Dual D Healthcare Operations, Inc. v. Kenyon

10 Citing cases

  1. Nexus Recovery Cen., Inc v. Mathis

    336 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. App. 2011)   Cited 14 times
    Observing that ultimate viability of plaintiff's causes of action is “a matter not relevant to [an] interlocutory appeal” concerning whether plaintiff had asserted an HCLC

    A. Standard of Review Whether a cause of action is a health care liability claim is a question of law. Dual D Healthcare. Operations, Inc. v. Kenyon, 291 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Tex.App.Dallas 2009, no pet.); see Marks v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hosp., 319 S.W.3d 658, 663 (Tex. 2010) (explaining principles of statutory construction). Ordinarily, we review the denial of a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to section 74.351 under an abuse of discretion standard.

  2. DAL. HOM. FOR AGED v. LEEDS

    No. 05-09-00756-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 14, 2010)

    Therefore, we must determine whether Leeds's claims against the home arose from either the rendition of health care services or a breach of safety standards directly related to health care. See Dual D Healthcare Operations, Inc., v. Kenyon, 291 S.W.3d 486, 489 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009, no pet.). Analysis

  3. Baylor Univ. Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Daneshfar

    No. 05-17-00181-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 12, 2018)   Cited 2 times

    We review a trial court's decision on a motion to dismiss under section 74.351 for an abuse of discretion. Whether a cause of action is a health care liability claim is a question of law. Dual D Healthcare Operations, Inc. v. Kenyon, 291 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.); see Marks v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hosp., 319 S.W.3d 658, 663 (Tex. 2010) (explaining principles of statutory construction). THE EXPERT-REPORT REQUIREMENT OF § 74.351

  4. Strobel v. Marlow

    341 S.W.3d 470 (Tex. App. 2011)   Cited 36 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding plaintiff's counsel's file-stamped letter to trial court clerk showing "cc" to defendant health care provider's attorney did not satisfy rule 21a's certificate of service requirement where neither letter nor expert report included certificate of service certifying that copies of report were transmitted by fax or otherwise served on health care provider or counsel

    See Am. Transitional Care Ctrs. of Tex., Inc. v. Palacios, 46 S.W.3d 873, 877 (Tex. 2001). However, whether a cause of action is a health care liability claim is a question of law. Dual D Healthcare Operations, Inc. v. Kenyan, 291 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2009, no pet.); see Marks, 319 S.W.3d at 663 (explaining principles of statutory construction). Thus, to the extent the issue involves whether chapter 74 applies to the plaintiffs claims, we apply a de novo standard of review.

  5. Texas West Oaks Hospital, LP v. Williams

    55 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1033 (Tex. 2012)   Cited 261 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that expert testimony was necessary to establish a mental hospital's standard of care for preventing aggressive behavior between patients and employees

    Texas appellate courts construing the TMLA have diverged on whether “directly related” applies to safety claims or only to other claims in the definition's list of departures from accepted standards. Compare St. David's Healthcare P'ship, L.P. v. Esparza, 315 S.W.3d 601, 604 (Tex.App.—Austin 2010), rev'd on other grounds,348 S.W.3d 904 (Tex.2011) (“directly related to health care” modifies “safety”); Appell v. Muguerza, 329 S.W.3d 104, 115 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. filed) (same); Dual D Healthcare Operations, Inc. v. Kenyon, 291 S.W.3d 486, 489–90 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (same); Omaha Healthcare Ctr., L.L.C. v. Johnson, 246 S.W.3d 278, 284 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2008), rev'd on other grounds,344 S.W.3d 392 (Tex.2011) (same); Harris Methodist Ft. Worth v. Ollie, 270 S.W.3d 720, 723 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2008), rev'd on other grounds,342 S.W.3d 525 (Tex.2011) (same); Christus Health v. Beal, 240 S.W.3d 282, 289 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (same); Valley Baptist Med. Ctr. v. Stradley, 210 S.W.3d 770, 774–75 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 2006, pet. denied) (same), with Holguin v. Laredo Reg'l Med. Ctr., L.P., 256 S.W.3d 349, 354–55 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2008, no pet.) (safety claim need not be directly related to health care); Emeritus Corp. v. Highsmith, 211 S.W.3d 321, 328 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. denied) (“[A] claim may be a ‘health care liability claim’ under the safety definition even if it does not ‘directly relate[ ] to healthcare.’ ”).

