NO. 07-06 -007 3-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL C MA Y17, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ DENNIS BRYAN, APPEL LANT

V. KU RT J . SH ER IC K, M .D ., APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 24 2 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF S W IS HE R CO UNT Y; ND NO . B1 0509- 03- 10; H ON ORABLE ED SELF , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. OPIN ION Appel lan t, Denn is Br

y an, a ppeal s from the g ra nti ng of a no- ev ide nce moti on for summar y j udg ment i n fav or

of appel lee , Ku rtSher ic k, M. D. By one is sue, Bry an c ontends tha t sum ma ry

judgmen t w as imp rope r becau se the re w as mo re tha n a scintilla of ev iden ce on t he i s s ue o f c au s at i on o f Br y an ’ s i nj ur i es . W e affi r m.2 Back ground This is a m edi cal mal pract ic e l awsui t w herein Br y an c lai ms t hat S her ic k’ s fai lure to prop erly advise him regarding treatm entfor a high pressure hydraulic pun cture injury to his f inger resulte d in the amp uta tion o f the f inger. Bry an was in ju re d wh il e working on farm eq uip ment nea r Tuli a, Tex as. U pon s ust ain ing the inj ur y , he w as tak en to Sw is her C ounty Me m o ri a l H o s p it a l a n d s u b s e qu e n t ly d ir e c t e d t o s e e S h e ri c ka tt h e T u li a Ru ra l C li n icn e xt door

. The par

ti es dis ag re e about w hat w as sai d at the cl ini c, how ev er , t hat d is ag re ement is not g er mane to thi s a ppeal

. Howev er , Sh er ic k e x amined Br y an’ s i nju ry

br iefly i n the hal lway of the c li nic

. The par

ti es ag re e tha t, follo wing the meet ing w it h Sher ic k, Br y an returne d ho me and app lied he at to his han d. L ate r th at day, B ry an’s han d began t o sw ell and beca me more painf ul so h e s o ught ad dition al me dical treat me nt ata hosp ital in Am a r i l l o . A s a re s u l t o f t h e p u n c t u re i n j u r y , B r y a n e v e n t u a l l y h a d t o h a v e t he fing er par ti all y amputat ed. Br

y an’ s c ontent ion is that the failu re of S her ic k to proper ly ex amine, diagnose , and treat his injury resulte d in the amp uta tion to his fin ger. Af ter a prop e r amo untof time for discovery , She rick filed a mot ion for sum ma ry judgme nt claim ing Bry an c ould produ ce no ev iden ce of causa tion b etween Sh erick’s all eg ed acts of neg li g ence and the damages suffered byBry an. Br y an f il ed a res ponse . The tr ial co urt g ra nted the n o- ev ide nce moti on for summar y j udg ment on the g ro und t hat there w as no ev ide nce from a q ual ified w it ness that any breach of t he sta ndard of care by Sher ic k prox imat ely caus ed the par ti al amputati on of Bry an’ s fin g er . Br y an fil ed a moti on for new tr ial thatw as ov er ru led by operati on of l aw , and thi s a ppeal foll ow ed.3 St and ard o f Rev iew An o -e vid e n c e su m m a ry j u d gm e n tis e s s e n t ia ll y a p re t ri a l d ir e c t e d ve rd ic t , a n d we appl y the same l eg al suffici ency standard in rev iew ing a no -e v ide nce summar y j udg ment tha t w e ap ply in rev iew ing a directed verdict. See Aguirre v . S. Tex. Bloo d & T issue Ctr, 2 S. W .3d 4 54, 4 56 ( Tex .App. –San A ntoni o 1999, pet. deni ed) ; R oth v . F FP Operati ng Par tners, L.P. , 994 S.W .2d 1 90, 1 95 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo 1999, pet. deni ed)

. W hen re v iew ing a no- ev ide nce summar y judg ment, w e must determi ne w hether the non- mov ant produce d any

ev ide nce of probati v e forc e to ra is e a facti ss ue on the e lementch all eng ed by the movant. See Roth , 994 S .W .2d a t 195

