N o ap pel l ees' br i efhas been f i l ed t o assi st us i n t he r esol ut i on o ft hi s case. Accor di ngl y , we de ci de 1 t hi s app eal base d on t he b r i eff i l ed b y app el l ant s and t he r ecor d be f or e us. 

### NUM BER 13-08- 0032 0-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
FRESENI US M EDICA L CA RE OF BROWNSVI LLE A ND FR ESEN IUS M EDIC A L CA RE, N.A ., A pp ellan ts,
v. M AR T I N I AN O G AR C I A A ND RA QUE L GA RC IA , A pp el lees.

On ap pe al f rom th e 1 03rd D istrict Co urt of C amero n Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , R o d rig u ez , a n d G arza M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice Ya ñe z Appel lan ts, F re seni us Me dic a l Ca re of Brow nsv il le and F re seni us Me dic al Care, N.A., ap pea l from the trial court's de nial of their mo tion to dismiss a suit f iled by appellee s, Martiniano Garcia and Raquel Garcia. B y o ne issue, app ellant s challen ge the trial court's den ial of their mo tion to dism iss alleging tha t app ellees' causes of action w ere he alth ca re li abi li ty cl aims and that appel lee s did not file the req uired ex per t repor t. W e r ev erse and 1
re mand. I. B A CKGRO UNDSee T EX
. C IV
. P RAC

. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 7 4.35 1 (V ern on S up p. 20 09 ). 2 S e e id

. § 5 1.01 4(a )( 9) (V ern on 20 08 ). 3 2 On J une 26, 2007, appel lee s fil ed th eir or ig ina l peti ti on al leg ing thatM arti nia no had been inj ur ed w hil e r ecei v ing di aly si s t re atment on appe ll ants ' pr emis es. Ap pel lee s c lai med tha t "clinic p e rs o nne l droppe d [Martinian o] to the f loor w hile mo v ing him f rom h is wh e e lc h a ir , " t h u s ca u s in g h is in ju ry. On March 17 , 200 8, ap pellan ts f iled a m otion to dism iss appe lle e s' suit for failure to f ile a n ex per

t repor t as r eq uired by

se cti on 74. 351 of the Tex as Ci v il Pract ic es and Remedi es Cod e. Ap pel lee s f il ed a re spons e asser ti ng that no ex per

t repor t w as re q uired 2 becau se thei r caus es of acti on w er e nothealth care lia bil it y cl aims

. Appel lee s a rg ued t hat t h e " ma t t e r i n v o l v e d a d e v i a t i o n fro m a s t a n d a r d o f o r d i n a r y c a r e " a n d t h a t " a s tatut espec ificr eq uirement of an ex per t repor t [ w as] i nappos it e." The tr ial co urt hea rd and cons ide re d appel lan ts' moti on to dis mis s on Ma y 7, 20 08. After conc lud ing that appel lee s' sui t w as not a heal th care li abi li ty cl aim but merely an
or din ar y negl ig ence cas e, the tri al cour t denied appel lan ts' moti on to di smi ss
. Appel lan ts the n f iled this interlocu tory app eal pursuan t to section 51.01 4(a)(9) of the T exa s Ci v il Pr act ic es and R emedie s C ode. 3 II. H E A LT H C A R E L I A B I LI TY C L AI M By thei r sol e i ss ue, a ppel lan ts cont end that the tr ial cour t abuse d i ts dis cr eti on by den y ing their motio n to dismiss beca use th e ap pellee s' causes o f action w ere he alth ca re liability claims requiring an expert re p o rt

