Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Plaintiffs sued the appellee and others following the death of the plaintiffs’ 4-day-old son, Samuel, asserting claims for medical malpractice, negligence, fraud, misrepresentation and gross negligence. According to plaintiffs, Samuel died because the treating doctors and nurses failed to administer antibiotics to his mother prior to delivery to treat Group B strep, which is an infection that can spread to an unborn child. Plaintiffs also allege the doctors and nurses failed to treat Samuel immediately following his birth with antibiotics, and later after his discharge when the family returned to the emergency room. As a result of a settlement, all defendants were nonsuited except the appellee, Dr. Antonio Rodriguez. Appellee filed his first no-evidence motion for summary judgment asserting there was no evidence establishing a breach of the applicable standard of care and no evidence of causation. The trial court granted the motion; however, the court improperly rendered judgment on plaintiffs’ fraud claims, and plaintiffs objected. The trial court modified its order to clarify that the fraud claims remained pending. Thereafter, appellee filed a second motion for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiffs had miscast their medical malpractice claim as a fraud claim, or alternatively, there was no evidence on any element of the fraud claim. The trial court rendered a final take-nothing summary judgment in favor of appellee. Plaintiffs appeal the summary judgment on their negligence and malpractice claims, but they do not challenge the summary judgment on their misrepresentation and fraud claims. HOLDING:Affirmed. Attaching entire documents and depositions to a motion for summary judgment or to a response and referencing them only generally does not relieve the party of pointing out to the trial court where in the documents the issues set forth in the motion or response are raised. Because plaintiffs’ response did not direct the trial court to any specific portion of their summary judgment evidence, plaintiffs failed to raise a fact issue sufficient to defeat appellee’s no-evidence motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the trial court did not err in rendering summary judgment in favor of appellee. But, in the interest of justice, this court reviewed those portions of the record cited to on appeal. The appellee asserted any alleged delay in treatment did not cause Samuel’s death because no expert could say whether an earlier administration of antibiotics would have prevented the child’s death. The appellee argued that plaintiffs failed to produce evidence that Samuel’s chance for survival at the time of the alleged malpractice was 51 percent or higher. Recovery is barred when the defendant’s negligence deprived the patient of only a 55 percent or less chance of survival. Although the plaintiff’s expert testified to Samuel’s chance of survival, the court concludes his testimony is merely speculative and conclusory as to the actual cause of Samuel’s death. The expert could not identify any literature upon which his empirical experience was based. When asked if he had reviewed any medical research or studies dealing with the effects of a delay in administering antibiotics on neonates with GBS sepsis, he answered, “It’s unethical. Whose kid are you going to sacrifice to prove your point?” The court concludes that the expert’s testimony reveals that his opinion relies on mere possibility, speculation and surmise. Therefore, his testimony amounts to no evidence of causation. Because plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence on the issue of causation, the trial court did not err in rendering summary judgment in favor of appellee. OPINION:Marion, J.; Stone, Angelini and Marion, 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.