CLOSEClose Law.com Menu
 
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:Dr. Rashid Khan examined Richard Guillory at Methodist Hospital to assess Guillory’s fitness for duty as a merchant seaman on an oceangoing vessel. The examination was conducted pursuant to an agreement between Methodist and the Seafarers International Union (SIU), of which Guillory was a member. Khan noted that Guillory had an elevated white blood-cell count and that he tested positive for syphilis, but Khan pronounced Guillory fit for duty and referred him to Houston’s health department for treatment. After treatment, Guillory returned to Methodist for retesting. Khan again noted the high white blood-cell count and other abnormalities, but again pronounced Guillory fit for duty. Guillory went on to board the M/V Patriot, a merchant ship of the Marine Transport Corp. At sea, Guillory began experiencing severe pain. He was evacuated and treated for a bacterial infection of the kidneys, but he nonetheless died. Marine, who had borne the cost of Guillory’s care and treatment once Guillory was at sea, sued Methodist and Khan for negligence in improperly pronouncing Guillory fit for duty. Alternatively, Marine sought contributions from Methodist and Khan under the doctrine of maintenance and cure. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on Marine’s failure to file an expert report under the version of the medical malpractice statute then in effect. Marine filed a notice that it would be filing a report and asked for an extension. At the hearing on the motion to extend, Marine’s attorney testified that he had a report prepared before the filing deadline, but mistakenly thought he had already produced the report during discovery; he did not learn of his mistake until he received notice of the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The attorney produced copies of the reports he intended to file with the extension. The trial court denied Marine’s motion to extend time to file the report and dismissed Marine’s lawsuit. On appeal, Marine raises three primary issues: 1. that maritime law applies to this case; 2. that federal law for indemnity and contribution, not the state med-mal statute, applies to this case; and 3. that even if the med-mal statute applies generally, it does not apply specifically because Methodist and Khan did not treat Guillory, no physician-patient relationship existed among them. The defendants counter that Marine’s claims arise from onshore treatment and are governed by state med-mal law. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. The court first addresses whether state law governs Marine’s claims, because they resulted from onshore treatment, for by federal maritime law because they resulted from damage suffered at sea. The court concludes that the fact that Guillory’s injury might have been caused by land-based medical negligence does not change the fact that Guillory’s fell ill (i.e., was injured) on navigable water. But because the question of whether an injury occurred on navigable water does not end the inquiry, the court then looks at whether the tort has a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce in order for federal maritime law to apply. “We conclude that certifying an unfit seaman as fit for duty, who is employed by a shipowner as a result of that certification, may render a vessel unseaworthy, and thus certification of an unfit seaman has a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce. . . . Therefore, Marine’s claims are governed by federal maritime law.” The court next examines whether admiralty law supplants state law or if it yields to state law when the two are in direct conflict. The Jones Act does not apply, the court finds, because Marine is bringing its claim against the defendants as third-party tortfeasors; the Jones Act applies only to employees seeking damages from their employers. Federal law on maintenance, cure and contribution does apply to this case, though, and such law allows that a party seeking such a remedy may bring an action in state court. To win in state court, the party (Marine) must prove that the third party (Khan and Methodist) caused injury to the seaman (Guillory). In this case, then, Marine has to prove the underlying health-care liability claim under state law in order to be able to recover damages for maintenance and cure through indemnity or contribution. Consequently, Marine has to prove its case under the version of Texas’ med-mal statute applicable to cases filed before September 2003. The court rejects Marine’s initial contention that Khan and Methodist did not treat Guillory because no physician-patient relationship existed. The agreement between Methodist and SIU on behalf of its employees created such a relationship between Guillory and the hospital, and because of the relationship between the hospital and Khan, a physician-patient relationship existed between Khan and Guillory. After confirming that Marine has standing to sue, the court then rules that the trial court did not err in treating Marine’s underlying clams as health-care liability claims and in applying the expert-report filing requirements on Marine. Even so, the trial court should have granted Marine’s motion for an extension of time to file a report. The earlier version of �13.01(g) said that a trial court is required to grant an extension where the failure to file was “not intentional or the result of conscious indifference but was the result of an accident or mistake.” The court finds from the attorney’s testimony and documentary evidence that but for the attorney’s mistake, the reports would have been filed on time. The defendants did not present any contrary evidence. The court thus concludes that the failure to file the report was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference but was the result of an accident or mistake. OPINION:Alcala, J.; Radack, C.J., Jennings and Alcala, J.J.

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.