  6. Williams v. Riverside Gen. Hosp., Inc.

    NO. 01-13-00335-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 28, 2014)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that no expert report was required for nurse's claim that she slipped and fell due to a leakage from lab equipment on the hospital's floor

    See id. See St. David's Healthcare P'ship, L.P. v. Esparza, 315 S.W.3d 601, 604 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010), rev'd on other grounds, 348 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. 2011) ("directly related to health care" modifies "safety"); Appell v. Muguerza, 329 S.W.3d 104, 115 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (same); Dual D Healthcare Operations, Inc. v. Kenyon, 291 S.W.3d 486, 489-90 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (same); Omaha Healthcare Ctr., L.L.C. v. Johnson, 246 S.W.3d 278, 284 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008), rev'd on other grounds, 344 S.W.3d 392 (Tex. 2011) (same); Harris Methodist Ft. Worth v. Ollie, 270 S.W.3d 720, 723 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008), rev'd on other grounds, 342 S.W.3d 525 (Tex. 2011) (same); Christus Health v. Beal, 240 S.W.3d 282, 289 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (same); Valley Baptist Med. Ctr. v. Stradley, 210 S.W.3d 770, 775 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2006, pet. denied) (same). Two months later, the Supreme Court considered whether a female patient's claim that her doctor assaulted her by groping her breasts while examining her for sinus and flu symptoms was a HCLC.

  7. Assisted Living v. Stark

    No. 07-10-0228-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 23, 2010)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that an argument was waived when it was succinctly raised within the prayers of an original brief and a reply brief but not raised in the body of those briefs

    Whether Stark's claims for premises liability and breach of contract are health care liability claims is an issue presenting a question of law. See Dual D. Healthcare Operations, Inc. v. Kenyon, 291 S.W.3d 486, 489-90 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2009, no pet.); Lee v. Boothe, 235 S.W.3d 448, 451 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, pet. denied). Health Care Liability Claim

  8. Appell v. Muguerza

    329 S.W.3d 104 (Tex. App. 2010)   Cited 16 times
    Concluding that part of claim sounding only in assault was not a health care liability claim for which an expert report is required but also citing cases holding that alleged sexual assaults of patients during course of medical examination were inseparable from rendition of medical care

    This construction accords with six of the seven other courts of appeals that have addressed this issue.Compare St. David's Healthcare P'ship v. Esparza, 315 S.W.3d 601, 605 (Tex.App.-Austin 2010, pet. filed); Dual D Healthcare Operations v. Kenyan, 291 S.W.3d 486, 489-90 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009, no pet.); Yamada v. Friend, No. 2-47-177-CV, 2008 WL 553690, at *3-4 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth Feb. 28, 2008, pet. granted) (mem. op.); Omaha Healthcare Ctr. v. Johnson, 246 S.W.3d 278, 281-84 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2008, pet. filed); Christus Health, 240 S.W.3d at 287-89; Stradley, 210 S.W.3d at 774-75, with Emeritus Corp., 211 S.W.3d at 327-28. The Supreme Court of Texas may resolve this issue when it issues its opinion in Yamada v. Friend, which has been submitted in cause number 08-0262 in that court.

  9. St. David's v. Esparza

    315 S.W.3d 601 (Tex. App. 2010)   Cited 4 times

    166 S.W.3d 502, 505 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2005, pet. denied). Finally, in Dual D Healthcare Operations, Inc. v. Kenyon, the court held that claims based on a patient's fall in a nursing home after workers had stripped and waxed the floors were not health care liability claims because the plaintiff did not allege the breach of any safety standard related to medical care. 291 S.W.3d 486, 489 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2009, no pet.). Esparza, like the plaintiffs in Ollie, Shults, and Kenyon, has made no allegation that St. David's breached a safety standard directly related to medical care. As a result, we overrule the point of error raised by St. David's on appeal and affirm the trial court's order.

  10. Perry v. Samuels

    307 S.W.3d 826 (Tex. App. 2010)   Cited 1 times

    Id. § 74.351(b). Whether a claim is a health care liability claim is a question of law we review de novo. Dual D Healthcare Operations, Inc. v. Kenyon, 291 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2009, no pet.); Lee v. Boothe, 235 S.W.3d 448, 451 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, pet. denied). The statute defines "health care liability claim" as: