Seton Family of Hospitals, D/B/A Seton Medical Center v. Beverly J. Haywood ( 2015 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-13-00817-CV
Seton Family of Hospitals, d/b/a Seton Medical Center, Appellant
v.
Beverly J. Haywood, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-GN-13-001183, HONORABLE JOHN K. DIETZ, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This appeal arises from a personal-injury suit against a hospital. In her live pleadings,
the plaintiff, Beverly J. Haywood, alleged that while she was “visiting a patient at Seton Medical
Center,” a Seton employee, acting within the course and scope of employment, “activated an
automatic door, which hit [Haywood] knocking her to the floor, causing personal injuries.”
Haywood further alleged that “[a]t the time of the incident, [she] was not a patient of Seton Medical
Center, and was not receiving medical care from [Seton]” and that the employee’s “act of negligence
was not committed while rendering any medical services.” Haywood sought damages from Seton
under a general negligence theory. Contending that Haywood’s suit was “a cause of action against
a health care provider . . . for . . . other claimed departure from accepted standards of . . . safety” so
as to constitute a “health care liability claim” (HCLC) under the Texas Medical Liability Act
(TMLA), Seton moved to dismiss the suit based on Haywood’s failure to serve the expert report that
the TMLA requires of an HCLC claimant.1 The district court denied the motion, and Seton appeals
that order.2 We will affirm.
Both Seton’s motion and its appeal predate the Texas Supreme Court’s recent
decision in Ross v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hospital.3 In that case, the plaintiff, Lezlea Ross, had
visited a hospital and, while departing the facility through its lobby, slipped and fell in an area near
the exit doors where the floor was being cleaned and buffed.4 Ross subsequently sued the hospital,
seeking personal-injury damages under a premises-liability negligence theory.5 The hospital moved
to dismiss Ross’s suit for failure to serve a TMLA expert report, arguing (like Seton here) that
Ross’s claims were “for . . . other claimed departure from accepted standards of . . . safety.”
Availing itself of the opportunity to resolve confusion among lower courts, the supreme court
clarified that “for a safety standards-based claim to be an HCLC there must be a substantive nexus
between the safety standards allegedly violated and the provision of health care.”6 “The pivotal
issue,” the court explained, “is whether the standards on which the claim is based implicate
the defendant’s duties as a health care provider, including its duties to provide for patient safety.”7
1
See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 74.001(a)(13), .351.
2
See id. § 51.014(a)(9).
3
No. 13-0439, 2015 Tex. LEXIS 361 (Tex. May 1, 2015).
4
Id. at *2.
5
Id.
6
Id. at *17–18.
7
Id. at * 18–19.
2
It is not enough, in other words, merely that the defendant is a health care provider or that the alleged
injury-producing conduct occurred in a health care setting.8
The supreme court also provided the following “non-exclusive considerations” to help
guide the inquiry:
1. Did the alleged negligence of the defendant occur in the course of the
defendant’s performing tasks with the purpose of protecting patients from
harm;
2. Did the injuries occur in a place where patients might be during the time they
were receiving care, so that the obligation of the provider to protect persons
who require special, medical care was implicated;
3. At the time of the injury was the claimant in the process of seeking or
receiving health care;
4. At the time of the injury was the claimant providing or assisting in providing
health care;
5. Is the alleged negligence based on safety standards arising from professional
duties owed by the health care provider;
6. If an instrumentality was involved in the defendant’s alleged negligence, was
it a type used in providing health care; or
7. Did the alleged negligence occur in the course of the defendant’s taking
action or failing to take action necessary to comply with safety-related
requirements set for health care providers by governmental or accrediting
agencies?9
8
See id. at *18 (citing Loaisiga v. Cerda, 379 S.W.3d 248, 256 (Tex. 2012)).
9
Id. at *19–20.
3
Applying this analysis to the record in Ross, the supreme court deemed it “clear that the answer to
each [consideration] is ‘no.’”10 It explained:
The record does not show that the cleaning and buffing of the floor near the exit
doors was for the purpose of protecting patients. Nor does the record reflect that the
area where Ross fell was one where patients might be during their treatment so that
the hospital’s obligation to protect patients was implicated by the condition of the
floor at that location. Ross was not seeking or receiving health care, nor was she a
health care provider or assisting in providing health care at the time she fell. There
is no evidence the negligence alleged by Ross was based on safety standards arising
from professional duties owed by the hospital as a health care provider. There is also
no evidence that the equipment or materials used to clean and buff the floor were
particularly suited to providing for the safety of patients, nor does the record
demonstrate that the cleaning and buffing of the floor near the exit doors was to
comply with a safety-related requirement set for health care providers by a
governmental or accrediting authority.11
“Under this record,” the court concluded, “Ross’s claim is based on safety standards that have no
substantive relationship to the hospital’s providing of health care, so it is not an HCLC [and] . . . she
was not required to serve an expert report to avoid dismissal of her suit.”12
Ross compels the same conclusion here. The record before the district court—which
consisted only of Haywood’s live pleadings, the material portions of which we have already
quoted—does not reflect that the Seton employee opened the automatic door in the course of
performing tasks for the purpose of protecting patients from harm; that the location of the incident
was a place where Seton’s duties to protect patients would have been implicated; that Haywood was
10
Id. at *20.
11
Id. at *20–21.
12
Id. at *21.
4
in the process of seeking or receiving health care or providing or assisting in its provision (to the
contrary, it is undisputed that she was merely visiting the facility at the time); that Seton’s alleged
negligence was based on safety standards arising from professional duties it owed as a health care
provider; that the automatic doors were a type used in providing health care; or that the automatic
door was opened in the course of Seton taking action or failing to take action necessary to comply
with safety-related requirements set for health care providers by governmental or accrediting
agencies.13 On this record, Haywood’s claim “is based on safety standards that have no substantive
relationship to the hospital’s providing of health care.”14 The district court did not err or abuse its
discretion in denying Seton’s dismissal motion.
We affirm the district court’s order.
__________________________________________
Bob Pemberton, Justice
Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field
Affirmed
Filed: July 29, 2015
13
Although the fact does not appear in the record, Seton asserts that the incident occurred
near the entrance to an emergency room. Even if we were to consider that assertion in the analysis,
that circumstance, in itself, would not change our result.
14
Ross, 2015 Tex. LEXIS 361, at *21.
5