G odof r edo Li nan was not nam ed a s a pl ai nt i ffi n t he L i nans’ seco nd and subse quent am ended 1 p e ti ti o n s
. H o w e v e r, h e is n a m e d o n th e ju d g m e n t b e i n g a p p e a l e d h e re a n d o n th e n o ti c e o f a p p e a l fi l e d w i th th e tri a l c o u rt. 

### NUM BER 13-08- 0053 3-CV



## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I – E DI NBURG
TURTLE HEA LTHCA RE GROUP, L.L.C. D/B /A F RED ’S PH A RM A CY, A pp ellan t,
v . YOLA NDA

HIGUERA

LINA N A ND GOD OFR EDO L INA N, ET A L., A pp ellees
. On ap pe al f rom th e 2 75t h Dist rict C ou rt o f H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas .



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza Ap p e lla n t, T u rt le He a lt h ca re Gr o u p , L. L .C . d/ b /a Fre d ’s P h a rm a cy (“T u rt le ”), bri n gs thi s i nter loc utor

y appeal ch all eng ing the tr ial co urt’ s d eni al of its moti on to di smi ss the la wsu it b ro u gh tb y a p p e ll e e s , Yo la n d a H i gu e ra L in a n a n d G o d o f re d o L in a n , in d ivi d u a ll y,
as the n atural par ents of Ma ri a Y ola nda Li nan and Gerard o E rn est o Li nan, and as represe nta tiv es of the esta te of Maria Yolanda Linan , dece ased (collectiv ely “the Lin ans”). 1 By three issues, T urtle con ten ds tha t the tri a l c o u rt e rred in ref using to dism iss the caseT he L i nans al so na m ed t he m anuf act ur er of the ve nti l ator , N el l cor Pur i t an Benn et t , I nc. , as a 2 d e f e n d a n t in th e ir th ir d a m e n d e d o r ig in a l p e tit io n . T h is d e f e n d a n t is n o t a p a r ty t o th is a p p e a l. 2 becau se: ( 1) the Lin ans w er e req uired to se rv e an ex per t medi cal r epor

t a n d f ail ed to ti mely do s o; ( 2) the par

ti es did not ag re e to extend the deadli ne for se rv ing su ch a repor

t; and (3) Turtle did not waiv e its “ri ght to m a n d a tory dism issal” based upo n the Linan s’ failu re to ser

v e s uch a repor

t. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74 .3 5 1 ( Ver non Supp. 2008)

. W e aff ir m in par t and r ev erse and remand i n par t. I. B A CKGRO UND Acc ordin g to all eg ati ons in thei r thi rd amended or ig ina l peti ti on fil ed on Aug ust19, 2008, the L ina ns cont act ed Turtl e on or about Jul y 12, 2005 t o req uestan o xy g en ta nk and tw o bat ter ies for

the v enti lat or

m achi ne us ed by

M ar ia Lin an, t he daug hter of Y ola nda and Godofred o Li nan. M ar ia suffered from mult ipl e s cl erosi s a nd w as pr esc ri bed t he v enti lat or by her ph y sician. On July 18, 200 5, a T urtle em ployee de liv ered an oxy gen tan k. On July 19, 2 005, one bat ter

y w as del iv er ed. A cc o rd ing to the L ina ns, the Turtl e empl oy ee w ho del iv er ed the batte ry ass ur ed her that “a fully charg ed batte ry shoul d las t for a l ong per iod of time, i ncl udi ng the durati on of a hur ri cane sto rm s y ste m w hic h w as threateni ng the
area .” U nfortun ate ly , the b atte ry “turned out to be un charged. ” T he b atte ry did notlast lon g , and the Lin ans w er e notaler ted bythe machi ne th at t he bat ter y ch arg e w as low

. The machi ne ev entual ly

fail ed, a nd M ar ia die d on Jul y 20, 2005. The Lin ans subs eq uentl y su ed Tur

tl e, al leg ing ca uses of act ion for n eg li g ence and g ro ss negl i g e n c e a n d i n v o k i n g t h e d o c t r i n e o f re s i psa loq uitur
. The Linan s’ third

