1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 8 - 2 2 2 - CV
J AM E S AR E NE T TR OUGH L E Y AP P E L L ANT V . TEX A S TEC H U N I V ERSI TY A PPELL EE H EA LTH SC I EN C ES C EN TER

----- ----- -- FR O M CO UN TY CO URT AT LAW NO . 2 OF W I CH I TA CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1 Thi s i s an app ea l f r om a di sm i ss al f orf ai l ur e t o f i l e a n e xpe rtr epo rti n a me d i c a l n e g l i g e n c e c a s e . We a f f i r m. A ppel l antJam es A r enet tRo ug h l ey i s i ncar cer at ed. H e sued appel l ee T e x a s T e c h U n i v e r s i t yH e a l t h S c i e n c e sC e n t e r( “ T T U H S C ” ) i n 2 0 0 6 , a l l e g i ng th a t a p h y sici a n ’s a s s is t a n t em p l o y e d b yT T U H S C fai l e d to p rov i d e ad e q u a te m edi cal t r eat m entofRo ugh l ey’ s chr oni c der m at i t i s, w hi ch R oug hl ey cl ai m s w as2 ... S eeTex. Ci v. Pr ac . & Rem . Code Ann. 74. 351 ( a) ( V er non Sup p.

2 0 0 8 ).

3 ... See, e. g. , Shelton v. Sar gen t, 1 4 4 S .W .3 d 1 1 3 , 1 2 0 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W ort h 200 4, pe t . de ni ed) ( not i ng t hatpl ai nt i f fm ay r el y on resi ps a l oquitur in m e d ic a l m a lp r a c t ic e c a s e w h e r e “ t h e n a t u r e o ft h e a lle g e d m a lp r a c t ic e is p la in ly w i t hi n t he com m on k now l edg e o fl aym en, m ak i ng e xpe rtt es t i m ony u n n e c e s s a ry ” ).

4 ... See Am . Transiti ona l Care Ctr

s. of Tex. , I

nc. v. Pal

aci os , 46 S . W . 3d 8 7 3 , 8 7 7

– 7 8 (T e x . 2 0 0 1 ). 2 aggr avat ed by exp osur e t o cl eani ng sol ut i ons. R o u g h l ey speci f i cal l y cl ai m ed t hatt he T TU H S C em pl oyee pr escr i bed i nef f ect i ve m edi cat i on, f ai l ed t o r ef er Roughl ey t o a de r m a to l ogi st , an d f ai l ed t o m edi ca l l y r es t r i ctRoughl ey f r om w o rk i n g w i th c e rta i n c l e a n i n g s o l u ti o n s . In F e b ru a ry2 0 0 8 , T T U H S C fi l e d a m o ti o n to d i s m i s s b a s e d o n R o u g h l e y ’s f a ilu r e t o t im e lys e r v e a n e x p e rt r e p o rt a s r e q u ir e d b y s e c t io n 7 4 .3 5 1 o ft h e c iv il pr act i ce and r em edi es code. 2Rou ghl e y a rg u ed i n r esponse t hatt he causal con nec t i on bet w ee n hi s i nj ur i es and che m i ca l exp os ur e i s w i t hi n t he com m on know l edge of t he aver age l ay per son and, t her ef or e, he di d not need t o f i l e an e x p e rtrep o rt . 3The t r i al courtgr ant ed t he m ot i on t o di sm i ss, and t hi s appeal fo l l o w e d . W e r evi ew a di st r i ctco urt ’ s r ul i ng on a m ot i on t o di sm i ssunde rs ec t i on 74. 351 f oran ab us e o fdi sc r et i on. 4A t r ia l c o u rt a b u s e s it s d is c r e t io n w h e n it ac t s i n a n a r bi t r ary orunr ea so nab l e m ann erorw i t houtr ef er enc e t o a ny g ui di ng5 ... S ee D owner v. A quam ar

i ne Operators, I

nc. , 701 S . W . 2d 238, 241– 42 (T e x . 1 9 8 5 ).

6 ... See i

d. a t242. 7 ... S eeT e x . C i v . P ra c . & R e m . C o d e A n n . § 7 4 .3 5 1 (a ). 8 ... See i

