Fudge v. Wall

15 Citing cases

  1. TTHR, L.P. v. Coffman

    338 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. App. 2011)   Cited 17 times
    Rejecting limitations on types of injuries to which Chapter 74 applies

    We therefore review the applicability of the TMLA de novo. See Marks v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hosp., 319 S.W.3d 658, 663 (Tex. 2010); Fudge v. Wall, 308 S.W.3d 458, 460 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.). Whether a claim is a health care liability claim depends on the underlying nature of the claim being made.

  2. Lutheran Soc. Servs. of the S., Inc. v. Blount

    No. 05-15-00380-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 14, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    Generally, an appellate court reviews a trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss under the TMLA for an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Bowie Mem'l Hosp. v. Wright, 79 S.W.3d 48, 52 (Tex. 2002); Fudge v. Wall, 308 S.W.3d 458, 460 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). However, when the resolution of an issue on appeal requires the interpretation of a statute, an appellate court applies a de novo standard of review.

  3. Lopez v. Guiding Light, LLC

    No. 04-20-00561-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 1, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    "Nothing in [Civil Practice and Remedies Code] section 74.001 distinguishes between mental and physical health care." Fudge v. Wall, 308 S.W.3d 458, 462 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.). The Act defines "health care" as "any act or treatment performed or furnished, or that should have been performed or furnished, by any health care provider for, to, or on behalf of a patient during the patient's medical care, treatment, or confinement."

  4. Syed v. Phu Huu Nguyen

    NO. 01-16-00856-CV (Tex. App. Sep. 21, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    Although we are not bound by appellees' pleadings, a review of their allegations is helpful in evaluating whether their claims against appellants are health care liability claims that have simply been recast as claims of slander, tortious interference with existing and prospective business relationships, and business disparagement. See Fudge v. Wall, 308 S.W.3d 458, 462 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.); see also Loaisiga, 379 S.W.3d at 258 (considering entire record, including pleadings). In their petition, appellees allege that after Wellness Pharmacy moved out of the Medical Tower, a building owned by Dr. Syed, he began "intentionally engag[ing] in a pattern of conduct calculated to force [appellees] to close [Wellness Pharmacy's] doors."

  5. Monson v. Allen Family First Clinic, P.A.

    390 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. App. 2012)   Cited 7 times
    In Monson, the claim was brought by the patient against her physician and related to the doctor’s statements about the patient to a third party.

    Ordinarily, we review the denial of a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 74.351 under an abuse of discretion standard. See Am. Transitional Care Ctrs. of Tex., Inc. v. Palacios, 46 S.W.3d 873, 877 (Tex.2001); Fudge v. Wall, 308 S.W.3d 458, 460 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.). However, where the issues involve whether chapter 74 applies to the plaintiff's claims, we apply a de novo standard of review.

  6. 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

    See Jernigan v. Langley, 195 S.W.3d 91, 93 (Tex. 2006) ( per curiam); Jones v. King, 255 S.W.3d 156, 158 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008, pet. denied). However, when the issue presented requires statutory interpretation or a determination whether chapter 74 applies to a claim, the issue presents a question of law which we review de novo. Fudge v. Wall, 308 S.W.3d 458, 460 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.). Whether Stark's claims for premises liability and breach of contract are health care liability claims is an issue presenting a question of law.

  7. St. David's HealthCare Sys. v. Lezama

    No. 07-22-00035-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 21, 2022)

    Thus, we conclude that Ngo was statutorily obligated to report her suspicion that Z.L. had a sexually transmitted infection based on information she acquired while providing health care to Lezama and Z.L. See Fudge v. Wall, 308 S.W.3d 458, 463-64 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.) (whether licensed professional counselor properly reported suspicion of child abuse to Department depends on applicable standard of care and is, thus, a health care liability claim).

  8. Aquatic Care Programs, Inc. v. Cooper

    616 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. App. 2020)   Cited 3 times
    Holding trial court could not consider supplemental expert report claimant served well after 30-day extension deadline had expired

    Several other courts of appeals have concluded that the terms listed in sections 74.001(a)(11) and (12) are not exclusive. See Skloss v. Perez , 01-08-00484-CV, 2009 WL 40438, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 8, 2009, no pet.) ; Fudge v. Wall , 308 S.W.3d 458, 461 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.) ; Mike Norgaard, LPC v. Pingel , 296 S.W.3d 284, 288 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, no pet.). Though some of our cases contain passing references to the exclusivity question, we have yet to address the issue directly.

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

    No. 05-17-00181-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 7, 2017)

    And it can include damages from mental health care. See Fudge v. Wall, 308 S.W.3d 458, 462 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.) ("Health care includes the care and treatment of mental conditions."). Under his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, Daneshfar alleged he "was forced to seek medical treatment to assist in overcoming the constant state of threats and fear, and as a result of Defendants' efforts to control Plaintiff."

  10. Drake v. Walker

    529 S.W.3d 516 (Tex. App. 2017)   Cited 21 times

    To the extent that resolution of the issue before the trial court requires interpretation of the statute itself, we apply a de novo standard. SeeVan Ness v. ETMC First Physicians , 461 S.W.3d 140, 142 (Tex. 2015) ; Tex. W. Oaks Hosp., LP v. Williams , 371 S.W.3d 171, 177 (Tex. 2012) ; Fudge v. Wall , 308 S.W.3d 458, 460 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). 2. Applicable Law