### NUM BER 13-08- 533- 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 C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG

TU RT LE H EA LT HC A RE GRO UP, L.L .C. A pp ellan t, D/B /A F RED ’S PH A RM A CY,

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 of H ida lgo C ou nt y , T exas . 

## D I S S E N T I N G 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 D is se n ti n g Memo ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la I di ss ent fr om the major it y ’s opi nio n becau se I bel iev e tha t t he c lai ms urg ed by the Li na n fami l y

a r e he al th c ar e l i ab i l i ty c l ai ms
. P ars i ng t he m i nt o ne g lig en t “ ba tt er y ” c l ai ms and hea lt h c ar e “ non- batte ry ” cl aims , as su g g est ed by the major it y , adv ances nei ther the2

inten t of the legislature in ena cting the statu te no r Texas law in g ene ral. I believe that all of the claim s urged bythe Lin ans were co ntinu ing he alth care serv ices provided to Maria Lin an. The “ batte ry ” cl aims w hic h the major it y attempt s to separ ate from the Lin ans’ heal th
car e l iab il it y

cl aims ar e si mply re cas t heal th car e l iab il it y cl aims —heal th c ar e pr ov ide d to Ma ri a Li nan t hat r eq uir ed pr oper functi oni ng of her

l ife- suppo rt ing v enti lat or
. A pl ain ti ff

ca nnot use artful pl eadi ng to av oid the Act 's r eq uir ements w hen the
ess ence of t he sui t is a heal th c ar e l iab il it y cl aim. D iv

er sicar e Gen . Pa rt

ner s, Inc . v . R ubi o, 185 S.W .3d 842 , 851 (Tex. 2005 ). “ Health care” is def ined b road ly b y t he Act as “any act
or treat ment performed or furni shed, or

that sh ould hav

e been per

for m ed or fur nis hed, by any heal th car e prov ide r for, to, or on beh alf of a pat ien t dur ing the pati ent' s medi cal ca re , treat me nt, o r conf inem ent .” T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN . § 74.001( 10) ( Ve r n on 2005 ) (emp hasis ad ded ). To de term ine w het her a cause of action is i nclud ed u nde r chapte r 74's defini ti on of “ heal th c ar e” l iab il it y cl aim, w e ex amine the u nder ly ing natu re of the c lai m. The Li nans’ cl aim her e i s t hat Tur tl e H eal thc ar e s houl d hav e prov ide d a funct ion ing
v enti lat or

to Ma ri a. Par

t of that duty re q uir es pr ov idi ng pr oper ly functi oni ng batt er ies —an act th at sho uld ha v e be en p erf orme d or f urnishe d. T he Lina ns’ claim is one for the b reach of the s tandar d of car e for a heal th ca re p rov ide r becau se pr ov idi ng Li nan w it h a functi oni ng v enti lat or

i s i nsepa ra ble from ins ur ing that the batte ri es, neces sar y for pr oper functi oni ng of the v enti lat or , w er e pr oper ly ch ar g ed. The Li nans w er e r eq uir ed, b ut fail ed, to fil e an ex per

t r epor t, the mi nimum req uir ement neces sar y to maint ain a caus e of act ion under the sta tute. Id . § 74. 351 (a) (Vernon Su pp. 200 8). As it stand s, the opinio n giv es no g uida nce to t he a ttorn eys or the trial cou rt regarding w hich of

the eig ht alleg ation s set fo rth in the Linan s’ third ame nde d pe tition a re3

“ ba tt er y ” c l ai ms a nd w hi c h ar e “ non-bat tery” cl ai ms
. I d i s ag r ee t ha t th e “ ba tt er y ” c l ai ms
ur g ed ar e s epar abl e. Ag ain , a pr oper f unct ion ing batter

y w as but one r eq uir ement of many
neces sar

y to m a in ta in the eq uip ment nec ess ar y for M ar ia Lin an to l iv e. If, i ndeed, the claims are sepa rable, there wo u ld be no conf usion abo ut w hat claims by the Lina ns are “batt ery ” claims. T he majority’s opin ion, h owev er, is conspicu ously si lent regarding w hich of the pl eaded a ll eg ati ons ar e “ batte ry ” cl aims

. I a lso dis ag re e tha t t he c lai ms urg ed by the Lin an famil y

ar e c los ely

ak in to t he opi nio ns of this C our

t i n Val ley Baptis t Medical

Center v. St ra dle y, 210 S. W .3d 7 70, 7 75 (Tex

. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2006, pet. deni ed) and Tes or o v . Al var ez , N o. 13 -0 8- 00091- CV , 2009 W L 620682 (Tex . App.–C or pus Chr is ti Mar ch 12, 20 09, n o pet . h. ). Str adley , at i ts most basi c lev el, is a pr emis es li abi li ty cas e. The major it y ur g es that Tesoro is a nal g ous becau se, i n tha t c ase, the all eg ed mi sus e of a las er hai r re mov al dev ic e w as not a heal th
car e l iab il it y

cl aim si nce, i n par

t, the d ev ic e c oul d be used b y a lay per son w it hout a phy si ci an or he alt h c ar e pr ov ide r pr esent