. S p ecif ically , app ellant s argue: (1) app ellees' cl aims of "neg li g ent p ati ent t ra nsfer ar e bas ed on pati ent medi cal ca re or bas ed on pati ent safety di re ctl y r ela ted t o medi cal care, and thus ar e 'hea lt h c ar e l iab il it y cl aims ' g ov er ned by C h. 74 "; ( 2) appel lee s' cl aims w il l re q uire an ex per t repor t; and ( 3) appel lee s' cl aims do not i nv olv e g ener al neg li g ence. A
. St and ard o f Rev iew W e r ev iew

a t ri al cour

t' s denia l of a moti on to di smi ss under an a buse of dis cr eti onAm

. Transi t i onal C are Ct r

s. of Tex. , I nc. v. Pal aci os , 4 6 S .W .3 d 8 7 3 , 8 7 5 (T e x . 2 0 0 1 ); C hr ist us 4 Spohn Heal t h Sys. C or p. v. Sanchez , 29 9 S

. W

. 3d 86 8, 87 6 (T e x . A p p.–C orp us C hri s t i 20 09 , pe t

. de ni ed ); K e n d r ic kv . G a rc ia , 17 1 S

. W

. 3d 69 8, 70 3 (T ex
. A pp
. –E as t l an d 2 00 5, pe t

. de ni ed ). Kendr i ck , 171 S

. W

. 3d at 703 ( ci t i ng D ow ner v. Aquam ar

ine O per

at or s, I nc. , 701 S. W

. 2d 2 38, 241

- 42 5 (T ex
. 19 85 ))

.

Tesoro v. Al varez , 2 8 1 S .W .3 d 6 5 4 , 6 5 6 (T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t.); Lee v. Boot he , 6 23 5 S

. W

. 3d 44 8, 45 1 (T ex
. A pp
. –D al l as 20 05 , no pe t

. ). T EX
. C IV
. P RAC

. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 7 4.35 1(a ). 7 I d. § 74. 001( a) ( 13) (Ver non 2005) (d ef i ni ng a " heal t h car e l i abi l i t y cl ai m " as a cau se of act i on a gai nst 8

" a he al t h car e pr ov i der or phy si ci an f or t r eat m ent , l ack of t r eat m ent or ot her cl ai m ed d epar t ur e f r om accep t ed st andar ds of m edi cal car e, or heal t h car e, or saf et y or pr of essi onal or adm i ni st r at i v e ser v i ces di r ect l y r el at ed t o h e a l t h c a r e , wh i c h p r o x i m a t e l y r e s u l t s i n i n j u r y t o o r d e a t h o f a c l a i m a n t , wh e t h e r t h e c l a i m a n t ' s c l ai m or c au s e o f ac t i on so un ds i n t ort or co ntr ac t " ).

Vall ey Baptist

Med. C t r
. v. Az ua , 19 8 S

. W

. 3d 81 0, 81 4 (T ex
. A pp
. –C orp us C hri s t i 20 06 , no pe t

. ). 9
I d. 10
D iv e r s ic a re G e n . P a rtn e r

, I n c . v . R u b io , 18 5 S

. W

. 3d 84 2, 85 1 (T ex
. 20 05 ). 11 3 sta ndard. A tr ial co urt abu ses its di sc re ti on w hen i t ac ts w it hout re ferenc e to any g uid ing 4
ru les or pr inc ipl es or

ac ts in an ar bit ra ry

or unr eason a b le m a n n e r. W hether a c ause of 5 act ion i s a heal th c ar e l iab il it y cl aim is a q uest ion of law w e r ev iew

de n ov o. 6 B. A pp licab le L aw In a heal th c ar e l iab il it y cl aim, a c lai mant shal l, not lat er than the 120th day af ter the d ate t he origi nal pet ition w as f iled, serve on each party or the p arty's atto rney one or mo re expert reports, w ith a curriculum v itae o f each ex pert li ste d i n the r epor

t for each phy si ci an or

heal th c ar e prov ide r ag ain st w hom a l iab il it y cl aim is as ser

ted.[ ] 7 A c ause of acti on i s a heal th c ar e li abi li ty cl aim and subj ect to the ex per t repor t req uirement if i t i s a g ain st a "heal th c ar e prov ide r or phy si ci an" and is bas ed on "tr eatme nt, lac k o f tr eatment or

