Philip A. Moore, M.D. v. Kristy Gatica ( 2008 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 2-06-442-CV
PHILIP A. MOORE, M.D. APPELLANT
V.
KRISTY GATICA APPELLEE
------------
FROM THE 236TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
------------
OPINION ON REMAND
------------
Introduction
Appellant Philip A. Moore, M.D. (Dr. Moore) appeals the trial court’s
denial of his motion to dismiss the health care liability claim of appellee Kristy
Gatica (Gatica). We originally dismissed this interlocutory appeal for want of
jurisdiction. Moore v. Gatica, 253 S.W.3d 291 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007)
(mem. op.), rev’d, 253 S.W.3d 219 (Tex. 2008). Because the Texas Supreme
Court has held that we have jurisdiction, we now consider the appeal on the
merits. Moore, 253 S.W.3d at 220. In one issue, Dr. Moore contends that the
trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to dismiss by concluding
that the expert report served upon him satisfied the requirements of the civil
practice and remedies code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351
(Vernon Supp. 2008) (section 74.351). We affirm.
Background Facts
In 2005, Gatica engaged Dr. Moore to perform a laparoscopic
appendectomy. Gatica alleges that following her surgery, she began to suffer
substantial pain, which required her to have further operations resulting in
scars, disfigurement, and impairment in her upper body. Gatica claims that Dr.
Moore caused these problems by failing to perform the appendectomy with the
ordinary care and diligence used by other physicians. Specifically, Gatica
alleges that Dr. Moore failed to correctly close the cecum and ileum following
the appendectomy and failed to determine that the cecum and ileum had been
improperly closed. Gatica asserts that Dr. Moore’s negligence caused her over
$500,000 in damages.
On April 18, 2006, Gatica filed her original petition against Dr. Moore,
alleging that he negligently performed the appendectomy. After Dr. Moore filed
an answer containing a general denial, Gatica served on Dr. Moore an expert
report prepared by Louis F. Silverman, M.D. (Dr. Silverman), a board-certified
2
general and thoracic surgeon, which contained facts and conclusions regarding
Dr. Moore’s alleged negligence, as required by the statute.
Specifically, Dr. Silverman’s report detailed his education and career
backgrounds and stated that he “care[s] for patients with appendicitis” and was
therefore qualified to “render an expert opinion regarding the quality of that
care.” Formed from a review of Gatica’s hospital records, Dr. Silverman’s
report then alleged the following summarized facts. Dr. Moore consulted with
Gatica on April 10, 2005 after Gatica had experienced three weeks of evolving
abdominal pain. The next day, Dr. Moore performed a laparoscopic
appendectomy. After Dr. Moore removed the appendix, a “stapler was fired
across the base of the appendix” to close the cecum, and vascular staples were
applied to the mesoappendix. However, following these procedures, Gatica’s
temperature rose, she began to vomit and have diarrhea, her white blood cell
count increased, and fluid collected in her intestines. Because of these
conditions, Gatica was returned to surgery, which revealed leakage from where
Dr. Moore had stapled her. To treat Gatica’s complications, Dr. Moore
suctioned the drainage and sutured the previously stapled appendiceal stump.
However, after Dr. Moore attempted these corrective actions, Gatica’s
temperature rose again, and a collection of fluid was discovered behind her
small intestine. On May 4, 2005, Gatica was discharged from the hospital;
3
however, on May 11, 2005, she was readmitted with “purulent, foul-smelling
drainage from her abdominal incision.” Gatica was again discharged on May
23, 2005. But after having further difficulties, Gatica was admitted in January
2006 to a different hospital with complaints of severe abdominal pain. A new
surgeon discovered that Gatica had “conglomeration of soft granulation tissue
and multiple heavy silk sutures . . . surrounding the percutaneous drain.” After
more treatment, Gatica was discharged again later that month.
Based on these facts, Dr. Silverman’s report concluded that Dr. Moore
failed to satisfy his duty of care because he (1) failed to securely close and
reinforce the appendiceal stump, resulting in leakage and contamination, and
(2) used silk sutures while knowing that leakage existed, resulting in bacterial
contamination. Dr. Silverman asserted that these conditions required Gatica to
have further abdominal surgeries. Dr. Silverman also provided a curriculum
vitae, which detailed more than forty years of surgical experience, with twenty-
five years in private practice and “broad practice encompassing all aspects of
General, Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery.” His vitae detailed several
certifications, fellowships, and research activities.