2
am end ed o rig inal pe tition co nta ined the followi ng specif ic allegations: Defendant

. . . w as neg li g ent i n del iv er ing a defecti v e v enti lat or , bat ter y , [ and] bat tery boxes w ith conn ection s for the Plaint if fs . . . [and ] failed to ex ercise o rd in a ry ca re in vari o u s resp e ct s, in clu d in g, b u t n o t li m it e d to th e fo llo wing: [1]. failing to timely prov ide f unct iona l equipme nt to its custom ers; [2]. faili ng to w ar n of the defect or defects des cr ibe d abov e; [3 ]. co m m it ti n g err o rs d u rin g t h e a ss e m b ly p h a se i n clu d in g t h e w a rn in gsA t o r a l a r g u m e n t, th e L in a n s ’ a p p e lla te c o u n s e l c e n te r e d h is a r g u m e n t s p e c if ic a lly o n th o s e c la im s 3 al l egi ng t hat T ur t l e was n egl i gent i n f ai l i ng t o pr ov i de pr oper l y char ged bat t er i es f or M ar i a Li nan’ s v ent i l at or ( t he L i nans’ “ bat t er y cl ai m s” )

. Counsel di d no t , howev er , s peci f y whi ch of t he e num er at ed a l l egat i ons cont ai ned i n t he Li nans’ pet i t i on r epr esent or cor r espond wi t h t hese cl ai m s, and whi ch do not

. I ndeed , m any o fth e a lle g a tio n s ( s u c h a s it e m s 1 , 2 , 6 , 7 , a n d 8 ) a p p e a r to p e r ta in to a ll o fth e L in a n s ’ c la im s a n d w o u ld f a ll underbot h t he “ bat t er y cl ai m ” cat egor y and t he “ non- bat t er y cl ai m ” cat egor y
. Accor di ngl y , al t hough we r each di ff er ent concl usi ons as t o t he Li nans’ “b at t er y ” and “n on- bat t er y ” cl ai m s, we do not at t em pt t o de l i neat e whi ch o fth e n u m b e r e d ite m s b e lo n g in w h ic h c a te g o r y. 3

or parameters o f use; [4]. faili ng to ins tal l adeq uate safety w ar nin g dev ic es and/or adv is es [si c]; [5]. usi ng and ins tal li ng w ar nin g dev ic es w hic h fail ed i n us e; [6]. faili ng to make a deq uate safety tes ts o r ch eck s p ri or

to and/or

after sal e or l easi ng of it s e q uip ment; [7]. in faili ng to ex er ci se re asona ble ca re i n re pai ri ng or r epl aci ng componen t par

ts of the s ubj ectv enti lat or , oxy g en ta nk and/or batte ry [;] [8]. faili ng to maint ain eq uip ment i n functi onal and usabl e c ondi ti on.[ ] 3 Ar ugin g t hat t he Li nans w er e req uired to se rv e an ex per t medi cal r epor

t und er chapt er 74 of t he ci v il pr act ic es and re medies code but faile d to ti mely do so, Turtl e fil ed
a mo tion to dismiss on July 10, 20 08. T he Linan s subse quently filed a respon se to T urtle’s moti on c ontendi ng thatthei r cl aims w er e not“ heal th care l iab il it y cl aims ” under

the sta tute and theref ore the ex pert rep ort requireme nt did notapp ly . Af ter a he aring, the trial court deni ed th e moti on to dismi ss on Aug ust25, 2008, noti ng speci fical ly i n i ts order

that“ the cl aims as ser

ted b y Pl ain ti ffs a g ain st Turtl e H eal thc ar e Group are notheal th c ar e l iab il it y cl aims .” Thi s i nter loc utory appeal foll ow ed. See i d. § 51 .014( a) (9 ) (V er non 200 8) (p e rm it t in g a p p e a l o f

a n in t e rl o c u t o ry o rd e r t h a td e n ie s a ll o r p a rto f t h e re li e f

so u gh tb y a
mo tion u nde r section 74 .35 1(b)). II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW W e rev iew

a t ri al cour

t’ s o rd er deny ing a mot ion to dis mis s for fail ur e to compl y

w it h the ex per

t repor t req uirement un der

an a buse of dis creti on s tandard. N C EDM ental Hea lt h, Inc. v. Kidd , 214 S.W .3d 28, 32 (Tex. App .–E l Paso 200 6, no pet .) (app ly ing abuse of dis creti on s tandard to tr ial cour t’ s d eni al of motion to di smi ss ); Ken drick v. Garcia , 1714