othe r cl aimed depar

tur e from ac cept ed standards of medic al care, or heal th
care, or sa fetyor

professi onal or admini strati v e serv ic es direct ly rel ated to hea lt h c ar e." 8 A c ause of acti on al leg es a depar tur e from ac cept ed s tandards of safety i f the c omplai nedof act or om ission is an insep arab le part of the ren dition of

med ical serv ices. 9 W hen det er mini ng w hether a c ause of act ion is a health car e lia bil it y cl aim, w e l ook to t he unde rl y ing natu re of the c lai m and no t t he lab els used by the cl aimant s. A par ty 10
canno t av oid the re q uirements of secti on 74. 351 t hr oug h ar tful pl eadi ng i f the es senc e of th e s ui t i s a h ea l th c ar e l i ab i l i ty c l ai m. 11In th e i r re s p o n s e to a p p e l l a n ts ' m o ti o n to d i s m i s s , a p p e l l e e s c o n c e d e d th a t a p p e l l a n ts a re h e a l th 12 c a re p ro v i d e rs
. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC

. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 7 4.00 1(a )( 13 ).

Az ua , 198 S. W

. 3d a t 814

. 13
I d. 14
I d. 15
I d. 16
I d. ( ci t i ng D i v ers i c are , 18 5 S

. W

. 3d at 84 8). 17 4 C. Discuss ion T he issue in this case is w het her ap pell e e s ' ca uses o f action w ere he alth ca re liability claims. The refore, w e mu st examine t he und erly ing na ture of a ppe llees' claims. 12 13 In th eir orig inal pe tition, app ellees sta ted the followi ng fa cts: 8. On or ab out July 1 9, 200 7, [Martinian o] ent ered upo n [th e ap pellan ts'] prem ises for the p urpo se of med ical care. He ente red o n t he sa id prop erty . . . to engage in the act of und ergoing dialy sis. 9. Dur ing the ti me that[M arti nia no] w as upon .
. . [the] pr oper ty , [he] w as seriously i njured as a r e s ult of a dan gerous cond ition in tha t clinic perso nne l droppe d him to the f lo o r while moving him f rom h is w hee lchair. App ellees claim ed th at ap pellan ts w ere l iable fo r Martiniano 's injury beca use a ppe llants' "ag ents , s er

v ants , and empl oy ees neg li g entl y permit ted pers onnel to handl e pat ien ts in a careless m ann er." Furthe rmore , app ellant s and any of th eir "agent s, w ho were acting in the scope of

their em ploymen t, w ere guilty of neglig ent cond uct to w ard [a p pellee s] in
carele ss ly

and re ck les sl y

droppi ng [M arti nia no]." In Val ley Baptis t Medical

Center v. Az ua , this Court con clude d tha t a plaint if f 's cause
o f ac t i o n w a s 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 u n d e r

s i m i l a r fa c t s
. I n t h a tc a s e , t h e p l a i n t i ff

14
ass erted t hat w hil e being as si ste d i nto a w heel chai r by the defendant' s e mploy ee, t he
em ployee f ailed to block the w hee ls of the w hee lchair, causin g the plaint if f to fa ll and injure herse lf

. On app eal, th e plain tif f did not disp u t e t h a t s h e wa s a patie nt at the clinic 15
re cei v ing di aly si s t re atment. W e c o n cluded that the p lai nti ff 's cl aim w as "cl ear ly an 16 ins epar abl e par

t of the re ndi ti on of medi cal se rv ic es. " 17 Here, ap pel lee s a ll eg ed i n thei r peti ti on that, w hil e Ma rt ini ano w as a pat ien t s eeki ngIn th e ir b r ie f , a p p e lla n ts a s s e r t t h a t M a r tin ia n o f e ll w h e n th e n u r s e s w e r e a s s is tin g h im f r o m h is 18 wheel chai r t o t he di al y si s chai r dur i ng hi s t r eat m ent

. Appel l ees h av e no t cont r adi ct ed t he f act s as st at ed b y a p p e l l a n ts

. T h e re fo re , w e "a c c e p t a s tru e " th e fa c ts s ta te d i n a p p e l l a n ts ' b rie f. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 38

. 1(f).

