Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision The evidence is sufficient to support a finding that actual notice either was received by, or could be imputed to, the hospital district. Because the disputed fact issue of which nurse, if any, handed the doctor the syringe was central to both the jurisdictional and liability issues, it was also within the trial court’s discretion to allow a finding on this issue to await a fuller development of the evidence on the merits. FACTS:Veronica and Oscar Chavana sued the Angleton Danbury Hospital, which does business as the Angleton Danbury Medical Center, and a local anesthesiologist for injuries Veronica allegedly suffered when that doctor injected her with hypertonic saline, rather than a local anesthetic, before her cataract surgery. The hospital district, a governmental entity, filed a plea to the jurisdiction, claiming that it did not receive notice of the Chavanas’ claim, as required by the Texas Tort Claims Act. The district also claimed that the Chavanas did not meet the use of tangible personal property requirement of the act. The trial court denied the plea, and the district appeals, raising the same grounds. HOLDING:Affirmed. Notice under the act can be made formally, or through proof of actual knowledge. Actual notice requires that the governmental entity have knowledge of 1. a death, injury, or property damage; 2. the unit’s alleged fault producing or contributing to it; and 3. the identity of the parties involved. The court points out that an incident that triggers an investigation and accident report will impute such notice where there is evidence to connect the accident to an action or omission by the governmental unit such that it should have known of its potential culpability. The anesthesiologist filled out a quality assurance report where he admitted that he injected Veronica with the wrong syringe and that two district nurses were witnesses. The court acknowledges that it is disputed weather the nurses worked for the district or the anesthesia group, but also points out that the doctor’s deposition was consistent with the report. Furthermore, handwritten notes on the report reflect that a further investigation was underway. The court finds there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to find that it was a district nurse who gave the doctor the incorrect syringe, which satisfies the use of tangible personal property requirement of the act. OPINION:Edelman, J.; Yates, Edelman and Guzman, 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.