S.W .3d 6 98, 7 02 ( Tex . Ap p.–Eas tl a n d 2005, pet. deni ed) ( same) ; see Am . T ra nsiti onal Ca re C tr s. of T ex. , Inc. v. Pal

aci os , 4 6 S

. W

. 3 d 8 7 3 , 8 7 8 ( Te x
. 2 0 0 1 ) ( a p p l y i n g a b u s e of dis creti on s tandard to tr ial co urt’ s g ra nti ng of moti on to di smi ss ). A tr ial c o urt abu ses i ts dis creti on i f it act s i n an a rb it ra ry or u nr eason abl e manner or w it hout re ferenc e to any gui din g r ule s o r pr inc ipl es. Dow ner v. Aqu am arine Op erato rs, Inc. , 701 S.W .2d 2 38, 241- 42 ( Tex . 198 5)

. How ev er , a tr ial co urt has no dis creti on i n det er mini ng w hat t he l aw is or i n appl y ing the law

to the fact s. W

alk er v. Packer

, 827 S.W .2d 833 , 840 (Tex. 1992 ); Baylo r Un iv

. Med. C tr

. v . Bi ggs , 237 S.W .3d 9 09, 9 16 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 2007, pet. den ied). Th erefore, when the issue is purely a question of law , as here , w e ef

fectively condu ct a de nov o rev iew

. See Pallares v. Magic Valley Ele c. Coop ., Inc. , 267 S.W .3d 6 7, 69- 70 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2008, pet. ref’d) (appl y ing a de nov o standard of rev iew to t he i ss ue of w hether ch apter 74 i s a ppl ic abl e to pla int iff’s c lai ms) ; see a lso John son v. City of F or t Worth , 77 4 S

. W

. 2 d 653 , 656 (Tex. 1989 ) ( hold ing that “ma tters of statu tory const ruction are question s of law for the co urt t o d ecide rather tha n issues of fact”); Nea sbitt v. W

ar re n , 22 S.W .3d 107, 109 (Tex

. App.–F ort W orth 2000, no pet .) ( sta ti ng that the issue of

the expert repo rt req uirem ent ’s applicab ility is a “ pure q uest ion of

law ”). III
. D I S CUS S I ON A
. Agreemen t and Waiv er W e f irst address T urtle’s secon d an d third issue s. By its s e c ond issue, T urtle
arg ues that the parti es did not enter i nto a ny ag re ement t o extend the d eadl ine for s er v ing the repor

t req uired by

cha p te r 74. See i

d. § 74.3 51(a ) ( “Th e da te for serv ing the repo rt maybe e xtended by

w ri tten ag re ement of the aff ect ed par tie s. ”). T h e Li nans appear to cl aim in thei r re spons e to Turtl e’s moti on to di smi ss thatsu ch an ag re ement w as re ached d u e to ce rt a in w rit te n co rre sp o n d e n c e be twe e n th e pa rt ie s’ a tt o rn e ys rega rd in g a sched uling order. Ho w ever, th e record do es no t cont ain th is correspon den ce, no r does it cont ain anythi ng el se that coul d be int er pr eted as suc h an a gre e ment. M or eov er , t he Lin ans do notappear

to cont eston a ppeal the fact th at no s uch ag re ement w as re ached

.5

Acc ordin g ly , w e s ust ain Turt le’ s s econd i ss ue. Turtl e c ontends by

i ts thi rd i ss ue that it did not w aiv e it s ri g ht to mandator y di smi ss al under se cti on 74. 351( b). W e ag re e. W aiv er i s d efined as an i ntent ion al re li nq uis hment of a know n r ig ht or

i ntent ion al condu ct inc onsi ste nt w ith cl aimi ng thatr ig ht. Jerniga n v. Langley , 111 S.W .3d 153 , 156 (Tex. 2003 ). The mere fact that a de fend antw aits to f ile
a mo tion for dismissa l for f ailure to serv e a me dical expert report is insuf f icient to estab lish
w aiv er unl ess the defendant’ s s il ence or i n a ct ion sh ow s a n i ntentto y iel d the r ig ht t o dis mis sal

