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:Gilbert H. Olveda Jr., and Brendalee Olveda-North, individually and as representatives of the estate of Freida Hernandez, appeal the trial court’s dismissal of their claims against Rene A. Sepulveda M.D., and Baptist Health System (the hospital). According to the trial court, the expert reports filed by the Olvedas do not comply with the statutory requirements of the Texas Medical and Insurance Improvement Act. HOLDING:The court dismisses the portion of the appeal relating to the hospital and vacates the portion of the trial court’s judgment dismissing the claim against the hospital. The court affirms the remainder of the trial court’s judgment. The Olvedas offered the expert opinion of Maya S. Suresh, M.D., an obstetric anesthesiologist. According to Suresh, Hernandez received substandard medical care from Sepulveda, a urologist. According to the Olvedas, the report demonstrates that Suresh is amply qualified to testify because the urologist in this case deviated from a standard of care common to all physicians. It is not enough, however, for Suresh to state that all physicians should be able to diagnose preeclampsia. Suresh never stated that the diagnosis of preeclampsia/HELLP syndrome was substantially developed in the field of urology or that she had practical knowledge of how urologists treat patients with symptoms of both a urological condition and preeclampsia/HELLP syndrome. She stated only that she was familiar with practice guidelines in anesthesiology and the standard of care in obstetrics. The court distinguishes this case from Blan v. Ali, 7 S.W.3d 741 (Tex. App. � Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.). Suresh may be qualified to opine that the standard of care requires a urologist to diagnose preeclampsia; however, those qualifications must appear in her report. Hansen v. Starr, 123 S.W.3d 13 (Tex. App. � Dallas 2003, pet. denied). Here, Suresh’s report does not refer to any knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education regarding the standard of care applicable to urologists. The court holds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Suresh was not qualified to testify about Sepulveda’s actions. Even if Suresh is qualified to render an opinion that Sepulveda failed to properly monitor the fetus during surgery, such opinion fails to establish “the causal relationship between [the breach] and the injury.” Texas Revised Civil Statutes Article 4590i, �13.01(r)(6). The Olvedas contend that the trial court prematurely ruled on the sufficiency of the expert reports because the deadline for filing the reports in the parties’ docket control order had not expired. the scheduling order in this case issued approximately one month after the 180-day deadline passed. Furthermore, the order mentions expert witnesses and “retained” experts, indicating testifying experts. Additionally, the order states that the agreement regarding the deadlines was “to facilitate orderly and efficient discovery and preparation for trial.” The court does not believe that this order was meant to include expert reports under the act. The court holds that the trial court did not act prematurely in dismissing the Olvedas’ claims. OPINION:Karen Angelini, J.; Lopez, C.J., Green and Angelini, JJ. Alma L. Lopez, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion.

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.