Although the Texas Supreme Court grants review in few cases, and carefully picks the one it decides on the merits, Justice Jefferson here avers that "we must decide" whether the two-year statute of limitations found in a statute that has since be amended - former article 4590i, section 10.01 of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes[1] - violates the Texas Constitution’s open courts guarantee as applied to an incapacitated plaintiff whose guardian timely filed suit against some defendants but not against others.
The Court concludes that the plaintiff presented competent summary judgment evidence of her continuous mental incapacity but nonetheless holds that claims against some defendants are time-barred and that the open courts guarantee has not been violated.
COMMENT: Thanks to court-enforced tort reform standards, personal injury and medical malpractice lawyers can't do right. If Plaintiffs and their lawyers name all possible defendants before all the facts are in as a result of discovery, they risk being sanctioned, even if they are willing to nonsuit the ones later shown to be free of blame. Low v. Henry (Tex. April 20, 2007)
If they wait, and expressly reserve the right to add additional defendants as a better understanding is developed as to why the patient ended up in a vegetative state, and who is responsible, they take nothing on a finding that their claim is time-barred, and that the negligence claims asserted against the additional defendants by way of amended pleadings don't relate back to the filing date of suit against the original defendant(s).
Full style for Tex. Sup. Ct. Appeal No. 05-0925: EULA YANCY, AS THE GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND THE ESTATE OF CARLETHA YATES, AN INCAPACITATED ADULT v. UNITED SURGICAL PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC., VALLEY VIEW SURGICAL CENTER, INC., AND JUDITH SMITH, R.N.; from Dallas County; 5th district (05‑04‑00791‑CV, 170 SW3d 185, 07‑12‑05)
The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment.
No comments:
Post a Comment