. Id. (cit in g Tenn eco, Inc. v . En ter . Pr od. C o. , 925 S.W .2d 640 , 643 (Tex. 1996 )); cf. Sp i nk s v
. Br own , 211 S.W .3d 3 74 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o 2006, no p et.) ( findi ng w aiv er
w her e defendant w ait ed ov er 1,40 0 day s— after tr ial , j udg ment for defendant, and rev ersal b y a ppe llate cou rt—to f ile a mo tion to dismiss). Participat ion in discovery is also ins uff ic ien t t o es tabl is h w aiv er bec a u se iti s n ot i ncons is tent w it h the i ntentto ass ert t he ri g ht t o di smi ss al. Jer

nig an , 111 S.W .3d at 157 . Here, Tu rtle f iled its mo tion to dismiss app rox ima tely eightee n mo nth s a f ter the L inan s f iled the ir f irst original p etition

. How ever, the L ina ns hav e notpoi nted to an y ac ti on on the p art of T u rtle thatca n be deemed in c o n s is t e n t wit h t h e ri gh t t o m a n d a t o ry di s m is s a l u n d e r s e c t io n 7 4

. 3 5 1 (b ). Ac c o rd in gl y, Turtl e’s thi rd i ss ue i s s ust ain ed. B. Hea lt h Care L iab ili ty C laim By i ts firs t i ss ue, Tur

tl e c ontends thatthe Lin ans’ cl aims a re “ h e a lth c ar e l iab il it y cl aims ” under

ch apter 74 of the ci v il pract ic e and re medies co de and, therefore, that they must be di smi ss ed due to the Li nans’ fail ur e to ser v e an ex per

t medi cal repor

t. See i d. § 74. 351 (a), (b). The L eg i s l at ure en ac te d th e ex pe rt r ep or t r eq ui r em en t for

hea l th ca r e l i ab i l i ty

c l ai ms in order to a ddre ss an “ongoing crisi s in the costand av ailability of med ical ca re.” In re McAllen Med. Ctr., In c. , 2 7 5 S. W .3 d 45 8 , 2 0 0 8 T e x. LE XIS 7 5 9 , a t * 1 (T e x. 20 0 8 ) (o rig. proce ed i ng )

. U nd er

t he s ta tu te , a pl ai nt i ff as s er ti ng a “ he al th c are l i ab i l i ty c l ai m” must
ser v e a medi cal ex per

t repor t upo n eac h par

ty ’s att or ney

no l ater than the 1 20th day after6

the d ate t he or ig ina l peti ti on w as filed

. T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74. 351( a)

. The repo rt must“prov ide[] a fair summ aryof the expert’s opin ions as of the da te of

the rep ort
re g ardin g appl ic abl e s tandards of car e, t he manner i n w hic h the ca re rendered by the physician or hea lth care prov ider failed to me et th e stan dard s, and the cau sal relation ship bet w een thatfailure an d the injury , harm , or dam ages claime d.” Id. § 74 .351( r) (6 ). I f the claim is a “hea lth care liability claim” an d no ex pert repo rt is time ly f iled, the trial court must dis mis s the cl aim w it h preju dic e and aw ard reason abl e att or ney ’s fees t o the defendant. Id. § 74.3 51(b ). The sol e q uest ion for t his C our t i s w hethe r the L ina ns’ v ar iou s c lai ms c onst it ute “hea lth care l iability claims” und er the statu te. To de term ine w het her a cau se of action falls und er chap ter 74’s de f inition o f a hea lth care liability claim, w e examine the claim ’s under ly ing natu re
. Val ley Bapt is t Med. C tr

. v . St ra dle y , 2 1 0 S

. W

. 3 d 7 7 0 , 7 7 5 ( T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2006, pet. deni ed)