On August 29, 2006, Dr. Moore filed a Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice,
contending that Gatica failed to file an adequate expert report as required by
section 74.351. Specifically, Dr. Moore asserted that Dr. Silverman’s expert
4
report did not constitute a good faith effort at compliance with the requirements
of section 74.351 because Dr. Silverman had not adequately qualified himself
as an expert in the surgical management of laparoscopic appendectomies.
After Gatica responded to Dr. Moore’s motion and the trial court heard counsel
argue, the court denied Dr. Moore’s motion, concluding that Dr. Silverman’s
report was “sufficient to comply with the requirements” of section 74.351.1
Standard of Review
Texas courts agree that review of a trial court’s denial of a motion to
dismiss under section 74.351 is subject to an abuse of discretion standard.
See, e.g., San Jacinto Methodist Hosp. v. Bennett, 256 S.W.3d 806, 811
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.); Craig v. Dearbonne, 259
S.W.3d 308, 310 (Tex. App.— Beaumont 2008, no pet.); Lal v. Harris
Methodist Fort Worth, 230 S.W.3d 468, 471 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, no
pet.). Also, a trial court’s decision on whether a physician is qualified to offer
an expert opinion in a health care liability claim is reviewed under an abuse of
1
… Though the trial court judge ruled that Gatica had made a good faith
effort to comply with the statute (and therefore denied Dr. Moore’s motion), he
nonetheless offered Gatica thirty days to “improve upon” Dr. Silverman’s
report, opining that “appellate courts seem to be requiring a little bit more
precision” in reviewing expert reports. Gatica’s counsel declined this offer, and
Dr. Moore appealed.
5
discretion standard. See Mem’l Hermann Healthcare Sys. v. Burrell, 230
S.W.3d 755, 757 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.).
To determine whether a trial court abused its discretion, we must decide
whether the trial court acted without reference to any guiding rules or
principles; in other words, we must decide whether the act was arbitrary or
unreasonable. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241–
42 (Tex. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1159 (1986). Merely because a trial
court may decide a matter within its discretion in a different manner than an
appellate court would in a similar circumstance does not demonstrate that an
abuse of discretion has occurred. Id. A trial court does not abuse its discretion
if it commits a mere error in judgment. See E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v.
Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549, 558 (Tex. 1995).
Sufficiency of Dr. Silverman’s Expert Report
In his sole issue, Dr. Moore asserts that the trial court abused its
discretion by deciding that Dr. Silverman’s expert report satisfied the
requirements of section 74.351. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §
74.351.
Applicable Law
In a health care liability claim, a claimant must serve an expert report
(which addresses liability and causation) on each defendant no later than the
6
120th day after the claim is filed. Id. § 74.351(a), (j). If an expert report has
not been served on a defendant within the 120-day period, then on the motion
of the affected defendant, the trial court must dismiss the claim with prejudice
and award the defendant reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Id.
§ 74.351(b). A report “has not been served” under the statute when it has
physically been served but it is found deficient by the trial court. Lewis v.
Funderburk, 253 S.W.3d 204, 207–08 (Tex. 2008). When “no report has been
served” because the report that was served was found to be deficient, the trial
court has discretion to grant one thirty-day extension to allow the claimant to
cure the deficiency. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(c).
A report is “deficient” (therefore subjecting a claim to dismissal) where
it “does not represent an objective good faith effort to comply with the
definition of an expert report” in the statute. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.
§ 74.351(l). While the expert report “need not marshal all the plaintiff’s proof,”
Am. Transitional Care Ctrs. of Tex., Inc. v. Palacios, 46 S.W.3d 873, 878 (Tex.
2001), it must provide a fair summary of the expert’s opinions as to the
“applicable standards of care, the manner in which the care rendered by the
physician or health care provider failed to meet the standards, and the causal
relationship between that failure and the injury, harm, or damages claimed.”
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(r)(6).
