### NUM BER 13-09- 0042 5-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 OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
M A RY M ORO LE S, A pp ellan t,
v. DOC TOR ’S H OSPITA L A T REN A ISSA NC E, L TD ., A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e C o u n ty C o u rta t L aw N o . 2 of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, Garza, a nd B en av ide s M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza Appel lan t, Ma ry

M orole s, appeal s f rom a s ummary j udg ment g ra nted in fav or of app ellee, Doctor’s Hospital at Renaissan ce, Ltd. ( “Doctor’s Hospita l”). In g rantin g Doctor’s Hospita l’s summ aryjudgmen t mo tion , t he trial cou rt conclud ed th at Moroles failed to f ile her lawsuit w ithin th e tw o-y ear stat ute of limitation s p re s c ri b ed b y chap ter 74 o f

the civi l pract ic e and remedie s c ode. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN . § 74.251( a) ( Ver non 200 5). By

tw o issues, Moroles argues thatthe trial court erred in g rantin g t h e summ ary jud g ment moti on and deny ing her moti on for re cons ide ra ti on bec ause: (1) a factq uest ion exists as to the dat e trig gering the statu te of limitat ions period, and the re fo re , summ ary jud g ment i s p re cl uded; and ( 2) the open cour ts prov is ion of the Tex as Con sti tuti on per mitsO n a p p e a l, M o r o le s a s s e r ts th a t “ [t ]h e s p e c ie s o f m o ld c u ltu r e d f r o m in s id e h e r k n e e is o n e th a t is 1 a s s o c i a te d w i th s o i l , d e c a y i n g ve g e ta ti o n , a n d w a te r- d a m a g e d m a te ria l s , n o t a h u m a n i n fe c ti o n .” Asper gi ll us f lavus , a fu n g u s , “is a p l a n t, a n i m a l , a n d h u m a n p a th o g e n th a t p ro d u c e s th e c a rc i n o g e n , a f la to x i n .” A s pe rgi l l us fl avu s
. org : As pe rg i l l u s fl a v u s a n d a fla to x i n , htt p:// w w w
. as pe rgi l l us fl avu s. or g/ i ndex. ht m l ( l ast v i si t ed Jan. 7, 2010)

. Af l at oxi ns “ ar e t oxi c and car ci nogen i c m et abol i t es” t hat m ay cause “ acut e h ep ati t i s, i m m un os up pre s s i on , an d h ep t oc el l ul ar c arc i no m a.” I d.

H .E .B . a n d D r . S w e e n e y a r e n o t p a r tie s to th is a p p e a l. 2 2 her l aw sui t. See T EX
. C ON ST
. ar t. I , § 13

. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND Mo ro les ’s under ly ing cl aims ar is e from an inc ide nt w here she sl ipp ed and fell on a g ra pe i n an H. E. B utt Grocer y C ompany

( “H .E.B .” ) sto re , w hic h c ause d h e r kneec ap to shat ter in f iv e place s. Moroles w as treat ed b y Francis M. Sw een ey, M .D. at Do c t o r’s Ho sp it a l. Dr. Sw eeney first operated on M orole s’ s k nee on Jul y 8, 2004. In order

to
re uni te t he broken bones in Morole s’ s kneec ap, Dr . Sw eeney inser ted sev eral pi ns in the kneec ap. How ev er , M orole s’ s kneec ap did not heal , and a sec ond s urg er y w as per formed on Sep tember

1, 2005. D ur ing the sec ond surg er y , some of

the pin s w ere remov ed from Moroles’s knee cap. Dr . Sw een ey orde red tha t the remo v ed p ins be cultu re d be cause it
w as sus pect ed th at M orole s’ s k nee fail ed to heal bec ause of a fungal i nfecti on i nsi de th e
surg ic al w ound. The c ult ures w ere c omplet ed on September 13, 2005, and t he resul ts
re v eal ed that the remov ed pi ns w ere c ov ered w it h Aspe rgil lus fl avus , a fung us. M orole s 1
w as subs eq uentl y

referred to an i nfecti ous dis ease spec ial is t for further treatment. On A ug ust17, 2007, Mo ro les fil ed her first amended pe ti ti o n as ser ti ng premis es li abi li ty cl aims ag ain st H. E.B. and heal th c are l iab il ity cl aims ag ain st Dr . Swee n ey and Doctor ’s H ospita l. I n respon se, D oct or ’s H ospi tal fil ed an answ er , t ra dit ion al and no- 2 evidence mo tions for sum ma ry judgmen t, an d a m otion to dism iss. In particular, Docto r’s Hos pit al’ s t ra dit ion al summar y j udg ment moti on arg ued that Morole s fail ed to ti mely fil e her h eal th c are l iab il ity

cl aims ag ain st Doctor ’s H ospi tal

. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 74. 251( a)

. Spec ific all y , D oct or ’s H ospi tal con te n d e d t h a t: ( 1) M orole s fai led to
c om pl y w i th t he tw o- y ea r

st at ut e of li mi ta ti on s per i od g ov er ni ng hea l th c are l i ab i l i ty c l ai ms b y f ili ng su itmore tha n three y ears a fter t he tr ig g er ing ev ent—the a ll eg ed i nfecti on3

occ ur ri ng duri ng the Jul y 8, 2004 surg er

y , see id. ; and (2 ) the open cour ts prov is ion of the Tex as Con sti tuti on did n o t tol l the s tatut e of li mita ti ons in thi s c ase becau se Mo ro les dis cov ered th e i nfecti on w it hin two y ears o f the tr ig g er ing ev ent ( ten mont hs pr ior to the
ex pirati on of the li mita ti ons per iod ) and becau se Mo ro les w ait ed more than tw enty -t hree months from the a ll eg ed di sc ov er y of the i nfecti on to fil e s uit