. I bel iev e, how ev er that Tes or

o is not dr iv en by tha t f act alone but, more i mp ortan tly , stan ds f or the prop osition tha t laser hair remo v al is not “ heal th c ar e” bec ause the T esor o pla int iff w as not being “tr eated” as that term i s u sed by medi cal defini ti on. Id. at *5. T he Court also con clude d tha t impro perly using a laser is
a separ abl e par

t of t he r endi ti on of heal th c ar e s er v ic es. Id. a t *11

. He re, the hea lth care
ser v ic e pr ov ide d by

Turt le Hea lt hcar e i nv olv ed out fitti n g Ma ria Lina n w it h a funct ion al
v enti lat or

as a medi cal dev ic e tha t w as her l ifeli ne. I w oul d c oncl ude th a t p ro visi on of pr oper ly functi oni ng batt er ies w as an i nsepa ra ble par t of thos e s er

v ic es.4

I believe that this case is closer to the f actu al s cena rios presen ted in cases like Rob er ts v. W il li am son , w her e the su pr eme courtchara cte ri z ed a cl aim ag ain st a phy si ci an
ass erti ng negl ig ence for prov idi ng a v enti lat or thatw as not funct ion ing pr oper ly a medi cal
ma l p r a c t i c e a c t i o n. See 111 S. W .3d 1 13, 1 14 ( Tex . 200 3) ; see als o Valdez v. Lopez Hea lt h Sy s., Inc

. No. 04-0 002 3-CV, 200 5 W L 162 980 3, at *2 (Te x . App .–S an An ton io July 13, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.) (i nv olv ing a cl aim ag ain st a home heal th care p ro vide r f or failu re to pr ov ide a po rt abl e s uct ion machi ne w hic h w as dis mis sed for faili ng to prov ide a suffici ent r epor

t)

. In Scott v

. Be echnu t M

anor , t he Cour

t noted that “ev en if it is co mmon know led g e t h a t a ve n ti lat or as si sts a pa ti ent t o br eathe,

. . . l ay per sons r eq uir e the
ass is tanc e of ex per

t t est imony

bef or e theycan presu me that an inj ur y is d ue to neg li g ent mis use of such an i nst ru ment.” 17 1 S .W .3d 3 38, 3 44 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2005, pet. deni e d ); see Val ley Bapt is t Med. C tr

. v . Az ua, 1 9 8 S

. W

. 3 d 8 1 0 , 8 1 4 (T e x. A p p
. – C o r p u s C h r i s t i 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t

. ) ( c o n c l u d i n g t h a t a n a l l e g a ti on that an e mp l o y e e o f a heal th c ar e pr ov ide r w as neg li g ent i n as si sti ng the pla int iff into a w heel chai r was an insep arab le part of

the ren dition of

med ical serv ices and w as a he alth ca re liability claim);
s e e a l s o O u t p a t ie n t C t r
. f o r I n t e r v e n t io n a l P a i n M g m t

. v
. G a r za , N os. 07- 00411- CV , and 07- 00762- CV , 200 8 W L 25256 09, at *4 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti , J une 26, 2008, no p et.) (mem. op.) ( conc lud ing thatpl ain ti ff ’s al leg ati on th at s he fell f ro m a w heel chai r w hil e at the facil it y w as a heal th car e l iab il it y cl aim) ; Espin osa v. Bap tist Health Sys. , N o. 04 -0 5- 00131- CV , 200 6 W L 2871262, at *2 (Tex . App.–San Anton io Oc t. 11, 2 006, no pet .) ( mem. op.) (holdin g tha t a f ailure to p rope rly assem ble and i nsta ll a trape z e on a hosp ital bed w as a claime d dep arture f rom the st and ard of m edica l ca re and w as a he alth ca re liability claim).5

H er e, t he dec edent w as dependentupon the v enti lat or to li v e. Turtl e H eal thc ar e,
as a phar macy

and pr ov ide r of the v enti lat or and it s component s, had t he r espon si bil it y to
ensur e tha t bot h the v enti lat or and it s c omponents w er e i n pr oper w or ki ng o rd e r. I t del iv er ed s uch ser

v ic es to her , and it s ser v ic es w er e c onnec ted i n the mostbas icw ay to her health car e. The v enti lat or and it s r ela ted c omponents w er e, i n eff ect , her l ifeli ne. The facts ev ide nce act s a nd omi ss ion s t hat w er e an ins epar abl e par t of t he re ndi ti on of heal th
car e and re q uir ed an or ig ina l re por t to be filed pur suantto the s tatut e. I w oul d r ev er se the tr ial co urt’ s d eni al of Turtl e H eal thc ar e’s moti on to di smi ss and re mand the cas e to the t ri al court to ente r an order dism issing w it h p re ju d ic e the claims against ap pellan t, T urtle Health care Grou p, L. L.C. d/ b/a Fred’s Pha rmacy, and to det ermin e reaso nab le atto rney’s fees.

RO SE VELA J u s t i c e
Di ss enti ng M emora ndum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 1 1th d ay

of June, 2009.