JUDICIAL TORT REFORM - SUPREME COURT EXPANDS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE DEFENDANTS' ABILITY TO GO AFTER PATIENTS FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
Texas High Court, in opinion written by Justice Dale Wainwright, who is facing the voters this year, gives doctors a second chance to pursue retaliatory sanctions claim against patients who sued them for medical malpractice. Courts of Appeals had thrown out doctors' interlocutory appeals after the plaintiffs had nonsuited their claims.
In all three cases decided by the Supreme Court last week, the trial court judges had denied the health care providers' motions for sanctions and the court of appeals had dismissed the doctors' appeal for want of jurisdiction because the plaintiffs had nonsuited their claims. Treating the doctor's sanctions demands as counterclaims for affirmative relief even though the claims could not exist and could not be brought independently of the plaintiff's suit, the supreme court holds that the doctors' sanctions motion survive nonsuit by the plaintiffs, and orders the courts of appeals to determine whether the judges in the courts below erred when they refused to make the plaintiffs pay the defendants' attorneys fees and costs as a sanction. The ruling put plaintiffs' lawyers at considerable risk of legal malpractice liability if they fail to timely obtain an expert report that satisfies the requirements of the statute as interpreted by the Supreme Court and is likely to discourage attorneys from accepting representation in medical malpractice cases.
Villafani v. Trejo, MD, No. 06-0501 (Tex. Apr. 18, 2008) (Wainwright) (HCLC, ILA, denial of sanctions, effect of non-suit on defendant's right to appeal denial of motion for sanctions)
JUAN MARIO VILLAFANI, M.D. v. ADELA TREJO; from Cameron County; 13th district (13-04-00449-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 10-06-05) The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court. Justice Dale Wainwright delivered the opinion of the Court.
THE COMPANION CASES (decided in per curiam opinions)
Barrera, MD v. Rico, No. 05-0928 (Tex. Apr. 18, 2008)(per curiam) (appealability of order denying doctor's motion for sanctions after plaintiff nonsuited medical malpractice suit and court dismissed without prejudice)
RICARDO BARRERA, M.D. v. ISELA RICO AND MANUEL RICO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENTS AND NEXT FRIENDS OF GLORIA RICO, A MINOR; from Hidalgo County; 13th district (13-04-00480-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 07-21-05) Respondent's motion to supplement response brief on the merits granted. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.
Regent Care Center of San Antonio II, LP v. Hargrave, No. 06-0717 (Tex. Apr. 18, 2008)(per curiam) (HCLC, medical malpractice, effect on nonsuit on health care provider's pending appeal of order denying sanctions)
REGENT CARE CENTER OF SAN ANTONIO II, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP D/B/A REGENT CARE CENTER OF OAKWELL FARMS AND RCCSA II, INC. v. BARBARA HARGRAVE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DOROTHY MONTGOMERY, AND VERNON LLOYD PIERCE, INDIVIDUALLY; from Bexar County; 4th district (04-05-00274-CV, 202 S.W.3d 807, 06-28-06) Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Getting Burnt in Texas: Supreme Court Reverses Jury Verdict for Burn Victim in Product Liability Suit
Bic Pen Corp. v. Carter (Tex. 2008)
Justice Medina writes that federal consumer safety standards bar burnt child from recovering on faulty design claim under Texas common law
Texas Supreme Court holds that federal law implicitly preempts Texas common law tort claim in case in which child sustained third-degree burns on 55% of her body when another child set fire to her dress with a cigarette lighter. Jury awarded several million dollars in damages against manufacturer of the device. Court finds that product design was sufficiently child-proof because it had passed federal standards and state should not be permitted to set more exacting standards through its tort law. (Federal standards mandate that at least 85 percent of children under age five must be unable to operate disposable lighters.) Texas Supreme Court further suggests that balancing of interests should not be left to the jury which may be more sympathetic to burn victims in individual cases and may not appreciate the countervailing interests of convenience and market acceptance of the cigarette lighter.