. See T EX
. C ON ST
. art. 1, § 13. Mo ro les re spond ed by arg uin g that the tw o- y ear sta tute of li mita ti ons beg an to r un at t he ti me she di sc ov ered th e infecti on—S eptember 14, 2005. She further arg ued t hat Doctor’s Hos pit al canno t hol d her , a lay person w it hout medic al train ing , t o a h ig her sta ndard tha n doctors in dis cov er ing hidden d amag e and los s. M orole s c ontende d tha t, beca use th e tw o-y ear stat ute o f lim itation s b egan to run on Sep tem ber 14, 2 005 , her suit agains t D octo r ’ s H os pi ta l o n Au g us t 17 , 20 07 , fi l ed l es s t ha n two y ea rs a fte r a l legedly dis cov er ing the infect ion , w as ti mely

. Mo ro les su ppor ted h er arg uments w it h c it ati ons to
cas e law int er preti ng the open cour ts prov is ion of the Tex as Con sti tuti on. Se e Kallam v. Boyd , 232 S.W .3d 7 74, 7 75- 76 ( Tex . 200 7) ( per cu ri am); see als o Nels on v . Kr usen , 678 S.W .2d 9 18, 9 20- 24 ( Tex . 198 4) ; W alters v. Clevelan d Reg’ l Med. Ctr. , 264 S.W .3d 1 54, 157 -59 (Te x . App .–Hou ston [1st Dist.] 20 07, pet. g rante d). The tr ial co urt g ra nted Doctor ’s H ospi tal ’s tradi ti onal summar y jud g ment moti on on May19, 2008 , not ing that “Defend ant ’s First Am end ed Motio n for Sum ma ry Judgme nt is g ra nted for the Pl ain ti ff ’s failu re to file her lawsui t ag ain st the Defendant w it hin the tw o ( 2) y ear st atute of li mita ti ons . . . .” Shor tl y thereafter , Morole s f il ed a moti on to recons ide r the tr ial cour t’ s g ra nti ng of D oct or ’s Hos pit al’ s summar y jud g ment moti on. In thi s mo tion, Moroles reasse rted the argume nts made in her respo nse to Doctor’s Hospital’s sum ma ry jud g ment moti on and further arg ued t hat t he open co urts prov is ion o f the Tex as Con sti tuti on to ll ed the li mita ti ons per iod becau se her inj ur y w as not d is cov erabl e w hen t he Jul y 8, 2004 s urg er

y w as condu cte d and, by us ing the Jul y

8, 2004 s urg er

y date for li mita ti ons pur poses , the t ri al cour t end orsed “a remedy

by due course of law

co nti ng ent
on an impos si bil ity ” (i .e., co ncl udi ng thatsh e s houl d hav e fil ed suitbefore the i nfecti on w as4

dis cov ered)

. See i

d. After a hear ing , the tr ial cour t deni ed Mo ro les ’s moti on to recons ide r on J une 3, 2009. After a s ev erance order

w as entered, t his appeal ens ued. II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW A ND A PPLI C A B LE L AW A
. Mo ti on t o Rec on sid er T he sta nda rd of

rev iew for a mo tion to reconside r a prior summ aryjudgmen t is
w hether the t ri al cour

t abu sed it s d is creti on. See Macy v. W aste Mgm t., In c. , 294 S.W .3d 638, 651 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 9, no pet. ); see als o Shan ley v. F ir st Hor izon Hom e Loan Cor

p. , N os. 14- 07- 01023- CV , 14- 08- 00060- CV , 2009 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 9 301,
a t * 6 (T e x. Ap p .– Ho u st o n [1 4 th Dist .] De c. 8, 20 0 9 , n o p e th

. ) (m e m . o p .) . Atri a l ju d ge abuse s h is di sc re ti on onl y w hen he makes a deci si on that is unreason abl e or arbi trar y , or
w it hout reference to any gui din g rul es or

pr inc ipl es. See Down er v. Aqua m arine Op erato rs, Inc. , 701 S.W .2d 238 , 241 -42 (Te x . 198 5). B. Summary

Judgment for Defendant Based on Limitations W e rev iew

a tria l co urt’ s g ra nti ng of a tradi ti onal moti on for summar y j udg ment under a de nov o sta ndard of rev iew

. See Cr editwatch, Inc. v. Ja ck

son , 157 S.W .3d 8 14, 8 1 6 n. 7 (T e x. 20 0 5 ) (ci ti n g Schn eider Nat’ l Car ri er s, Inc . v . Ba tes , 1 4 7 S

. W

. 3d 264, 290 n.137 (Tex . 200 4) ); see a lso Alaniz v. Hoyt , 105 S.W .3d 3 30, 3 45 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Christi 2003 , no pe t. ). T o prevail on a sum ma ry judgmen t mo tion, a mo v ing party must est abl is h tha t no g enui ne i ss ue of m ater ial factex is ts and j udg ment s houl d be g ra nted as
a matter of law