. A “ heal th c ar e l iab il it y cl aim” i s d efined i n the statu te as:
a c ause of acti on ag ain st a heal th c ar e prov ide r or phy si ci an for tr eatment, lac k o f treatm e nt, or

othe r cl aimed depar

ture from ac cept ed s tandards of m e d ic a l c a re , o r h e a lt h ca re , o r s a fe t y o r p ro fe s s io n a l o r a d m in is t ra t ive ser v ic es direct ly re lat ed to heal th care, w hic h prox imat ely resul ts in inj ur

y to or deat h of a c lai m a nt, w hether the cl aimant ’s cl aim or ca use of acti on sound s i n tor

t or co ntract

. Id. § 74. 001( a) (1 3) ( Ver non 200 5)

. A “ heal th c ar e prov ide r” is “a n y pers on, p artnershi p, professi onal as soc iat ion , c or porati on, faci li ty , or i nst it uti on dul y

l ic ensed , c erti fied,
re g is tered, o r char

tered by the Stat e of Te xas to prov ide heal th c ar e” and inc lud es any “e mploy ee, i ndepen d e n t c o ntract or , or

ag ent” thereof. Id. § 74.0 01(a )(12)(A), (a)( 12)(B)(ii). It is undi sput ed th at Turtl e is a li cens ed phar macy and that itprov ide d respi ra tor y therapy
ser v ic es to the Lin ans and others. Acc ordin g ly , Turtl e is a “h eal th care prov ide r” under the sta tute. S ee id. § 74. 001( a) (1 3) ; see a lso T EX
. O CC
. C OD E A NN
. § 560. 001( a) ( Ver non Supp. 2008) ( sta ti ng thata pe rs on may not operate a phar macy i n Tex as unl ess the pha rmacy is licensed bythe T exas State Board of Pharm acy)

.7

St ill , t h e L in a n s’ cla im s are su bje ctto Ch a p te r 74 's requ ire m e n ts on ly if th e y alle ge
a “ d e p arture from ac cept ed s tandards of medic al care, or heal th c ar e, or

sa fetyor prof ession al or adm inistrative serv ices directly relate d to hea lth care.” Id. § 74.0 01(a )(13). A c ause of acti on al leg es a depar ture from ac cept ed standards of medic al care or hea lt h
care on ly if

t h e a ct or

omi ss ion co mplai ned of i s “ an i nsepa ra ble par t of the re ndi ti on of
me dical servi ces.” Diversicare Gen. Par tn e r, I n c
. v. Rubio , 1 8 5 S

. W

. 3 d 8 4 2 , 8 4 8 (T e x. 200 5). To t h e e xt e n t t h a t t h e L i n a n s ’ a l l e g a t i o n s i n v o l v e a c t s o r o mi s s i o n s bey ond t he alleged failure to p rov ide prop erly charged ba tteries—su ch as the ir cl aim s inv olvi ng Tu r tl e’s provisi on o f

the ventilato r and i t s a lle ged failure to p rov ide w arnings and to prop erly
ma intain the ventilato r—those claims c le arly inv olve acts or omission s thatare “i nsepa ra ble ” from the re ndi ti on of medi cal se rv ic es. See i d. The refore, th ose claim s are bar re d due to t he Li nans’ fail ur e to ser v e an ex per

t repor t. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74 .35 1(a). How ever, w e can notsaythe sam e w it h r e s p ect to the Lin ans’ cl aims al leg ing thatTurt le w as neg li g ent i n fail ing to prov ide proper ly ch arg ed bat ter ies for Maria Linan ’s v ent ilator (the Lin ans’ “bat tery claims”). In de term ining w het her a claim qualif ies und er ch apt er 7 4’s def inition of “he alth ca re li a b il it y cl a im , ” a “f a c t o r we co n s id e r i s wh e t h e r e x p e rtt e s t im o n y is n e c e s s a ry t o p ro ve th es e al l eg ed l ap s es i n profe s s i on al j ud g me nt an d trea tm en t.” Dive rsicare , 185 S.W .3d at 85 1. In Diversicare , t he Tex as Supreme C our t c onsi der ed w h e th e r th e def ini ti on of “h eal th c ar e l iab il it y

