduce evidence that the nurses' negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about Tidwell's death and that the nurses should have anticipated the danger that resulted from their negligence. See Arlington Mem'l Hosp. Found. Inc., v. Baird, 991 S.W.2d 918, 922 (Tex. App._Forth Worth 1999, pet. denied). The causal connection between the injury and the negligence must be based upon reasonable medical probability and not on conjecture, speculation, or possibility. See id. (citing Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Crye, 907 S.W.2d 497, 500 (Tex. 1995).
Here, the summary judgment record is devoid of any expert testimony connecting the allegedly negligent conduct of the hospital's nurses to Tidwell's death. Appellants argue, however, that the deposition testimony and report of their nursing expert, Louise Grose, R.N., PhD., when combined with Tidwell's death certificate, is sufficient to preclude summary judgment. Grose opined that from a nursing standpoint, the nurses' negligence was a proximate cause of Tidwell's deteriorating condition, including his respiratory and swallowing problems. The death certificate indicated Tidwell's immediate cause of death as multi-organ system failure. We do not agree that proximate cause can be inferred from this evidence. Grose's testimony and the death certificate do not raise a fact issue that the nurses' alleged failure to properly administer Tidwell's Mestinon or other alleged negligent conduct caused Tidwell to aspirate barium into his lungs, develop aspiration pneumonia, or suffer multi-organ system failure. As such, appellants have not raised an issue on an essential element of their cause of action. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting the hospital's motion for summary judgment.
After reviewing all issues presented by appellants, we conclude the trial court did not err in excluding appellants' medical doctor's testimony or in granting the hospital's no-evidence motion for summary judgment.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
JOSEPH B. MORRIS JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
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.
|
|