. Sha h v. Moss , 67 S.W .3d 8 36, 8 42 (T ex. 2001 ). In deciding w het her the re is a g enui ne i ss ue of mater ial fact, w e resol v e any d o ubt a g ain st the mov ant, v iew the evidence in a light mo st favorable to the non -movant, and take as true ev iden ce favorable to t he non- mov ant. Id. ; see Am . Toba cco Co. v. Grinne ll , 9 5 1 S

. W

. 2 d 4 2 0 , 4 2 5 (T e x. 1 9 9 7 ) (ci ti n g Ni

xon v. Mr

. Pr op. M gm t. Co. , 690 S.W .2d 5 46, 5 48- 49 ( Tex . 198 5) ). The st atute of li mita ti ons is an aff ir mati v e defense. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 94; see a lso W oods v. W

illiamM. Mercer, Inc. , 769 S. W .2d 5 15, 5 17 ( Tex . 198 8)

. A defendant mov ing for sum ma ry

judgmen t on a sta tute of limitation s a f

f irmative defense mustconclusively5

prov e the elements of

the defense. Shah , 67 S.W .3d a t 842 ; see Ga rz a v. Exel Lo gistics, Inc. , 161 S.W .3d 4 73, 4 75 n. 10 ( Tex . 200 5) ( “[A] d efendant mov ing for s ummary j udg ment
o n a n a f f ir m a t ive d e fe n s e m u s tp ro ve e a c h e le m e n to f it s d e fe n s e a s a m a t t e r o f la w, lea v ing no i ss ues of materi al fact.” ). Thus , t he defendant must (1 ) conc lus iv ely prov e w hen the c ause of acti on ac cr ued, and (2 ) neg ate the dis cov er y r ule , i f it appl ies and has been ple aded or

othe rw is e rais ed, b y

prov ing as a matter

of law that there is no g enui ne i ss ue of m a t e ri a l f a c t abo ut w hen the pla intif f discovered, or in the e x ercise of reason able dil ig ence should hav e di sc ov ered, t he nat ure of her i nju ry
. KPMG Pe at Marw ick v. Har ri so n C o u n ty Hou s. Fi

n. C or p. , 988 S.W .2d 7 46, 7 48 ( Tex . 199 9) ; see Mon tes v. Vi ll ar re al , 281 S.W .3d 5 52, 5 55 ( Tex . Ap p.–El Pas o 2008, pet. fil ed)

. If the mov ant esta blishes th at the st atu te of lim itation s bars the action , the non -movant m ust th en a ddu ce
sum ma ry

judgmen t evi den ce raising a fact issue in avoidance o f t he sta tute of

limitation s. See KPMG Pea t Marwick , 988 S.W .2d a t 748 ; W alker v. Harris , 924 S.W .2d 3 75, 3 77 (Tex . 199 6) ; see als o Cit y o f Houston v

. Clea r Cr

eek Basi n Aut h. , 589 S. W .2 d 67 1 , 678 (Tex . 197 9) ( hol din g thatw hen a mov ant e sta bli shes a r ig ht t o s u m m a ry j udg ment, the burden shi fts to the non- mov ant to rai se a factiss ue precl udi ng j udg ment) ; Zale Corp. v. Ros enbaum , 520 S.W .2d 8 89, 8 91 ( Tex . 197 5)

. C. The Law in Question Sect ion 74 .25 1(a) of

the civi l practice an d rem edie s code provi des a s follows: [N ]o he alt h c are l iab il ity cl aim may be commenc ed unl ess the act ion i s fil ed with in t wo y ears from the occ ur re nce of the breach or tor t or from t he dat e the medi cal or

heal th c are tre a tm e n t th a t i s t he s ubj ectof the c lai m or the hospi tal iz ati on for w hic h the cl aim is made i s c omplet ed; p ro v ide d tha t, min ors und er the a ge of 12 years shall have until their 14t h birthd ay in w hich to f ile, or h ave f iled on the ir be half , the cla im. Ex ceptas herein provi ded this s e c t io n a p p li e s t o a ll p e rs o n s r e ga rd le s s o f m in o ri t y o r o t h e r l e ga l d is a b il it y. T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN . § 74.251( a)

. III
. A N AL Y S IS A
. The Date Triggering the Running of t he Statute of Limitations By her f irst is sue, Moroles argues thatsumm aryjudgmen t is preclude d be cause t h e re is a fa c tq u e s t io n re ga rd in g t h e d a t e t ri gge ri n g t h e li m it a t io n s p e ri o d

. Sp e c if ic a ll y,6

Mo ro les c o n tends tha t: ( 1) the infect ion w as not a sc ertai nabl e unt il sh e recei v ed th e
re sul ts of the fung al cul ture on September 14, 2005; (2 ) she re cei v ed ong oin g treatment,
w hic h tol led the li mita ti ons per iod ; an d ( 3 ) th e disc ov er y r ule tol led the li mita ti ons per iod becau se the i nfecti on w as u n d iscov erabl e unt il Sept ember 14, 2005. D oct or ’s H ospi tal asserts th at: (1) Moroles w as required to file suit w ithin tw o y ears from the asce rtaina ble dat e of the alleged neglig ence , July 8, 200 4; and (2) neith er section 74.2 51(a ) of the civi l pract ic e and re medies co de nor Tex as cas e l aw

hav e prov ide d tha t t he two- y ear l imi tati ons per iod may

be t oll ed. See id

. 1. The Gov erning Limitations Pe riod The tw o- y ear

l imi tati ons per iod i mposed by se cti on 74. 251 of the ci v il pract ic e and
re medies co de i s meas ured from o ne of t hree dates : (1 ) the o cc ur re nce of the breach or tor t; (2 ) the d ate t hat t he rele v ant c ourse of treatment w as compl eted; or (3) the las t dat e of the rele v ant h ospi tal iz ati on. Id. ; see Shah , 67 S.W .3d a t 842 -4 3; Kim ball v. Broth ers , 741 S. W .2d 370, 372 (Tex