cl aim” i ncl uded a cl aim that a nurs ing home’s neg li g ence in faili ng to prov i de a de q ua te sup er v i s i on a nd n urs i ng s er v i c es c au s ed a p at i en t’ s i nj ur i es from a
sex ual ass aul t by another pati ent. Id. at 844- 45. As par t of its anal y si s, the C our

t as ked: “I s e x per ti se in the h eal th care f iel d req uired to determi ne the appropr iat e number, train ing and certif ication s of

me d ic a l p ro fession als nece ssaryto care for and protect patie nts in
w eake ned cond itions f rom inju ry byothe r patien ts in a hea lth care f a c il it y ?” Id. at 851. Answ er ing thatq uest ion i n the aff ir mati v e, t he C our t not ed:8

It is not w it hin the common know led g e of the g eneral publ icto deter mine the abi li ty of pati ents in w eaken ed condi ti ons to protec t t hemsel v es, nor w hether a pot enti al targ et of an a tt a ck in a h eal thc ar e faci li ty sh oul d be bette r protec ted and byw hat mean s. The g eneral publ ici s n ot t ra ine d to ev alu ate w hethe r a p o tenti al attac ker admi tted to a heal th c ar e faci li ty sh oul d be physically

or chem ically

restrained to prevent ha rm t o o t her pa tient s or if other pati ents sh o u ld be b etter protec ted t hroug h i ncreased su per v is ion

. And t he g eneral publ icdoes not know w hether phy si cal rest ra int

i s req uired to prev ent a ss aul ts by

a res ide nt, if cert ain ty pes of medic ati on are s uff ic ien t, or if a comb inatio n of

the t wo may be required, an d to what degree th ese deter minat ion s d epend o n the propens it ies and phy si cal and mental charact er is ti cs of the resi dent. Id. On t he ot her

hand, the under ly ing nature of t he Li nans’ batt er y cl aims i s s impl y

an allega t io n t hatTu rtle failed to provi de f unct ioning, prop erly charged ba tteries for Maria Lina n’s v ent ilator. It is most ce rtainly “w ithin the co mm on knowledge o f the gene ral public” that ele ctroni c e q uip m e n t re q uires functi oni ng , proper ly ch arg ed bat ter ies i n order to operate. Ex per

ti se in the medi cal field w oul d c ontr ibu te no thi ng to a fact- finder ’s abi li ty to deter mine w hether

the failu re to prov ide suc h batte ri es w as neg li g ent. Ex per t t est imony
w ould be un help f ul and unn ecessa ry to a jury

atte mp ting t o c o n f ir m or de ny the se par ti cul ar cl aims

. See i

d. T urtle no tes th at cou rts have, in othe r cases, foun d “hea lth c a re l ia b ility claims”
w her e pl ain ti ffs h av e made a ll eg ati ons in volving neg li g ent u se of medic al eq uip ment. How ever, those ca ses are no t directly ana logous to th e factu al situat ion w ith w hich w e are pr esent ed here. For

ex ample, i n Scott v

. Be echnu t M

anor , 1 7 1 S

. W

. 3 d 3 3 8 , 3 4 5 ( T e x. App.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2005, pet. deni ed) , t he pl ain ti ff ’s al leg ati ons w er e bas ed on the failu re of a mai ntenanc e tec hni ci an to r econn ecta v enti lat or after “ ro uti ne mai ntenanc e”
w as per formed. Id. at 341. T he cour t found that “[ e]v en if iti s c ommon kno w led g e tha t a
v ent ilator assists a pa tientto brea the , . . . l a y p e rsons require the assista nce o f ex pert testim ony before the y

can presu me thatan injury is due to t h e n eglig entmisuse of such an inst rume nt.” Id. at 344. Scott is distinguishable f rom th e insta n t ca se, ho w ever, beca use th e cou rt did not a ddre ss the issue of w het her the plaintif

f ’s allegations w ere9

“h eal th c ar e li abi li ty cl aims ,” but ra ther aff ir med the tr ial cour t’ s summar

y jud g ment on th e plaint if f ’s re s i psa loq uitur

cl aim. See i

d. ; see a lso Haddock

v. Ar nspi ger , 793 S.W .2d 9 48, 951 ( Tex . 199 0) ( noti ng that , al thoug h res ipsa loqu itur is generall y inappl ic abl e to medic al
ma lpractice case s, “an exception is recogniz ed w hen the na ture of the alleged malp ractice
a n d i n ju ri es are pla inly w ithin th e com mo n kno w ledge of lay me n, requiring no e x pert tes ti mony ”)