7
To qualify as a good faith effort, the report must “discuss the standard
of care, breach, and causation with sufficient specificity to inform the
defendant of the conduct the plaintiff has called into question and to provide
a basis for the trial court to conclude that the claims have merit.” Palacios, 46
S.W.3d at 875. A report does not fulfill this requirement if it merely states the
expert’s conclusions or if it omits any of the statutory requirements. Id. at 879.
The information in the report “does not have to meet the same requirements as
the evidence offered in a summary-judgment proceeding or at trial.” Id. The
claimant’s expert must incorporate enough information to fulfill two purposes:
(1) inform the defendant of the specific conduct the plaintiff has called into
question, and (2) provide a basis for the trial court to conclude the claims are
meritorious. Id. When reviewing the adequacy of a report, the only information
relevant to the inquiry is the information contained within the four corners of
the document. Id. at 878; see Bowie Mem’l Hosp. v. Wright, 79 S.W.3d 48,
52 (Tex. 2002). This requirement precludes a court from filling gaps in a report
by drawing inferences or guessing as to what the expert likely meant or
intended. See Austin Heart, P.A. v. Webb, 228 S.W .3d 276, 279 (Tex.
App.—Austin 2007, no pet.) (citing Bowie Mem’l Hosp., 79 S.W.3d at 53).
An expert report concerning standards of care for physicians “authored
by a person who is not qualified to testify . . . cannot constitute an adequate
8
report.” In re Windisch, 138 S.W.3d 507, 511 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2004, no
pet.); see Ehrlich v. Miles, 144 S.W.3d 620, 624–25 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
2004, pet. denied). To be an “expert” on the departure from a physician’s
standard of care (therefore qualifying the submission of an expert report), a
person must be a physician who
(1) is practicing medicine at the time such testimony is given or
was practicing medicine at the time the claim arose;
(2) has knowledge of accepted standards of medical care for the
diagnosis, care, or treatment of the illness, injury, or condition
involved in the claim; and
(3) is qualified on the basis of training or experience to offer an
expert opinion regarding those accepted standards of medical care.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 74.351(5)(A), 74.401(a) (Vernon 2005
and Supp. 2008). In determining the third element of this standard, courts
must consider whether the physician who completed the report (1) is board
certified or has other substantial training or experience in an area of medical
practice relevant to the claim, and (2) is actively practicing medicine in
rendering medical care services relevant to the claim. Id. § 74.401(c). In other
words,
there is no validity, if there ever was, to the notion that every
licensed medical doctor should be automatically qualified to testify
as an expert on every medical question . . . [T]he proponent of the
testimony has the burden to show that the expert possesses
9
special knowledge as to the very matter on which he proposes to
give an opinion.
Ehrlich, 144 S.W.3d at 625 (quoting Broders v. Heise, 924 S.W.2d 148,
152–53 (Tex. 1996)). For this reason, the offered report must generally
demonstrate that the expert has “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education regarding the specific issue before the court which would qualify the
expert to give an opinion on that particular subject.” Ehrlich, 144 S.W.3d at
625 (quoting Roberts v. Williamson, 111 S.W.3d 113, 121 (Tex. 2003)).
However, “there are certain standards of medical care that apply to
multiple schools of practice and any medical doctor.” See Blan v. Ali, 7 S.W.3d
741, 746 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.). Therefore, a
physician “who is not of the same school of medicine [as the defendant] is
competent to testify if he has practical knowledge of what is usually and
customarily done by a practitioner under circumstances similar to those
confronting the defendant.” Ehrlich, 144 S.W.3d at 625; see also Marling v.
Maillard, 826 S.W.2d 735, 740 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, no
writ).
Dr. Silverman’s Qualifications
Dr. Moore has not challenged Dr. Silverman’s expert report on the
grounds that it fails to provide a fair summary of his opinions on liability or
10
causation. Instead, Dr. Moore only contends that Dr. Silverman was not
statutorily qualified to submit the report. Therefore, we must determine
whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that the information
contained within Dr. Silverman’s report established his credentials as a qualified
“expert” on Gatica’s claim under the civil practice and remedies code. See Tex.
Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.401(a).