The opinion, which also remands an alternative theory of recovery (manufacturing defect) to the court of appeals for closer scrutiny, was written by Justice David M. Medina, himself a recent burn victim, although the exact cause of the fire that burned down the family home (causing only property damage) remains shrouded in mystery and suspicion.
Bic Pen Corp. v. Carter, No. 05-0835 (Tex. Apr. 18, 2008) (Medina) (products liability, design defect claim,
implicit federal preemption of state tort law, manufacturing defect claim)
BIC PEN CORPORATION v. JANACE M. CARTER, AS NEXT FRIEND OF BRITTANY CARTER; from
Matagorda County; 13th district (13-03-00560-CV, 171 S.W.3d 657, 08-18-05)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.
Justice Medina delivered the opinion of the Court. (Justice Green not sitting)
The Court disapproves the holding that federal law only sets a minimum safety standard and does not grant manufacturers immunity from state common law claims in opinion by Justice Dori Contreras Garza in the court of appeals below: Bic Pen Corp. v. Carter, No. 13-03-00560-CV (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi, Apr. 18, 2008, pet. filed) ("concluding that "the plaintiff's design-defect claim is not an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of any federal objectives regarding disposable lighters. Any rule of law created by the claim would be in harmony with existing federal standards and further the federal objectives, even if its net effect would be to make lighters safer for children. Accord Colon v. BIC USA, Inc., 136 F. Supp. 2d 196, 208 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (A[I]t is difficult to construe these [federal] regulations as anything but a mandatory minimum standard with which all manufacturers or importers [of disposable lighters] must comply. By no means, however, should compliance with this minimum standard automatically relieve a manufacturer or importer of state common law liability.")
Justice Medina writes that federal consumer safety standards bar burnt child from recovering on faulty design claim under Texas common law
Texas Supreme Court holds that federal law implicitly preempts Texas common law tort claim in case in which child sustained third-degree burns on 55% of her body when another child set fire to her dress with a cigarette lighter. Jury awarded several million dollars in damages against manufacturer of the device. Court finds that product design was sufficiently child-proof because it had passed federal standards and state should not be permitted to set more exacting standards through its tort law. (Federal standards mandate that at least 85 percent of children under age five must be unable to operate disposable lighters.) Texas Supreme Court further suggests that balancing of interests should not be left to the jury which may be more sympathetic to burn victims in individual cases and may not appreciate the countervailing interests of convenience and market acceptance of the cigarette lighter.
The opinion, which also remands an alternative theory of recovery (manufacturing defect) to the court of appeals for closer scrutiny, was written by Justice David M. Medina, himself a recent burn victim, although the exact cause of the fire that burned down the family home (causing only property damage) remains shrouded in mystery and suspicion.
Bic Pen Corp. v. Carter, No. 05-0835 (Tex. Apr. 18, 2008) (Medina) (products liability, design defect claim,
implicit federal preemption of state tort law, manufacturing defect claim)
BIC PEN CORPORATION v. JANACE M. CARTER, AS NEXT FRIEND OF BRITTANY CARTER; from
Matagorda County; 13th district (13-03-00560-CV, 171 S.W.3d 657, 08-18-05)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.
Justice Medina delivered the opinion of the Court. (Justice Green not sitting)
The Court disapproves the holding that federal law only sets a minimum safety standard and does not grant manufacturers immunity from state common law claims in opinion by Justice Dori Contreras Garza in the court of appeals below: Bic Pen Corp. v. Carter, No. 13-03-00560-CV (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi, Apr. 18, 2008, pet. filed) ("concluding that "the plaintiff's design-defect claim is not an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of any federal objectives regarding disposable lighters. Any rule of law created by the claim would be in harmony with existing federal standards and further the federal objectives, even if its net effect would be to make lighters safer for children. Accord Colon v. BIC USA, Inc., 136 F. Supp. 2d 196, 208 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (A[I]t is difficult to construe these [federal] regulations as anything but a mandatory minimum standard with which all manufacturers or importers [of disposable lighters] must comply. By no means, however, should compliance with this minimum standard automatically relieve a manufacturer or importer of state common law liability.")
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