. Acc ordin g ly , w e do not fin d Scott persuas iv e. In Val ley Baptis t Medical

C enter v. Azua , 198 S.W .3d 8 10, 8 14 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2006, no p et.) , t he pl ain ti ff al leg ed th at de fendant “ neg li g ently f a ile d t o bl ock the
w heels o f

t h e wheel chai r and i t mov ed,” i nju ri ng pl ain ti ff

. Not ing thatAz ua w as bei ng assisted into a w hee lchair for dialysi s treatm ent , w e he ld tha t this act w as “an inse para ble par t of the re ndi ti on of medi cal se rv ic es” and found itto be a “h eal th c ar e l iab ility cl aim. ” Id. H er e, t he prov is ion of proper ly ch arg ed bat ter ies to M a ria L in an’ s respi ra tor w as not onl y se par abl e from t he rendi ti on of her medi cal se rv ic es, but act ual ly w as separated from tho se servi ces. T his w as evidenced b y d epo sition testim ony o f Richa rd G onzalez, Turtle’s
w ar ehous e s uper

v is or , w ho te sti fied th at he “ or one of [his ] hel pers” w er e i n c harg e of charging the v ent ilator bat teries for Tu rtle’s custom ers. T urtle also cite s Tor

re s v . Mem or ial Her m ann Hospital

Sy ste m , 1 8 6 S

. W

. 3 d 4 3 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 5, no pet. ), w her e the co urt found a “h eal th car e lia bil it y cl aim. ” In Tor re s , t he pl ain ti ff all eg ed that the d efendant hos pit al w as neg li g ent i n fail ing to prov ide a traine d he alth ca re provi der to a ssist the pla intif f t o the restroo m, causing her injuries. In t hat c ase, how ev er , t he c our t rel ied on the factthat the pl ain ti ff ex pli ci tl y

cl aimed that a train ed heal th c ar e prov ide r w as nece ss a ry t o prev ent h er i nju ri es; thi s u nder cutthe pla int iff’s cl aim that the all eg ed negl ig ence w as “i nsepa ra ble ” from the rendi ti on of medi cal
serv ices. In cont rast, the Lina ns do not assert tha t traine d me dical prof ession als shou ld h a ve b e e n ch arg ed w it h the tas k o f ensur ing thatthe v enti lat or w as eq uip ped w it h f unct ioning bat teries. Rath er, the y note thatit w as T urtle ’s u n li c e nsed “w areh ouse p e rs o n n e l” t h a twe re ch a rg e d wit h t h a tt a s ka n d t h a tt h e y d id so n e gl ig e n t ly.10

W e be l i ev e the L inan s’ b at te r y c l ai ms a r e mo r e di rec tl y a na l og ou s t o th e c l ai ms made by the pla int iffs in Str

adley , 210 S.W .3d a t 771 , and Tes or o v . Al var ez , N o. 13 -0 8- 00091- CV , 200 9 Tex . App. LEX IS 1692, at *21 (Tex . App.–C or pus Chr is ti Mar . 12, 2009,
no pet. h.)