See Az ua ,1 9 8 S .W .3 d a t 8 1 4 ; s e e a l s o O u tp a ti e n t C tr. f o r In te rv e n ti o n a l

P a in M g m t., P .A . v . G a rza , 19 N o s . 1 3 -0 7 -0 0 4 1 1 -C V & 1 3 -0 7 -0 0 7 6 2 -C V , 2 0 0 8 T e x . A p p . L E X IS 4 8 0 1 , a t *9 -1 0 (T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti J u n e 2 6 , 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t. ) ( m e m
. o p .) ( c o n c lu d in g t h a t p la in tif f 's c la im t h a t h o s p ita l p e r s o n n e l f a ile d to p r o p e r ly l oc k an d s ec ure t he w he el c ha i r wh en t ran s po rt i ng he r from h er w he el c ha i r w as a h ea l t h c are l i ab i l i t y cl ai m ); D e v e re a u x v . H a rris C o u n ty H o s p . D is t. , N o. 01- 05- 00706

- C V, 200 7 T ex. App. LEX I S 2224 at * 13 ( T ex. App. –H oust on [ 1st D i st

. ] M ar
. 22, 200 7, no pet

. ) ( m em
. op. ) ( hol di ng t hat pl ai nt i f f ' s cl ai m f or i nj ur i es when she w a s n o t p ro p e rly a s s i s te d i n to w h e e l c h a i r w a s a h e a l th c a re l i a b i l i ty c l a i m ); W i l s on v. A us t in N urs ing C t r. , N o. 03- 00- 00 8 0 0

- CV, 2 0 0 2 Tex

. Ap p
. L EXI S 6 8 8 6 , a t * 1 9 ( Tex

. Ap p
. – Au s t i n Se p t

. 2 6 , 2 0 0 2 , p e t

. d e n i e d) ( not desi gnat ed f or pub l i cat i on) (d et er m i ni ng t hat t he pl ai nt i f f ' s pr esence i n t he whee l chai r whi l e at a m edi cal cent er w as an i ns ep ara bl e p art of t he he al t h c are se rvi c es provi de d b y t he m ed i c al ce nter).

See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC

. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 7 4.35 1(b ). 20 See Pal aci os , 4 6 S .W .3 d a t 8 7 5 ; Sanchez , 2 9 9 S .W .3 d a t 8 7 6 ; Kendr i ck , 171 S. W

. 3d a t 703

. 21 See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC

. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 7 4.35 1(b ). 22 5 dialysis treat me nt f rom a ppe llants, a n e mp loyee neglig ent ly assisted him f rom h is
w hee lchair causing him to fa ll

. T he a ctiv ity of transf erring pat ients f rom a w hee lchair 18
w hile receiving treatm ent is an insepa rable pa rt of the ren dition of

med ical servi c es. 19 T here fore, ap pellee s' causes o f action are hea lth care liability claims. Beca use a ppe llees' law suit is a hea lth care liability claim an d ap pellee s failed to f ile
an ex per t repor t, upon ap pel lan ts' moti on to dismi ss , t he tr ial co urt w as sta tutor il y r eq uired to dism iss appe llees' law suit w ith prejud ice. The refore, we conclude that the trial court 20 abu sed its discretion b y den y ing appe llants' m otion to dism iss and sust ain ap pellan ts' sole issue on app eal. 21 III
. C ONCL US I ON W e r ev erse the tr ial co urt' s o rd er deny ing appel lan ts' moti on to di smi ss and re mand to t he tr ial co urt t o (1) dismi ss appell ees' law sui t aga ins t appell ants w it h pr eju dic e, an d ( 2)
aw ar d r eason abl e att or ney 's fees and cos ts of c our t to ap pel lan ts, as r eq uired by st atute

. 22

LINDA REYNA Y

AÑEZ, J u s t i c e Del iv er ed and filed the 6th d ay of Ma y , 201 0.