Dr. Silverman’s Practice of Medicine at the Time the Claim Arose
To qualify him as an expert for the purposes of this case, Dr. Silverman’s
report must first establish that he is a physician who was practicing medicine
at the time he wrote the report or at the time Gatica’s claim arose. Id.
§ 74.401(a)(1). Dr. Moore has not contested that Dr. Silverman’s report
establishes this element. Further, Dr. Silverman’s report indicates that he is a
“board-certified general and thoracic surgeon in active practice in Houston,
Texas,” and his curriculum vitae demonstrates that he has active staff
responsibilities at five hospitals in Texas. Therefore, Dr. Silverman’s expert
report sufficiently establishes that he was practicing medicine during the time
Gatica’s claim arose and when he wrote his report. See id. § 74.401(a)(1).
11
Dr. Silverman’s Knowledge of Accepted Standards of Medical Care for
the Diagnosis, Care, or Treatment of Gatica’s Appendectomy and Post-
Operative Procedures, and His Qualifications to Offer an Expert Opinion
Regarding Those Standards
Next, Dr. Silverman’s report must establish that he has “knowledge of
accepted standards of medical care for the diagnosis, care, or treatment of the
illness, injury, or condition involved in the claim” and that he is “qualified on the
basis of training or experience to offer an expert opinion” regarding those
standards. Id. § 74.401(a)(2), (3).2 In determining whether Dr. Silverman is
qualified on the basis of training or experience, the trial court was required to
consider whether he was “board certified or ha[d] other substantial training or
experience” and whether he was “actively practicing medicine” in the area
related to Gatica’s claim. Id. § 74.401(c). Dr. Moore contends that Dr.
Silverman’s report did not specifically state that he has experience in
performing laparoscopic appendectomies and that he was therefore not qualified
to submit the expert report supporting Gatica’s claim. We disagree.
Dr. Silverman’s expert report and curriculum vitae demonstrate that he
has extensive experience in a broad range of surgical practices and that he is
2
… At trial and on appeal, Dr. Moore has conflated these two statutory
provisions in contending that Dr. Silverman was not qualified to submit his
expert report. For this reason, and because the statements made in Dr.
Silverman’s report are dually applicable to both provisions, we will analyze them
together.
12
a board-certified general and thoracic surgeon. Specifically, these documents
indicate that Dr. Silverman participated in eight years of residencies in general,
thoracic, and cardiovascular surgery; that he has certifications from the
American Board of Surgery, American Board of Thoracic Surgery, and Fellow
American College of Surgeons; that he completed substantial fellowships and
research tasks; and that he currently engages in a practice broadly covering “all
aspects” of general, thoracic, and cardiovascular surgery. In total, Dr.
Silverman’s curriculum vitae details over forty-five years of experience in
various surgical practices.
More specifically, Dr. Silverman’s report stated that he has an active
surgical practice in Houston, Texas, in which he cares “for patients with
appendicitis such as Ms. Gatica had suffered” and that he is therefore “qualified
by education, training, and experience to assess the quality of such care and
render an expert opinion regarding the quality of that care.” His report
continued by detailing his knowledge regarding the standards of care related to
appendectomies. After discussing the facts about Gatica’s medical care that
were gathered from her medical records, Dr. Silverman explained that
[t]he standard of care applicable to appendectomy for acute
appendicitis mandates secure closure of the appendiceal stump
which requires closure to noninflamed tissue, even if this requires
placing the staple line across a small portion of the cecum. By
failing to meet this standard, Dr. Moore failed to achieve secure
13
closure of the appendiceal stump. That failure resulted in massive
fecal contamination of Ms. Gatica’s peritoneal cavity. The standard
of care, given the presence of severe inflammation in the
periappendiceal area, required appropriate reinforcement of the
involved area, as in fact Dr. Moore attempted at Ms. Gatica’s
subsequent operation.