. 1987)

. A medic al malpract ic e cl aimant may not choos e from among the measurement t hat mos t fav ors h er ca se. Shah , 67 S.W .3d at 841. If the da te of the breach or

tor t i s a sc ertai nabl e, l imi tati ons beg an to r un on that date, a n d i nq uir ies int o the se cond and t hird c ateg or ies are notnec ess ar y
. See S hah , 67 S.W .3d a t 841 (ci ti n g Ear

le v. Rat li ff , 998 S.W .2d 8 82, 8 86 ( Tex . 199 9) ). 2. Whet her

t he Dat e o f th e A lleg ed Neg lig ence is A scert ain abl e First, w e mu st det ermin e wh e t h e r t he d ate of the alleged neglig ence is
asc ertai nabl e. See S hah , 67 S.W .3d a t 841 ; s e e a l s o Wi n s to n v . Pe ter ek , 132 S.W .3d 204, 207 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2004, pet. denied)

. If the de fendant c ommitt ed the a ll eg ed to rton a n as cer tai nabl e dat e, w hether the pla int iff establ is hed a course of treatment is i mmater ial bec ause li mita ti ons beg ins to ru n on the a sc ertai nabl e dat e. See Husain v. Kh atib , 964 S.W .2d 9 18, 9 19 ( Tex . 199 8) ; see al so Shah , 67 S.W .3d a t 841

. If the d ate t he heal th care prov ide r’ s all eg ed neg li g ence took pl ace can be as cer

tai ned, then there are no doubts to re sol v e, an d w e must measure limi tati ons from thatdate

. Husain , 964 S. W .2d a t 919

.I n he r dep osi t i on t est i m ony , M or ol es t est i f i ed t hat , excep t f or hert r i al at t or ney , no one el se ha d 3 in f o r m e d h e r th a t s h e a c q u ir e d th e f u n g a l in f e c tio n f r o m th e J u ly 8 , 2 0 0 4 p r o c e d u r e c o n d u c te d a t D o c to r ’s H o s p i ta l

. H o w e v e r, th i s te s ti m o n y i s b e l i e d b y h e r o w n p l e a d i n g s a n d th e a ff i d a v i t o f W i l l i a m R . M a rti n , M .D ., w h ic h w a s a tt a c h e d to h e r r e s p o n s e to o n e o fD o c to r ’s H o s p i t a l’s m o tio n s f o r s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t. In h is a ff id a v it, D r . M a r tin a c c u s e s S w e e n e y a n d D o c to r ’s H o s p ita l o fn e g lig e n c e in f a ilin g to m a in ta in a s te r ile s u r g ic a l f ie ld f o r t h e J u ly 8 , 2 0 0 4 s u r g e r y a n d t h a t th e c a u s e o fM o r o le s ’s a s p e r g illu s in f e c tio n w a s th e J u ly 8 , 2 0 0 4 s u r g e r y. 7 Mo ro les co ntends thatthe preci se date of the al leg ed neg li g e n ce i s n ot ascerta inab le. W e disagree. Here, th e da te of Dr. Sw een ey's and , in turn, Docto r's Hospita l's alleged neglig ence is read ily a scertain able

. Dr. Sweeney operat ed o n Moroles’s knee on J uly

8, 2004. D ur ing thi s s urg er y , pin s w ere ins erted in Mo ro les ’s kn ee. Later , on Sep tem ber 14, 200 5, l ab tests rev eale d tha t the pins i nserte d in Moroles’s kne e w ere
cov ered w it h f u n gi, a n d Morole s fil ed s uitag ain st Doctor ’s H ospi tal on A ug ust17, 2007. Mo ro les offered depo si ti on te sti mony thatit w as her

beli ef that she acq uired th e i nfecti on during the Ju ly

8, 200 4 surgery

b ecau se her knee n ever f used a f ter the su rg eryas a result of the i nfecti on. 3 Beca u se t h e dat e i n w hic h the al leg ed neg li g ence occ ur re d i s a sc ertai nabl e, an d beca use Morole s did notf ile suit until mo re t h a n t h re e years af ter tha t dat e, Moroles’s neg li g ence cl aim is bar re d. See Cham ber s v. Con away, 883 S.W .2d 156, 159 ( Tex . 199 3) (holdin g tha t w hen a claim accrue s is a question of law , notone of fact); Mor

eno v . Ster li ng Drug, Inc. , 787 S.W .2d 3 48, 3 51 ( Tex . 199 0) ( noti ng that , for pur poses of the a ppl ic ati on of li mita ti ons sta tutes , a caus e of acti on g enerall y acc ru es w hen the w ro ng ful acteffect s
an inj ur y , re g ardle ss of w hen the pla int iff l ear ned of the inj ur y ); Mi ll s v . Pa te , 225 S.W .3d 277, 285 (Tex