. In Str

adley , the plai nti ff

f ell of f a treadmil l at a facil it y l ocat ed on the c ampus of the de fend ant hosp ital. 210 S.W .3d at 771 . Ev en th ough th e plain tif f ’s docto r allegedly “prescribed ” the ex ercise tha t precipita ted her fall, w e foun d tha t the plaintif f ’s claims w ere not “ heal th c ar e l iab il it y

cl aims ,” noti ng that “[ a] jur y co uld understa nd th e ev ide nti ar y i ss ues and neglig ence stand ards po sed b y Stradle y ’s claims w ithou t the a id of a me dical expert’s repo rt.” Id. at 775- 76. Si mil ar ly , a jur y w oul d not need an ex per t repor t t o understa nd th e
ev ide nti ar

y i ss ues and neg li g ence sta ndards pr esent ed by the Lin ans’ batte ry cl aims

. In Tesoro , we f ound t hat a cl aim all eg ing mis use of a la ser hai r re mov al dev ic e w as not a

“ h e a l t h c a r e l i a b i l i t y

c l a i m” i n p a rtb e c a u s e t h e d e v i c e “ c o u l d b e u s e d b y a l a y p er son
w it hout a phy si ci an or a heal th car e prov ide r pr esent .” 2009 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 1 692, at * 21. Ma ri a Li nan’ s v enti lat or al so coul d be used, and w a s in te n d e d to be us ed on a reg ula r basi s, by the Lin ans w it hout any

medi cal professi onal prese nt. In cas es suc h as thes e, an
ex per t medi cal r epor

t i s u nnece ss ar

y and unhel pful, and to re q uire suc h a repor t w oul d be
a w ast e of

time and money

for both lit ig ants and tr ial court s. See Diversicare , 185 S.W .3d at 85 1.Altho ugh plaint if fs may not use artf ul plea ding to avoid the expert repo rt
re q uirement, see, e.g. , Garland Cmty. Hosp . v. Rose , 156 S.W .3d 541 , 543 (Tex. 2004 ), the L ina ns did no s uch thi ng here. Their batt er y cl aims are bas ed on all eg ati ons of neg li g ence inv olv ing ac ti v it ies that ar e w hol ly separabl e from the prov is ion of he alt h c ar e. Mo re ov er , t he c lai ms do not req uire ex per t t est im o n y t o b e prov en. W e not e tha t t he L e gi s la t u re ch o s e n o tt o c l a s s i fy all claim s against he alth ca re provi ders as “hea lth care li abi li ty cl aims .” Rat her , it chos e to li mit the defini ti on to thos e that cl aim “d epar ture from
acc epted sta ndards of medic al care, o r heal th c ar e, or sa fetyor

professi onal or adm inistrative serv ices directly relate d to he alth ca re .” T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
.11

§ 74 .0 01 ( a) ( 13 ) ( em ph as i s ad de d)

. To i nc l ud e c l ai ms s uc h as t he L i na ns ’ b at te r y c l ai ms in this def inition would exacerbat e t h e c ri s is in the cost an d availability of hea lth care ide nti fied by

the Leg is lat ur e, see In re McAllen Med . Ctr., Inc. , 200 8 Tex . LE X IS 7 59, a t * 1, by dec lar ing to future pla int iffs that they must obtai n ex pensi v e ex per t repor ts ev en w hen such rep orts are of

no utility to th e fact-f inde r. For the foreg o in g re a sons, w e c oncl ude t hat t he Li nans’ batt er y cl aims are not “h eal th c ar e l iab il it y

cl aims ” under

ch apter 74 o f the c iv il pract ic e and re medies co de. Ac c ordi ng l y , th e tr i al c ou rt di d no t err in deny i ng Tu rtl e’ s mo ti on t o di s mi s s t ho s e c l ai ms based on t he fail ur e of the Lin ans to t imel y fil e an expe rt m e d ical r epor t. W e aff ir m that por ti on of the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment. H ow ev er , the Linans ’ non- batte ry cl aims are bar re d due t o the ir

fail ur e to ser

v e an ex per

t medica l re por

t. W e the re fore rev erse that por ti on of the trial court’s judgmen t and re m a nd to the trial court for the a w ard of reason able attor ney ’s fees and co st s o f c o u rtto Turtl e. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74.351( b) (1 ). Tur

tl e’s first is sue is su sta ine d i n par t and ov er ru led i n par

t. IV. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment i n par t and r ev erse and remand i n par t.

DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Di ss enti ng M emora ndum Opi nio n by Ju sti ce Ros e Vel a. Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 1 1th d ay

of June, 2009.