i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 00 7- CV J ohn P AL OSI I V, Individually and as Per sonal Repre sentative of the Es tate of

JohnPa los i I I I , & An dr e w Pa los i, Ap pe lla nts
v . Fr ank KRE TSIN G ER , D.O.,

Appellee Fr om the 131st J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CI -07297 Honora ble David A. B erc helmann, Jr., J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: Febr uary 11, 2009 AFF I RMED This is an appea l from a tria l court’s orde r dismissing a medic al malpra ctice action for failure to f ile the statut or ily -m and a te d e xpe rt re po rt and c ur ri c ulum vi ta e . App e lla

nts JohnPa los i I V, I nd ivi du a lly

and a s Pe rs on a l Re pr e se ntativ e of the Es tate of

JohnPa los i I I I , a

nd An dr e w Pa los i r a ise a sing le issue contendingportions of section 74.351 of the Te x as Civil P rac tice & Remedies Code violate their rig hts under the ope n courts provision of the Te x as Constitut ion. We affirm the trial court’s judg ment.04
- 08
- 00 00 7- CV

- 2- B ACKG ROUND J ohn Palosi I I Iwas a

patient of F ra nk Kre tsinge r, D.O. John Palosi I I Idied while under Kr e tsi ng e r’ s c are . O n M ay 14 , 2 00 7, his so ns John Pa los i IV a nd An dr e w Pa los i ( “ the Pa los i brothers” ) filed wrong ful death and survival claims ag ainst Kre tsinge r, alleg in g h i s m edica l
ma lpr a c tic e c a

us e d th e ir fathe r’ s d e a th. B e c a

us e the ir c la im i s a he a lthc are lia

bil ity c la im, the Pa los i brothers were require d to serve Kre tsinge r wit h an ex pert report and the expert’s curr iculum vitae within 120 day s of filing suit. See T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 74.351(a) (Ve rnon 2008). On May 31, 2007, the Palosi brothers’ attorney unexpectedly died. On S eptember 27, 2007, Kre tsinge r filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to se ction 73.351(b) beca use he had not be en ser

ved with the require d expert repor t a nd curr iculum vitae. Se e id
. § 74.351(b). The trial court g rante d the mot ion , d ism iss e d th e su it a g a ins t K re tsi ng er wi th pr e

jud ic e , a nd a wa rd e d K re tsi ng e r r e a so na

ble costs and attorne y ’s fe es. See id. A N A L Y SIS The P alosi brothers argue sections 74.351(a) and (b) violate t heir rights under the Texas open courts provision bec ause those se ction s require d them to serve K retsing er w ith an expert repor t within 120 day s of filing suit and the trial court to dismiss their suit when they failed to c omply

even though the failure was a

result of their attorney ’s unexpected de ath, not b ec au s e t h eir suit was frivolous. They

contend the statute’s lack of a “ Craddock

-ty pe” oppor tunity for a n extension i s an
unrea sonable re striction on their rig ht to redre ss. Whe n re vie wi ng the c on sti tut ion a lity of a statut e un de r a

n o pe n c ourt s c ha lle ng e , w e be g in with the presumption that the statute is constitutional. Sax v. Votteler , 6 4 8 S. W. 2 d 6 6 1 , 6 6 4 ( T e x.04
- 08
- 00 00 7- CV

- 3- 19 83 ); s ee W

a lke r v. Gutierrez , 111 S.W .3d 56, 66 (Tex. 2003). The pa rty challeng ing the
c on sti tut ional it y of

a statut e mus t de mon str a te that it fa ils to m e e t c on sti tut ion a l r e qu ir e me nts . W alker , 111 S.W .3d at 66. Article I , section 13 of the T exas Const itution provides that “[a]ll courts shall be ope n, and
ever y person f or an injury

done him, in his lands, g oods, person or reputation, shall have re medy by due cour se of law .” T EX . C O N ST . ar t . I , § 13. This clause is commonly ref err ed to as the “ Open Courts Provision,” and acts as an additional due proc ess guara ntee g rante d in the Texas Consti tution, prohibiting leg islative bodies from withdrawing all leg al re medies fr om any one have a we ll-defined common law ca

use of a ction. Sax , 648 S.W .2d at 664-65. The open cour t s provision gua rante es “the leg islature may

not abrog ate the r ight to asse rt a we ll-established common law c ause of action unless the re ason for

its action outweig hs the litigants’ c onstitut ional rig ht of redr ess.” Trini ty Rive r Auth. v. URS Consultants, Inc
. , 8 8 9 S
. W
. 2 d 2 5 9 , 2 6 1 (T ex . 1 9 9 4 ) ( qu o t i n g Te x . A ss’n o f B us ine ss, v. Tex. A ir Contr ol Bd. , 8 52 S.W. 2d 44 0, 44 8 ( Te x. 19 93 ))
. Th e re fo re , to e sta bli shan o pe n c ourt s violation in thi s context, t he Palosi brot h er s m u s t show: (1) they have a cog nizable common law
cause of action that is be ing restric ted, and (2) the restric tion is unrea sonable or arbitra ry when balanc ed aga inst the purpose and basis of the statute. Diaz v. W estphal , 9 4 1 S. W. 2 d