. App.–E l Paso 2006, no pet .) ; see also Rodrigu ez v. Mem ’ l Med. Ctr. , N o. 13- 06- 162- CV , 200 7 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 9 159, at * 7 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti Nov . 20, 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t

. ) ( me m. o p
. ) ( c o n c l u d i n g t h a tt h e d a t e o f t h e s u rg e r y w h e n a s p o n g e w a s l e ft in pla int iff’s b ody

w as asc ertai nabl e, an d appel lan t’ s sui t w as ti me-ba rred bec ause itw as filed approx imat ely

tw enty -s ev en month s a fter t he s urg er y ); Str eich v . Pa ll ar es , No. 13- 02- 698- CV , 2005 T ex . App. LEX IS 5224, a t * *5- 6 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti Ju ly 7, 2005, no pet.) ( mem. op.) ( hol din g thatappel lan t’ s medi cal l iab il ity cl aim w as ti me-ba rred ev en thoug h appell ant w as unaw are of the al leg ed mal pract ic e unt il two months after i t oc cur re dM o r o le s ’s a r g u m e n t th a t s h e r e c e iv e d o n g o in g tr e a tm e n t w h ic h to lle d th e lim ita tio n s p e r i o d is 4 i m m a te ria l b e c a u s e th e e x a c t d a te o f th e a l l e g e d to rt i s a s c e rta i n a b l e
. Shah v. Moss , 67 S. W

. 3d 8 36, 841 (T e x . 2 0 0 1 ); s e e a ls o E a rle v . R a tliff , 99 8 S

. W

. 2d 88 2, 88 6 (T ex
. 19 99 ). Fur t her , wi t h r espect t o M or ol es’ s ar gum ent t hat t he d i scov ery ru l e ap pl i es, she does not ci t e an y aut hor i t y t hat speci f i c al l y h ol ds tha t t he r ul e ap pl i es i n a si t uat i on su ch as t hi s, nordoe s she show why Mo r r is on v. C han i s n o t c o n tro l l i n g p re c e d e n t. See 699 S. W

. 2d 2 05, 208 ( T ex. 198 5) ( “ W e ho l d t hat t he Legi sl at ur e’ s i nt ent i n passi ng Art

. 459 0i , § 10. 01 [ t he p r edecesso r t o sect i on 7 4. 251 oft he ci v i l pr act i ce an d re m e d i e s c o d e ], w a s to a b o l i s h th e d i s c o v e ry ru l e i n c a s e s g o v e r n e d b y th e M e d i c a l L i a b i l i ty A c t.”). W e c o n c l u d e th a t M o ro l e s ’ s d i s c o v e ry ru l e a rg u m e n t h a s b e e n w a i v e d d u e to i n a d e q u a te b rie fin g
. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 3 8 .1 (i). W e n o te a ls o th a t M o ro l e s d i d n o t ra i s e th e d i s c o v e ry ru l e a rg u m e n t i n h e r re s p o n s e to D o c to r’s H o s p ita l’s tra d i ti o n a l m o ti o n fo r s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 166a( c) ( “ I ssues n ot expr essl y pr esent ed t o t he t r i al cour t by w r i t t en m ot i on, answer or ot herr esponse shal l not be consi der ed o n ap pe al as grou nd s for r eve rsa l

. ”) ; see also Tet er v. C om m ’

n f or Lawyer D isci pline , 261 S. W

. 3d 7 96, 798

- 99 ( T ex. App. –D al l as 20 08, no pet

. ) ( ci t i ng M c C o n n e ll v . S o u th s i d e In d e p . S c h . D is t. , 858 S. W

. 2d 3 37, 341 , 343 (T ex
. 19 93 ); C i t

y of H oust on v. C l ear

C reek Basi

n Auth. , 589 S. W

. 2d 671, 677 ( T ex. 1979) )

. W hi l e M or ol es d id a r g u e in h e r m o tio n f o r r e c o n s id e r a tio n th a t th e “ o p e n c o u r ts r e q u ir e s th e d is c o v e r y r u le ,” w e in te r p r e t t h is co nt en t i on t o pe r t ai n t o t he o pe n co ur t s pr ov i si on o ft he Texa s C on st i t ut i on , wh i ch we d i sc us s be l ow
. 8 and did notf ile suit until mo re than tw ent y -eights mon ths after the alleged ma lpractice). 4 Base d on the fore goi n g, we co n clu d e th a t Do ct o r’s Ho sp it a l co n clu sive ly es ta b lis hed that the s tatut e of li mita ti ons bars M orole s’ s a cti on and is enti tl ed to j udg ment as a matter of law

. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166a( c) ; see a lso KPMG Pea t Marwick , 988 S.W .2d a t 748

. B. The Open Courts Prov ision of the Texas Constitution In her sec ond is sue, Mo ro les arg ues that the open cour ts prov is ion of t h e T ex as Con sti tuti on to ll s t he l imi tati ons per iod i n a h eal th c are l iab il ity cl aim so lon g as a c lai mant
ex erc i s es d ue d i l i g en c e i n br i ng i ng s ui t w i th i n a rea s on ab l e ti me aft er d i s c ov er i ng h er

c l ai m. Moroles again argues tha t she ha s receiv ed o ngoing treatm entregarding the knee injury from doctors a t D oct or ’s H ospi tal ; th e re fo re , t he dat e of the or ig ina l surg er y i s n ot
conc lus iv e for pur poses of calc ula ti ng the li mita ti ons per iod