d. § 7 4 .3 5 1 (r)(6 ). 3 r ul es orpr i nci pl es. 5 A t r i al court does not abuse i t s di scr et i on si m pl y because i t m a yd e c i d e a m a tter w i th i n i ts d i sc reti o n d i fferen tl ytha n an ap p e l l a te c o u rt . 6 C hap t er74 oft he Texa s C i vi l Pr ac t i ce an d Rem edi esCode gov er ns t he adj udi cat i on of heal t h car e l i abi l i t y cl ai m s i n T exas. Sect i on 7 4. 35 1( a) r equi r es p la in t if f s w h o b r in g h e a lt h c a r e lia b ilit y c la im s t o s u b m ita n e x p e rtre p o rtw it h in 1 2 0 d a y s o f f i l i n g su i t. 7 A n expertr eporti s def i ned as “a w r i t t en r eportby an exp ertt hatpr ovi desa f ai rs um m ary oft he exp ert ’ s opi ni ons. . . r ega r di ng appl i cabl e st andar ds ofcar e, t he m anner i n w hi ch t he car e r ender ed . . . f ai l ed t o m ee tt he st and ar ds , an d t he ca us al r el at i ons hi p bet w ee n t hat f ai l ur e a nd t he i n j u ry , h a rm , o r d a m a g e s c l a i m e d .” 8 I n hi s f i r sti s s ue, Roughl ey ar gue s t hathe s houl d beex cus ed f r om t he
r equi r em entt hathe f i l e an expert re p o rtbecause, he cont ends, t he causal con nec t i on be t w ee n hi s i nj ur i esan d TTU H SC ’ s al l ege d neg l i gen ce i s w i t hi n t he com m on kno w l edge of t he l ay per son. W e di sagr ee.9 ... See Shelton , 144 S. W . 3d a t120. 10 ... See, e. g. , Rui

zv. W al green Co. , 79 S. W . 3d 2 3 5 , 2 3 9

– 40 ( Tex. A pp. — H oust on [ 14 t h D i st . ] 20 02 , no pet . ) ( hol di ng exp e rt te st i m ony n eeded i n case w her e pl ai nt i f f al l eged phar m aci st subst i t ut ed di f f er entm edi cat i on t han w aspr es cr i bed ; ca us al co nne ct i on be t w ee n a l l ege d ne gl i gen ce an d i nj ur y no t w i th i n c o m m o n k n o w l e d g e o f l a yp e rs o n ). 4 G e n e ra l l y , th e i s s u e s o f m e d i c a l n e g l i g e n c e a n d c a u s a ti o n re q u i re e x p e rt t es t i m ony. 9W it h re g a r d t o R o u g h le y ’s c la im t h a tT T U H S C f a ile d t o re f e rh im to a d e rm a to l o g i s t o r to p re s c ri b e p ro p e r m e d i c a ti o n , s u c h m a tte rs c l e a rl ya re n o twi t h i n t h e c o mmo n k n o wl e d g e o ft h e l a yp e r s o n. 10 The ave r agepe r so n does not pr escr i be m edi cat i on or m ake m edi cal r ef er r al s oft he t ype R oug hl ey cl ai m s. R o u g h le y ’s “ c o m m o n k n o w le d g e ” a r g u m e n tis p r im a r ilyf o c u s e d o n h is c o n ten ti o n tha t T T U H S C n e g l i g e n tl yfai l e d to m e d i c a l l yres tr i c t h i s e x p o su re to ce rt ai n c l ea ni ng s ol ut i ons . Roughl ey not est hatt he pac ka gi ng f ort he so l ut i ons con t ai ned w ar ni ng l abe l s, w hi ch w oul d a l erta l ay per so n t o t he dan g e rs in v o lv e d in u s in g t h o s e c h e m ic a ls . T h e re le v a n ti n q u i r y , h o w e v e r , in t h is
m edi ca l ne gl i gen ce ca sei s notw het hera l ay pe rs o n w o u l d kn ow t hatt he cl eani ng sol ut i ons contai n dang er ous chem i cal s. Th e r el evanti nqu i r y i s w het her it w a s m e d ic a lly n e c e s s a r y t o o r d e r a p e r s o n w it h a c e rt a in t y p e o f s k in11 ... See Shelton , 14 4 S . W . 3d at12 1 ( st at i ng t hatr el evant i nqu i r y i n case

w her e p l ai nt i f fba se s m edi ca l ne gl i gen cecl ai m on “ su sp i ci ouss i te s ” on m am m ogr am i s “ w h e th ert he pr ope rpe r f or m anc e o fca nce r - di agn os i ng p ro c e d u re s i s w i th i n th e c o m m o n k n o w l e d g e o f a l a y p e rs o n ” ).

12 ... See i

d. (“ M edi ca l de ci si onsab outpe r f or m i ng a nd i nt er pr et i ng m a m m o g ra m s , so n o g ra m s , b i o p s i e s , a n d o th e r d i a g n o s ti c p ro c e d u re s r e q u i re p ro fe s s i o n a l tra i n i n g a n d a re n o t c o m m o n k n o w l e d g e .” ).

