 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Elrod v. Medcare Management Inc.6/25/1998
REVERSE AND REMAND, Opinion Filed
Gayla Elrod appeals summary judgments rendered in favor of Medcare Management, Inc. d/b/a Centex Healthcare Centers d/b/a Skyline Nursing Home (Medcare) and Cantex Healthcare Centers d/b/a Skyline Nursing Home (Cantex). On appeal, Elrod contends the trial court erroneously granted summary judgment because material fact issues exist regarding whether the statute of limitations bars her claims. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse in part and affirm in part the trial court's judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 1992, Elrod was employed as a nurse's aid at Skyline Nursing Home. On October 7, 1992, Elrod was transferring a patient from his wheelchair into his bed. While Elrod was transferring the patient, the bed began to roll. To keep the patient from falling, Elrod continued to lift the patient and was injured in the process.
On September 29, 1994, Elrod filed her original petition naming "Medcare Management, Inc. d/b/a Centex Healthcare Centers d/b/a Skyline Nursing Home" as "a corporation doing business in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas" as the sole defendant. In her petition, Elrod alleged Medcare was negligent and grossly negligent in failing to maintain the premises and amenities in a safe condition for use by its employees and patients and failing to warn of existing dangerous conditions. Specifically, Elrod complained that the beds in the nursing home did not have a locking mechanism to prevent them from rolling.
In its original answer, Medcare asserted that it was not the correct party and that it was not liable in the capacity sued. On March 27, 1995, almost six months after originally filing suit, Elrod amended her petition to add Cantex Healthcare Centers d/b/a Skyline Nursing Home as a defendant. Cantex filed a general denial and pleaded that Elrod's claims were barred by limitations. Medcare moved for summary judgment, asserting that it was an incorrect party and did not exist in the capacity stated in Elrod's original petition. Specifically, Medcare asserted it:
(1) did not do business as "Centex" Healthcare Centers; (2) never employed Elrod; and (3) did not own or do business as Skyline Nursing Home. Cantex separately moved for summary judgment on the basis of limitations asserting Elrod did not bring suit against it until almost six months after the statute of limitations expired. The trial court granted summary judgment for both Medcare and Cantex.
On appeal, Elrod asserts that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the basis of limitations. We note that, although Elrod refers to both summary judgments, she does not challenge any of Medcare's grounds for summary judgment. A summary judgment must stand if it was based on a ground not specifically challenged on appeal. See Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tex. 1970). Accordingly, we address the merits of Elrod's arguments only with respect to the summary judgment granted in favor of Cantex.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a motion for summary judgment using the following well-known standards:
1. The movant for summary judgment has the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
2. In deciding whether there is a disputed material fact issue precluding summary judgment, evidence favorable to the non-movant will be taken as true.
3. Every reasonable inference must be indulged in favor of the non-movant and any doubts resolved in its favor.Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Tex. 1985).
To preva
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|