Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:John W. MacPete, individually and as next friend of J.M.M., appeals the trial court’s order dismissing his causes of action against Kristin Bolomey and The Holiner Psychiatric Group for his failure to timely file an expert report under the Texas Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act. Dr. Kendall Brown, a gastroenterologist, referred 6-year-old J.M.M. to Bolomey, a licensed psychologist employed by Holiner and under contract with Medical City, because of a concern about J.M.M.’s recurrent infection and the possibility of sexual abuse as its cause. Catherine Melvin, J.M.M.’s mother, took J.M.M. to Bolomey, who saw him a total of seven times. Based upon these therapy sessions, Bolomey suspected that J.M.M. was a victim of sexual abuse and notified Child Protective Services. According to appellant, this triggered a chain of events that led to four CPS investigations, two criminal proceedings, and a second custody case � none of which substantiated the occurrence of any sexual abuse. The appellant sued Bolomey, Holiner and Medical City. Appellant alleged that Bolomey negligently failed to determine she had no right to treat J.M.M., because the divorce decree between appellant and Melvin prohibited J.M.M. from being treated by anyone other than a court-appointed mental health professional. Appellant also alleged that Bolomey negligently misdiagnosed J.M.M. as a sexual abuse victim. Appellant further alleged that Holiner was negligent in failing to train and supervise Bolomey properly and that Holiner was vicariously liable for Bolomey’s negligence. Finally, appellant alleged that Medical City was negligent for failing to adequately supervise Bolomey and that it was vicariously liable for Bolomey’s acts and omissions. After appellant failed to file an expert report within the time limit required by the act, Bolomey, Holiner and Medical City filed motions to dismiss. Appellant then filed a motion to nonsuit all his claims under the act, which the trial court granted. Neither the motion nor the order identified these claims. Following a hearing, the trial court dismissed all claims against Bolomey, Holiner and Medical City. This appeal, challenging the dismissal of appellant’s claims against Bolomey and Holiner, followed. HOLDING:Affirmed. The appellant argues that Bolomey, a psychologist, is not a covered “health care provider” under the act. Even assuming that as a psychologist Bolomey does not independently qualify as a “health care provider” under the act, in this case she is covered under the act as an “employee, independent contractor, or agent of a health care provider or physician acting in the course and scope of the employment or contractual relationship.” Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code �74.001(a)(12(B)(ii). The appellant contends his allegation that Holiner failed to properly train and supervise Bolomey in the performance of her job and Holiner’s negligence under the doctrine of respondeat superior are not “health care liability claims” within the meaning of the act. Appellant’s negligence claim is not grounded solely on Bolomey’s failure to discover the court order prohibiting her from treating J.M.M. Appellant’s recovery turns on Bolomey’s subsequent treatment of J.M.M.; her alleged misdiagnosis of J.M.M as a victim of sexual abuse; and her subsequent call to CPS, from which appellant’s alleged damages flowed. Thus, appellant’s claim necessarily invokes the issue of whether Bolomey’s treatment of J.M.M. fell below the standard for her profession. As such, it is a “health care liability claim” under the act. At a minimum, the complaint in this case falls within the ambit of a claimed departure from accepted standards for professional services that were “directly related” to health care. The claim that Holiner was negligent in training and supervising Bolomey also constitutes a “health care liability claim.” Following the rationale in Ponce v. El Paso Healthcare Sys. Ltd., 55 S.W.3d 34 (Tex. App. – El Paso 2001, pet. denied), the court concludes that the proper diagnosis and treatment of J.M.M.’s alleged injuries – and the training and supervision of a psychologist to provide appropriate care � necessarily implicates the acceptable standard of “health care, or safety or professional care within the health care industry,” and expert testimony will be required to establish the appropriate standard of care. Moreover, even if expert testimony on the proper standard is not required at trial on all aspects of the claim, the act requires the threshold expert report in this case, not as a necessity for proof, but as a threshold showing to substantiate the claim. OPINION:Wright, J.; Wright, Moseley and O’Neill, JJ.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* 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 © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.