. I n decid ing w het her the re is a ma terial fact is sue precl udi ng summar y jud g ment, ev ide nce fav orabl e to the non- mov ant w il l be ta ken as true. M ont gome ry

v . Ken ned y , 669 S.W .2d 309 , 311 (Tex. 1984 ). Ev eryreason able inference from the ev ide nce must be indul g ed in fav or of the non- mov ant and anydoubt s re sol v ed i n hi s fav or . Id. A n o- ev ide nce su m m a ry judg ment i s i mprop er ly g ra nted if the non- mov ant present s more than a sc int il la of probati v e ev ide nce to rais e a g enui ne i ss ue of materi al fact as to the elementon w hic h the m oti on is based

. Rot h, 99 4 S. W .2d a t 195

. More tha n a scintilla of

ev iden ce is foun d w hen the evidence is enough to allow reason able and fair-mind ed p eop le to dif fer in their conclu sions. Forbe s, Inc. v. Granada Bioscience s, Inc ., 124 S. W .3d 1 67, 1 72 ( Tex . 200 3)

. A nal ysis In t his m edi cal m alp ra cti ce cas e, Bry an must prov e: ( 1) a du ty req uir ing Sher ic k t o confor m to a ce rt ain st andard of cond uct ; ( 2) the app lic a b le s tandard of care and it s4

breach; ( 3) resul ti ng i nju ry ; and ( 4) a caus al conne cti on betw een the a ll eg ed breach of the sta ndard of care and the a ll eg ed i nju ry . Bl an v . Al i, 7 S.W .3d 7 41, 7 44 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [14 Dist.] 1 9 99, no w rit). T o me et th ese requirem ent s, Bry an was required to p rodu ce th ex per t t est imony

to est abl is h the caus al conne cti on betw een the inj ur y Br y an s uffered and She rick’s alleged brea ch of the app licable sta nda rd of care. Am. Tran sitiona l Care Ctrs. of Tex ., Inc . v . Pa lac ios , 46 S.W .3d 8 7 3 , 876 ( Tex . 200 1)

. To prov ide ev ide nce of the caus al conne cti on req uired i n a medi cal mal pract ic e c ase, the ex per t w it n e ss m u st be q ual ified by

kn ow led g e, s ki ll , ex per ien ce, train ing , or educ ati on to tes ti fy about the exam in a ti o n, di ag nosi s, and t re atment of Bry an’ s fin g er , how thatacti on fell bel ow

the sta ndard of care, an d how thi s b re ach caus ed th e i nju ry co mplai ned of. See T EX . R. E V ID . 702. Bry an su bm itted the de positio n test imo ny of Ronald Jacob y , M.D., to supp ort his all eg ati on of i nju ry

resul ti ng from Sh er ic k’ s b re ach of the sta ndard of c are. Jac oby i s a n emerg ency

room physi ci an, b ut hi s c ur ri cul um v it ae i ndi cat es no s peci fic s urg ic al train ing nor does he h av e any

ex per ien ce in treat ing hi g h press ure i nje cti on i nju ri es. J acoby opin ed th at th e failure of Sherick to imm ed ia tely refer Bry an to a surgeon proximate ly cause d the amp uta tion of the f inger. Jacoby testif ied th at de lay in treatin g a high pressure inj ect ion i nju ry

ca n l ead to the compl ic ati ons of necrosi s and gang re ne of the affect ed area and thatthis is w hatha p p e n e d in Bry an’s situa tion. How ever, upon dep osition crossex aminat ion , J acoby

tes ti fied th at he co uld not say that Bry an w oul d nothav e req uired an eq ual amount of amputati on ev en i f he had be en immedi atel y re ferred to a s urg eon. The tr ial co urt r ule d that there w as no ev ide nce from a q ual ified w it ness that anybreac h of the5

sta ndard of care by

Sher ic k p ro x imat ely

caused the a mputati on s uffered by Br y an. Hav ing re v iewed th e s ummary j udg ment ev ide nce, w e ag re e w it h the tr ial co u rtthatthere i s n o evidence f ro m a qualif ied expert tha t any breach of the sta nda rd of

care by She rick prox imat ely

ca used the a mputati on s uffered by Br y an. Pal aci os, 46 S .W .3d a t 876

. Conclusion T he jud gmen t of

the trial co urt grant ing Sh erick’s no -ev iden ce mo tion for sum ma ry jud g ment i s a ff ir med. Mackey K. Hancock Justice