We conclude that these statements, when considered in the context of
the remainder of Dr. Silverman’s report, enabled the trial court to properly
conclude that he had knowledge of the accepted standards of medical care for
the treatment of Gatica’s appendicitis and that he was qualified on the basis of
training or experience to offer an expert opinion regarding those standards. See
id. § 74.401(a)(2), (3). Particularly, by indicating through his report and
curriculum vitae that his practice is solely focused on surgery, and by then
explaining that he cares “for patients with appendicitis such as Ms. Gatica had
suffered,” Dr. Silverman adequately demonstrated that he has knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education regarding the specific issue before the trial
court—the proper conclusion of an appendectomy. See Ehrlich, 144 S.W.3d
at 624–25; Kelly v. Rendon, 255 S.W.3d 665, 673 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (deciding that a doctor was qualified to submit an expert
report in part because the report indicated the doctor had “experience treating
patients with the same condition” as the claimant); Castillo v. August, 248
S.W .3d 874, 882 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2008, no pet.) (holding that a doctor
14
was qualified to submit an expert report about post-operative staph infections
when his report indicated that he had been “called upon to identify, diagnose,
and treat post-surgical and hospital-borne infections”). Moreover, the factual
detail in Dr. Silverman’s report regarding the proper conclusion of
appendectomies indicates that he has practical knowledge of what is “usually
and customarily done by other practitioners” in such surgeries. See Blan, 7
S.W.3d at 745.
Dr. Moore contends that because Gatica’s appendectomy was
laparoscopic, and because Dr. Silverman’s report did not indicate that he had
experience in laparoscopic procedures, he is disqualified from submitting an
expert report for Gatica’s claim.3 However, Dr. Moore has failed to articulate
how the laparoscopic nature of Gatica’s appendectomy relates to the specific
claims for negligence contained in Gatica’s pleadings (which all concerned the
failure to close the cecum and ileum following the surgical dissection of the
appendix, rather than the means Dr. Moore used to access or remove the
3
… A laparoscopic procedure differs from a laparotomic procedure in the
means used to gain access to the appendix. Specifically, laparoscopic
appendectomies involve an examination of the appendix through a scope
passed through the abdominal wall, while laparotomic appendectomies require
an incision into the loin. Stedman’s Medical Dictionary 840, 1170 (25th Ed.
1990); see also Alvarado v. Conmed Corp., No. EP-06-CV-0198-KC, 2008 WL
2783510, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2008) (explaining the difference between
laparoscopic and laparotomic surgeries).
15
appendix). In fact, Dr. Moore conceded in his reply brief to this court that it “is
Dr. Moore’s surgical technique once addressing the appendix, not the type of
incision or approach involved in getting to the appendix, that is the basis of
Gatica’s complaint.” Because Gatica’s complaints about Dr. Moore do not
depend upon standards relating to laparoscopy but rather depend upon the
proper conclusion of an appendectomy (whether laparoscopic or not), we
conclude that Dr. Silverman’s report was not required to establish his
experience with laparoscopic procedures.
Finally, Dr. Moore has cited several cases which hold that an expert
report is inadequate where it does not demonstrate the reporting doctor’s
experience with the medical procedure involved in the underlying claim. See,
e.g., Windisch, 138 S.W .3d at 513–14 (holding that a radiologist was not
qualified to submit an expert report because his report did not indicate any
experience with the embolization procedure at issue); Tomasi v. Liao, 63
S.W.3d 62, 65–66 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, no pet.) (determining that
a psychiatrist was not qualified to submit an expert report regarding
postoperative care following neurosurgery when his report did not explain
whether he had any experience with such care); Forrest v. Danielson, 77
S.W.3d 842, 848 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2002, no pet.) (deciding that the reporting
doctor was disqualified because his report failed to show familiarity with the
16
care of a disc protrusion, which formed the basis of the plaintiff’s claims).
Contrary to the holdings of these cases, Dr. Silverman’s report does
demonstrate that he has experience with performing an appendectomy–the very
procedure involved in Gatica’s claim.
For these reasons, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion
by determining that Dr. Silverman’s expert report qualified as a good faith effort
to satisfy the requirements of section 74.351. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.
Code Ann. § 74.351(l). Therefore, we overrule Dr. Moore’s sole issue.
Conclusion
Having overruled Dr. Moore’s only issue, we affirm the trial court’s order
denying his motion to dismiss.
TERRIE LIVINGSTON
JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, AND HOLMAN, JJ.
DELIVERED: October 9, 2008
17