X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Lorie Compton’s doctor found a lesion on Compton’s cervix in 1997, took a biopsy and sent it to Laboratory Corp. of American. Dr. Kreisberg, who worked for LabCorp reported the biopsy as normal. The next year, Compton’s doctor observed the same lesion, again took a biopsy and again sent it to LabCorp. This time, Dr. Kreisberg diagnosed Compton, 24, as having a type of cervical cancer; she also admitted to having misdiagnosed the biopsy last year. Compton underwent a radical hysterectomy in 1998. Compton sued LabCorp in January 2000, saying its delay in diagnosing the cancer prevented her from having a procedure that would have preserved her fertility. Finding that Dr. Kreisberg was acting as an employee of LabCorp, and that LabCorp’s negligence prevented Compton from discovering her injury until 1998, the jury awarded Compton more than $2.9 million in damages and prejudgment interest. On appeal, LabCorp contends Compton’s claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations under Article 4590i, �10.01 of the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act. HOLDING:Reversed and rendered that Compton take nothing. A medical-malpractice suit against a “health care provider,” must be brought within two years of the injury. The laboratory is not a health care provider, but Dr. Kreisberg is, and LabCorp is entitled to assert the same limitations defense that its employee is. The court rules Byrd v. Skyline Equipment Co., 792 S.W.2d 195 (Tex.App. � Austin 1990), cited by Compton, is distinguishable because, unlike that case, which dealt with an independent contractor, the jury in this case specifically found that Dr. Kreisberg was negligent and that she was an employee of LabCorp, not an independent contractor. The court cites Clements v. Conard, 21 S.W.3d 514 (Tex. App. ��� Amarillo 2000, pet. denied), with approval because its holding is consistent with the general rule than an employer is entitled to assert any affirmative defenses its employee has to liability. The court also reversed the trial court’s sanctions against LabCorp. OPINION:Lopez, C.J.; Lopez, C.J., Marion and Speedlin, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.