 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Methodist Health Care System of San Antonio12/14/2005
Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice, Karen Angelini, Justice, Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Methodist Health Care System of San Antonio, Ltd. d/b/a Methodist Specialty and Transplant Hospital appeals the trial court's order denying Methodist's motion to reconsider its objection to the expert report submitted by Louis Rangel in the underlying medical malpractice cause. Methodist contends that the trial court abused its discretion because the expert was not qualified and the report alleged a standard of care that was not in place at the time of Rangel's surgery. Because we hold that Rangel's expert failed to establish his qualifications in his report, we reverse the trial court's order and remand the cause to the trial court with instructions.
Background
Rangel was diagnosed by Samuel Vick, M.D., a urologist, as needing surgical intervention for a hydrocele on his right testicle. Rangel sued Vick and Methodist claiming that Vick performed the surgery on his left testicle. Rangel alleged that Methodist personnel failed to follow proper pre-operative procedures to ensure that the operation was performed on the correct side and site of his body.
After Rangel served Methodist with the expert report of Dr. Ted Wesley Switzer, Methodist moved to dismiss the case asserting that the report failed to comply with the statutory requirements for an expert report in a health care liability case. The trial court ordered Rangel to file an amended report. Rangel amended his petition to add a reference to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and filed an amended report. Methodist filed a motion to reconsider its objections to the report and a supplemental motion to dismiss. Methodist appeals the trial court's order denying its motion.
Qualifications
Under section 74.351, a claimant must, not later than the 120th day after the date a health care liability claim is filed, serve on each party one or more expert reports addressing liability and causation. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(a), (j) (Vernon 2005). In order to qualify as an expert witness in a suit against a health care provider, the physician preparing the report must be qualified on the basis of training or experience to offer an expert opinion regarding the accepted standard of medical care for the diagnosis, care, or treatment of the illness, injury, or condition involved in the claim. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.402(b) (Vernon 2005). In determining whether a witness is qualified on the basis of training or experience, the trial court must consider whether, at the time the claim arose or at the time the testimony is given, the witness:
(1) is board certified or has other substantial training or experience in an area of medical practice relevant to the claim; and
(2) is actively practicing medicine in rendering medical care services relevant to the claim.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.402(c) (Vernon 2005). In order to qualify as an expert witness on the issue of causation, the physician must be qualified to render opinions on that causal relationship under the Texas Rules of Evidence. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.403(a) (Vernon 2005). Rule 702 of the Texas Rules of Evidence requires that an expert be qualified by "knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education" and that the testimony "assist the trier of fact." Tex. R. Evid. 702.
We review a trial court's determination that an expert is qualified under an abuse of discretion standard. Broders v. Heise, 924 S.W.2d 148, 151-52 (Tex. 1996). The proponent of an expert report has the burden t
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.
|
|