 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Raines v. Stephens2/23/2005
he bladder. Gynecologists, not Family Practitioners should be assisting at difficult gynecologic surgeries such as Billie Raines hysterectomy. (Emphasis added).
ISSUE ONE: ADEQUACY OF THE REPORT
Arguments
The Raines claim the trial court abused its discretion when it determined that Dr. Halbridge's expert report did not constitute a good-faith effort to meet the statutory requirements of former article 4590i. Dr. Stephens challenges the causation element of the report and contends it does not meet the statutory requirements because it is conclusory in that it does not show how the failure to conduct the vaginal ultrasound caused Billie's bladder injuries.
The Raines respond that their expert report includes the causation requirement. They argue that, from the four corners of the report, it "is easily understood to say that Dr. Stephens was negligent in failing to perform a differential diagnosis, including a pelvic ultrasound with vaginal probe, which would have detected the polyps, allowed their easy removal, cured Mrs. Raines of her abnormal menstrual bleeding, and made her hysterectomy unnecessary."
Standard of Review
An expert report must provide "a fair summary of the expert's opinions as of the date of the report regarding applicable standards of care, the manner in which the care rendered by the physician or health care provider failed to meet the standards, and the causal relationship between that failure and the injury, harm, or damages claimed." TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 4590i § 13.01(r)(6) (repealed 2003) (emphasis added). If the plaintiff timely files an expert report and the defendant moves to dismiss based on the report's inadequacy, the trial court must grant the motion "only if it appears to the court, after hearing, that the report does not represent a good faith effort to comply with the definition of an expert report in Subsection (r)(6) of this section." See Bowie Mem'l Hosp. v. Wright, 79 S.W.3d 48, 51-52 (Tex. 2002) (emphasis in original) (citing TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 4590i § 13.01(l)). To constitute a good-faith effort, the report must: (1) inform the defendant of the specific conduct the plaintiff has called into question, and (2) provide a basis for the trial court to conclude that the claims have merit. American Transitional Care Ctrs. of Tex., Inc. v. Palacios, 46 S.W.3d 873, 879 (Tex. 2001). The trial court should look no further than the four corners of the report, because all of the information relevant to the inquiry is contained within the document's four corners. See Wright, 79 S.W.3d at 52; Palacios, 46 S.W.3d at 878. We review a trial court's dismissal of a suit for failure to comply with the Act under an abuse of discretion standard. Id.
Applicable Law
The Wright case is almost identical to this case. In Wright, the Supreme Court held that the following statement in the expert report was insufficient to establish causation: "if the x-rays would have been correctly read and the appropriate medical personnel acted upon those findings then Wright would have had the possibility of a better outcome." Wright, 79 S.W.3d at 53. The Wrights' allegations stated that Bowie Hospital personnel did not diagnose Wright's foot fracture, protect her foot, or review diagnostic tests ordered and administered at the hospital. Id. at 50. As in Palacios, the Court again held that "the only information relevant to whether a report represents a good-faith effort to comply with the statutory requirements is the report itself." Id. at 53 (citing Palacios, 46 S.W.3d at 878). The Court goes on to state:
After reviewing this report, we conclude that the trial court could have r
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.
|
|