. Doctor ’s H ospi tal co ntends that the o pen c our

ts prov is ion does not tol l the l imi tati ons per iod i f a cl aimantdi sc ov ers t he inj ur y w it hin the appl ic abl e two- y ear l imi tati ons per iod

. Doctor ’s H ospi tal al so ass erts that Mo ro les di d notex erci se due di li g ence in br ing ing su itw it hin a reason abl e ti me after dis cov er ing the infect ion

. 1. A pp licab le L aw T he T exas Constitut ion guaran tee s thatperson s bringing comm on-law cl aim s w ill not u nreason abl y

or ar bit ra ri ly be deni ed acc ess to the c our ts. T EX
. C ON ST
. art. I, § 13 (“ All
cour ts shal l be open , and ev er y person for an inj ur

y done him, in his lan ds, g oods, person9

or reputat ion , s hal l hav e remedy bydue course of law .” ); see Shah , 67 S.W .3d a t 841 (ci ti n g Earle , 998 S.W .2d a t 889 ; Je nni ngs , 917 S.W .2 d a t 7 9 3 ). The Shah cour t not ed tha t “a statu te th at un reaso nab ly o r arb itrarily

a bridges a person ’s ri ght to obt ain redre ss for i nju ri es another

perso n’s harmful act c auses i s a n unc onst it uti onal due- course- of-l aw
v iolation .” Shah , 6 7 S. W .3 d at 8 4 2 (cit in g Earle , 998 S.W .2d a t 889 ; Jenni ngs , 917 S.W .2d at 79 3)

. Thus, the o pen c our ts prov is ion of

the Tex as Con sti tuti on protects a person from le gi s lative acts that trun cate a person ’s ri ght to sue b efore the re is a reaso nab le oppor tuni ty to dis cov er

the w ro ng and subs eq uentl y br ing su it

. Id. (cit in g Nea glev. Nels on , 685 S. W .2d 1 1, 12 (Tex . 1985))

. Mo re ov er , “the Legi sl ature c annot abrog ate t he r ig ht t o br ing a w ell -e sta bli shed common- law cl aim w it hout show in g t h a t the s tatut e’s obj ect iv es and purpo ses ou tw eigh den y ing the const itution ally guarant eed rig ht of redress.” Id. ( ci ti ng W ein er v. Wasson , 900 S.W .2d 3 16, 3 18 ( Tex . 199 5) ; Sax v. Vottele r , 648 S.W .2d 6 61, 665 -66 (Te x . 198 3)). H o w e v e r , u n l i k e t h e d i s c o v e r y r u l e , w h i c h a d e fe n d a n t mu s t n e g a t e o n c e t h e p l a i n t i ff has p lead ed it, a p laintif f asserting thatthe op en co urts provisi on d efeat s lim itation s bea rs the b urden of rais ing a facti ss ue. Yan cy v. Un ited Surgica l Pa rtners Int’ l, Inc. , 236 S.W .3d 7 7 8 , 7 8 2 (T e x. 20 0 7 ) (ci ti n g Br own v. Shor

es , 77 S.W .3d 8 84, 8 88- 89 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [14th Dis t.] 2002, no pet.) ( Br is ter , C .J. , c oncur ri ng ))

. The Yan cy co urt s tated the follo w ing
w it h respect t o the open cour ts prov is ion and the t oll ing of the l imi tati ons per iod : Inste ad, Y ancy’s cl aim is b a s e d on the ope n cou rts g uara nte e, w hich is premis ed on the n oti on th at “th e Legi sl ature has no pow er to make a remedy by due course of law

co n ti n gent on an impos si ble co ndi ti on.” Morrison v. Cha n , 699 S.W .2d 2 05, 2 07 ( Tex

. 1985)

. This g uarantee differs from tol li ng pro visi ons. U nli ke the d is cov er y r ule , w hic h defers ac cr ual of a c ause of a c t io n u n t il t h e p la in t if

f kn e w o r, e xe rc is in g reas o n a b le d il ig e n c e , sh o u ld h a ve know n of the facts g iv ing ri se to t he c lai m, HE CI Ex plo ra ti on C o. v . Neel , 982 S.W .2d 8 81, 8 86 (Tex . 1997), the open cour ts prov is ion merely

g iv es li ti g ants a reas onabl e time to disc ov er their inju ri es and fil e s uit , Hal l v. Dow C or

nin g Co. , 114 F .3d 7 3, 77 ( 5th C ir . 1997) (a ppl y ing Tex as law ). Beca use the open cour ts guar antee does not tol

l li m it ati ons, cour

ts m ust deter

m inewhat const itute s a reaso nab le tim e for a claim ant to discove r her injuries and file suit

. Hall , 114 F .3d a t 77. 236 S. W .3d a t 784 ( conc lud ing that a pla int iff’s h eal th c are l iab il ity cl aims w ere ti me-ba rred
w hen s he found outabouther co ndi ti on on Ma y

