 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Speegle v. Crowder2/20/1995
This is an appeal of a summary judgement for defendants in a medical malpractice case. We affirm.
Plaintiff Ann Speegle brought suit for personal injuries she allegedly sustained during an operation performed by defendant Dr. Janice Crowder. She sued Crowder, MacGregor Medical Association, and Hermann Hospital, Inc. for negligence and gross negligence.
In her petition, plaintiff alleged that in June, 1991, defendants failed to administer proper treatment to plaintiff while she was under their care. Specifically, she alleged Crowder was negligent in failing to exercise ordinary care during an abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, proximately causing an operative injury to plaintiff's ureter. Plaintiff also alleged that Crowder failed to adequately inform plaintiff of the potential risks and likelihood of this injury.
Further, plaintiff alleged that (1) MacGregor Medical Association is vicariously liable for the negligent acts and omissions of Crowder because Crowder was the agent, employee, and/or servant of MacGregor Medical, and (2) MacGregor Medical Association is independently liable for failing to exercise ordinary care in the supervision, training, and instruction of Crowder. Plaintiff further asserted that Hermann Hospital, Inc. "was negligent in one or more respects, and that said negligence served as the proximate cause of the occurrence in question and the resulting damages sustained by [plaintiff]." Finally, plaintiff alleged a right to recovery under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Defendant Crowder moved for summary judgement asserting as grounds that the summary-judgment evidence established as a matter of law that Crowder fully complied with the applicable medical standard of care and Crowder did not proximately cause any injury or damage to plaintiff. As summary-judgment evidence, Crowder attached her own affidavit and the Disclosure and Consent form for medical and surgical procedures signed by plaintiff.
In her response to the motion for summary judgment, plaintiff attacked the sufficiency of Crowder's evidence to support summary judgment. However, plaintiff did not file any controverting evidence.
After the trial court granted Crowder's motion for summary judgment, MacGregor Medical Association filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that because all claims against MacGregor Medical were dependent upon the negligence of Crowder and because summary judgment had been granted on the merits in favor of Crowder, MacGregor Medical was entitled to summary judgement as a matter of law. Again, although plaintiff filed a response, she did not file any controverting evidence. The trial court granted summary judgment.
Hermann Hospital filed a motion for summary judgement asserting as grounds that (1) the summary judgement for Crowder established there was neither negligence nor causation in this case and (2) Hermann Hospital cannot practice medicine, and thus could not be liable for any misdiagnosis or negligent treatment. According to the transcript before us, plaintiff filed no response to Hermann Hospital's motion for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the motion.
In her first point of error, plaintiff asserts the trial court erred in rendering summary judgement on the negligence cause of action arising from the surgical procedure performed by Crowder.
Summary judgement is proper when the movant shows there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgement as a matter law. TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(c); Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex. 1985) A defendant can prevail on a motion for summary
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.
|
|