13 ... S ee Garci

a v. Mar i chal ar, 19 8 S . W . 3d 25 0, 25 5– 57 ( Tex . A pp. — S an A n t o n io 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t .) (h o ld in g e x p e r t r e p o rtre q u ir e d w h e n s p o n g e le f tin pat i ent ’ s body ) ; Hector v. Chr i stus Health G ulf

Coast, 175 S. W . 3d 832, 8 3 7

– 3 8 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 2 0 0 5 , p e t. d e n i e d ) (h o l d i n g e x p e rt re p o rt r e q u i r e d w h e n p a ti e n t fe l l fro m o p e ra ti n g ta b l e w h i l e h e a l th c a re p ro v i d e rs w e re ro ta ti n g i t).

14 ... I n bot h Ga rciaan d Hec tor, t he cour t s concl uded t hat t he pl ai nt i f fw as r equi r ed t o t i m el y serve an expert r eport even i ft he causal r el at i onshi p bet w een t he al l ege d ne gl i gen ce an d t he i nj ur y i s w i t hi n t he com m on k now l edg e o ft he l a yp e rs o n . Ga rcia , 1 9 8 S .W .3 d a t 2 5 5

– 5 6 ; Hec tor, 175 S. W . 3d a t837– 38; s e eals o Ha dda d

v. Ma r ro quin , Nos . 13- 07- 00014
- CV , 13- 07- 00109
- CV , 2007 W L2 4 2 9 1 8 3 , a t * 4 (T e x . A p p .— C o rp u s C h ri s ti A u g . 2 9 , 2 0 0 7 , p e t. d e n i e d ). Beca us e w e hol d t hatRoughl ey’ s cl ai m s ar e n otw i t hi n t he com m on k now l edg e oft he aver age l ay per son, w e do not r each t hi s i ssue. 5 cond i t i on t o avoi d cert ai n cl eani ng sol ut i ons. 11 Thi s i s nota m att erw i t hi n t he com m on k now l edg e o ft he l ay per so n. 12 R o u g h l e yw a s , th e re fo re , re q u i re d to p ro v i d e a n e x p e rt re p o rt w i th re g a rd t o t h is c la im . 13 H i s fai l u re to d o so m e a n s th a t th e tr i a l co u rtd i d n o t ab u se i ts di sc r et i on i n di sm i ss i ng hi s ac t i on. 14W e over r ul e Ro ugh l ey’ s f i r sti ssue. In h is s e c o n d is s u e , R o u g h le yc o n t e s t s t h e t r ia l c o u rt ’s d e n ia l o fh is re q u e s ts fo r a te m p o ra ry re s tra i n i n g o rd e r a n d a “ p re l i m i n a r y p ro h i b i to ry15 ... S ee Fox v. W ardy , 234 S. W . 3d 30, 33 ( Te x. App . — El Pa s o 2007, p e t. d i s m ’d w .o .j .); N gyuen v. I

ntertex, I

nc. , 93 S. W .3d 288, 292– 93 ( Tex. A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 2 0 0 2 , n o p e t.).

16 ... S ee Carter

v. Carter, 22 5 S . W . 3d 64 9, 65 1 (T ex. A pp. — El Paso 200 6, no p et . ) ( dec l ar i ng t hat app el l at e cou rt m us t af f i r m t r i al cou rtj udgm ent because, “[ i ] n t he absence ofa r eport er s r ecor d, w e ar e si m pl y unab l e t o r evi ew th e m e ri ts o f A p p e l l a n t[‘]s c o m p l a i n t” ). 6 in ju n c t io n ,” b yw h ic h R o u g h le y s o u g h t r e lie f f r o m w o r k d e t a il in v o lv in g c e rt a in c l e a n i n g s o l u ti o n s , re l i e f fro m a l l e g e d l yn e g l i g e n t m e d i c a l c a re , a n d e x p e rt m edi ca l t r ea t m ent f r om an out si de so ur ce . How eve r , Roughl ey f ai l ed t o i ncl ude i n t he r ec or d a ny p l ea di ngsi n w hi ch he m ades uch r equ es t s oran y do cum ent sh ow i ng t he t ri a l c o u rt’ s r ul i ng on t he r equ es t s. Roughl ey att ac hed s om e p l e a d i n g s o n th i s i s s u e to h i s b ri e f, b u t w e m a y n o t c o n s i d e r m a tte rs th a t a re not part of t he app el l at e r ec or d. 15 B e c a u s e th e re c o rd i s d e v o i d o f a n ym a tte rs show i ng a r equestand a ru li n g , t her e i s not hi ng f orus t o r evi ew , and w e, t her ef or e, over r ul e Ro ugh l ey’ s second i ssue. 16 F o r th e fo re g o i n g re a s o n s , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’sd i s m i s s a l o rd e r.

P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: CA YC E, C. J. ; LI V I N G STO N an d GA RD N ER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: J a nu a r y 22, 2009