3, 2000, and retai ned a lawy er —on or10

abo ut Dece mb er 10, 2 001 —w ell w ithin th e limitat ions pe riod , ye td id not f ile suit against the rele v ant h eal th c are prov ide r unti l September 2, 2003) ( emphasis a d d e d ). I f the pla int iff fail s t o br ing the cl aim w it hin a re asona ble time, then there w il l be no v iol ati on of the o pen c our

ts prov is ion

. Id. at 785. This r ule i s in plac e to prev ent c lai ms from ex is ti ng i n d e fi n i t e l y
. Se e R anki n v . Methodi

st Hea lt hcar e Sy s. of S an Antoni

o, Ltd. , 261 S.W .3d 93, 103 (Tex. App. –Sa n Ant onio 200 8, pe t. granted ). 2. Discus sion “To e sta bli sh a r ig ht t o redress under the open c our

ts prov is ion , a li ti g ant mus t s how (1 ) that [s] he has a c og niz abl e c ommon-l aw ca use of act ion , and ( 2) thatrest ri cti on of the claim is unre ason able or arbitrary w hen balan ced a gainst the statu te’s pu rpose .” Di az , 941 S.W .2d a t 100. Onc e the pl ain ti ff es tabl is hes a pr ima facie v iol ati on, s he mus t s how sh e used due di li g ence in br ing ing the s u itw it hin a reason abl e ti me after lea rn ing aboutthe all eg ed w ro ng
. See Pech v. Est ate o f T avar ez , 112 S.W .3d 282, 28 5 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, no p et.) ( ci ti ng Shah , 6 7 S .W .3d a t 847 ; Nel son , 678 S.W .2d a t 921 -2 2; D e R uy v
. G a r za , 995 S.W .2d 748, 75 2 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o 1999, no p et.) ); see a lso Shah , 67 S.W .3d at 847 ( “A pl ain ti ff may not obtai n reli ef under

the open c our

ts prov is ion if he d oes not u se due dil ig ence and sue w it hin a re asona ble ti me after lea rn ing aboutthe all eg ed w ro ng .” ). “ The re asona ble time is g iv en in order to all ow a c lai mant t o i nv est ig ate, p re p are[, ] and f ile suit af ter discovering her injury.” Pech , 1 1 2 S

. W

. 3 d a t2 8 5

- 8 6 ( ci ti ng Gagni er v. Wichel

haus , 17 S.W .3d 7 39, 7 45 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 0, pe t. deni ed) ; DeR uy, 995 S.W .2d at 752 ). There is no c lea r author ity as to wha t a “ re asona ble ti me” is w it hin w hic h to file a heal th c are l iab il ity

cl aim after dis cov er ing an inj ur y , espec ial ly

w hen t he s uiti s fil ed out si de the l imi tati ons per iod

. See G agnier , 17 S.W .3d a t 745

. “W hether a pla int iff has us ed th e deg re e of di li g ence re q uired i s o rd ina ri ly a q uest ion of factto be det er mined by the tr ier of fact; h owev er, it may be ‘dete rmine d as a ma tter of law w hen the ev iden ce con strued most favorably

for the claim ant , adm its no oth er conclusio n.’” Pech , 112 S.W .3d at 286 ( q uoti ng Neag le , 6 8 5 S. W .2 d at14 (Ki lga rlin , J ., co n cu rrin g) an d cit in g DeR uy, 995 S. W .2d a t 752

-11

53). Several Te x as cou rts have add ressed this precise issue, y et no court ha s def initiv ely det ermin ed how mu ch elap sed time constitut es a “reason able time. ” Com par e Gagnie r

, 17 S. W .3d at 745 (holding thata t en mo nth d elay in f iling suit w as no t per se un reaso nab le
w hen defendant s d ela y ed i n prov idi ng pl ain ti ff w it h medi cal records and pl ain ti ff w as
re cov er ing , c onsul ti ng w it h an attor ney , and i nv est ig ating her cl aim) , and D eRu y, 995 S.W .2d at 753 ( h o lding that ap proximate ly a one -y ear de lay in f iling suit w as no t per se
unre ason able when plaint if f was recu pera ting fo r three m ont hs, con sulted an att orne y six months l ater , and fil ed s uitthree month s l ater ), with Shah , 6 7 S

. W .3 d at84 7 (ho ld in g a
s e v e n t e e n - mo n t h d e l a y i n fi l ing s u i tw a s u n re a s o n a b l e a s a m a t t e r o f l a w w h e n p l a i n t i ff offered no ex pla nati on for the d ela y ), and Hall , 114 F.3d at 77 (a ppl y ing T ex as law to find a fifteen- month de lay

i n br ing ing su it unreason abl e under the open cour ts prov is ion ), and Erickson v. Heim -Hall , 1 7 2 S

. W. 3 d 6 6 4 , 6 6 6 ( T e x
. A p p
. – S a n A n t o n i o 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t

. ) ( “ We hol d tha t t he nineteen[- ]month del ay betw een t he October 2001 dis cov er

y of the mis dia g nosi s a nd the fil ing of the u nder ly ing l aw sui t i n M ay of 2003 w as unreason abl e as
a ma tter of

law .”), and

Pech , 112 S.W .3d a t 287 ( conc lud ing thata four teen- month de lay in f iling suit after discovery of the injury w as un reaso nab le), and Voegtl in v. Per ry m an , 977 S.W .2d 806 , 813 (Tex. App. –Fort W orth 19 98, no pe t.) (conclud ing that a de la y of more than one y ear w as unreason abl e w hen pla int iff offered no ex pla nati on for the d ela y ), and Fiore v. HCA Health Servs. of Tex., Inc. , 915 S.W .2d 233, 237 (Tex

. App.–F ort W orth 1996, w ri t den ied ) (h old ing thata thir teen- month de lay

i n br ing ing su itw as ex ces si v e as
a m a tter o f law

w hen pl ain ti ff

offered no ex pla nati on for the d ela y ), and LaGe sse v. Prim aCare, Inc. , 899 S.W .2d 43, 47 (Tex . App.–Eas tl and 1995, w ri t den ied ) (c oncl udi ng that a tw elv e- month de lay w as ex ces si v e as a matter of law w here the onl y

reason s for

the del ay w ere the resul t of the tr ial att or ney ’s acti ons) , and W or k v . D uval , 809 S.W .2d 3 51, 353- 54 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th Di st. ] 199 1, no w ri t) ( hol din g thatan i nju ry di sc ov ered four m ont hs prior to the ex piration of the two-y ear limita tions p eriod irre le va n t beca use plaint if f unre ason ably dela y ed in f iling suit for tw ent y -one mo nth s followi ng the discovery of the i nju ry ).Jul y 8, 200 6, t wo y ear s f r om t he d at e of t he J ul y 8 , 2004 sur ger y , f el l on a Sat ur day ; t her ef or e, 5 M o ro l e s h a d u n ti l th e fo l l o w i n g M o n d a y , J u l y 1 0 , 2 0 0 6 , i n w h i c h to fi l e s u i t. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 4 ( “ T he l ast day of t he p er i od so com put ed i s t o be i ncl uded, unl ess i t i s a Sat ur day , Sundayorl egal hol i day , i n whi ch eve nt t he pe ri od runs un t i l t he en d o f t he ne x t da y w hi c h i s no t a S aturda y , S un da y or l eg al ho l i da y
. ”)

. 12 In th e prese nt case , Dr. Sw een ey f irst operat ed o n M o ro le s’s knee atDoctor’s Hos pit al on J uly

8, 2004, w hic h w e c oncl uded ea rl ier w as the d ate o f the al leg ed to rt iou s condu ct from w hic h the l imi tati ons per iod outl ine d by se cti on 74. 251( a) beg an to r un. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 7 4 .251( a)

. Thus, under the appl ic abl e l imi tati ons period , Moroles shou ld have f iled suit by July 10, 200 6. Moroles alleged to h a ve f ir st 5 d isc o vered th e fung al infect ion on S eptember 14, 2005, w hic h w as w it hin the g ov er nin g li mita ti ons per iod

. How ev er , s he di d notfil e s uitunti l Aug ust17, 2007, more than thi rt een months after

the li mita ti ons per iod ex pired and more than tw enty -t hree month s a fter s he alleged to h ave d iscovered t he infection

. Assum ing, arg uen do, thatMoroles indee d f irst discovered the infection on Septe mb er 14, 2 005 , she ha d ap proximate ly ten m ont hs to f ile suit be fore t h e l im itation s period e x pired on July 10, 20 06. The record doe s not con tain
an ex pla nati on f ro m Mo ro les as to the delay in f il ing suit

. On ap peal , s he arg ues that she del ay ed fil ing su itbec ause she w as re cei v ing ong oin g treatment for th e i nfecti on. How ev er , t his preci se ex pla nati on w as not made to the t ri al cour t. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1( a)

. W e do not fin d M oro le s’ s d ela y i n br ing ing su itto be reason abl e. See Shah , 67 S.W .3d a t 847 ; Hall , 114 F. 3d at77; Er icks on , 172 S.W .3d a t 666 ; Pech , 112 S.W .3d a t 287; Voe gtlin , 977 S.W .2d a t 813 ; Fiore , 915 S.W .2d a t 237 ; LaG esse , 899 S.W .2d a t 47; W ork , 809 S.W .2d a t 353 -5 4. W e the re fore c oncl ude t hat M orole s d id not meether burden in r ais i n g a fa c ti s s u e t h a tt h e o p e n c o u rt s p ro v i s i o n d e fe a t s t h e g o v e r n i n g l i mi t a t i ons sta tute; thus , t he open co urts prov is ion does not save Mo roles ’s cl aim. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74. 251( a) ; see a lso Yan cy, 236 S.W .3d 7 78, 7 82; Pech , 112 S.W .3d a t 287 -8 8. Beca use w e hav e hel d that Doctor ’s Hos pit al w as enti tl ed to s ummary j udg ment on limitat ions an d the o pen co urts provisi on of t he T exas Con stitutio n did no t save M oroles’s13

cl a i ms , w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u rt c o r re c t l y g ra n t e d s u mm a r y j u d g me n t a n d d id not abuse i ts dis creti on i s d eny ing M oro le s’s m oti on for re cons ide ra ti on. See D owner , 701 S.W .2d a t 241 -4 2; Macy , 294 S.W .3d a t 651 ; see als o Shan ley, 2009 Te x. Ap p . L EXIS 9301, at * 6. Acc ordin g ly , w e ov er ru le both of Morole s’ s i ss ues on appe al. IV. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Del iv ered and filed the 18th day of Febr uar

y , 201 0.