9 6 , 1 0 0 ( T e x. 1997). The Palosi brot h er s contend they have e stablished the first ele ment beca use their medic al neg lige nce c laim is a well-re cog nized common law cause of ac tion. W e agree that a suit for medical negli gen ce i s re cognized in common law. See, e .g., Humphrey s v. Roberson , 125 Tex. 558, 83 S.W .2d 311 (1935). How ever , at common law, a persona l injury claim did not survive an injure d pa rt y ’s de a th, no r d id a

de c e a se d’ s h e ir s h ave a

c omm on law c a us e of a c tio n f or the ir ow n los ses.04
- 08
- 00 00 7- CV

- 4- Diaz , 9 41 S.W. 2d

a t 10 0; Kra me r v . Le wis v ill e Me m’ l H os p ., 858 S.W .2d 3 9 7 , 4 0 3 (Tex. 1993). Th e s e a c t i o n s ar e n o w p e r m i t t e d o n l y b y v i rtu e o f th e W r o n g f

u l D e a thA c tan d

th e S ur v i v o r s hip Statute. Diaz , 941 S.W .2d at 101; Kramer , 8 58 S.W. 2d a t 40 3; see T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . §§ 71.002-.004, 71.021 (V er n on 2008). Any medical ne g lige nce c laim that can be broug ht
on ly be c a us e of the e xiste nc e of

the Wro ng fu l D e a th A c t and th e S urv ivo rs hip Statut e is n ot a
common law claim and cannot form the basis of a n open cour

ts challeng e. See D iaz , 941 S.W .2d at 101 (holding that plaintiffs who broug ht wrong ful death a nd survival ac tions, which were based on alleg ed medica l neg lige nce, c ould not maintain open courts cha lleng e bec ause th ei r remedies
wer e confe rre d by

statute, not common law); Baptist Mem ’l Hosp. Sys. v. Arre dondo , 922 S.W .2d 12 0, 12 1- 22 (T e x. 19 96 ) ( pe r c ur iam) (c on c lud ing that wro ng fu l de a th p la int if f c ou ld n ot s a tis fy

fi rs t prongof open c ourts test beca use cla im was purely

statutory , althoug h action was based on medic al
ne g lig e nc e ); Ba la v . M

ax we ll , 909 S.W .2d 889, 893 (Tex. 1995) (holding that beca use plaintiffs had
no common law right t o bring either wrong ful death or survival action, they could not establish open
c ourt s v iol a tio n) ; Ro sev . D oc tor s H os p ., 801 S. W.2 d 8 41 , 8 45 (T e x. 19 90 ) ( ho ldi ngthat be c a us e pla int if fs ’ m e dic a l ne g lig e nc e c la im w a s c omm on law cl a im that wou ld have die d with de c e de nt i f not preser

ved by wrong ful death statute, c laim was conf err ed by statute not by

common law, prec luding ope n courts cha lleng e). As with the plaintiffs in the ca ses cited a bove, the Palosi brother s’ claims are base d on a theory of medica l neg lige nce – that Kretsing er ne g lige ntly presc ribed medic ation contra indic ated f or patients like J ohn Palosi I I I , causing his de ath. The Palosi brothe rs’ claims would not have survive d the de a th o f John Pa los i I I Ibut f or the wr on g fu l death a

nd surv iva l st a tut e s. Ac c or din g ly , th e Pa los i04
- 08
- 00 00 7- CV

- 5- brothers’ reme dies wer e statutorily confe rre d and thus, as a matter of law , the open c ourts doctrine does not apply

to this case. The Palosi brothers a

rgue we should hold sections 74.351(a) a nd (b) unc onstitut ional based on our disposition i n Ra nk in v . M e tho dis t H

e alt hc ar e Sy s. of Sa n A nto nio , Lt

d. , LLP , 261 S.W .3d 93 (Tex. App.–San Antoni o 2008, pet. fil ed). I n Ra nk in , a hy sterec tomy

patient broug ht a medica l neg lige nce c laim ag ainst her surg eons after a sponge was found in he r abdome n. 261 S.W .3d at 95. We held that the statute of re pose, codifie d in section 74.251 of the Te x as Civil P rac tice & Remedies Code, violated t he open c ourts provision of the Texas Constit ution as applied to the plaintiff in that
case . Id . at 99. Howe ver, our h o l d i n g wa s b as ed in part on the fac t that the statute abrog ated the plaintiff’s common law c laim for neg lige nce. Id . at 99. Her e, the Palosi brothers have no c ommon law cla im. Unlike the plaintiff in Ra nk in , w ho did

no t di e and

br ou g ht a me dic a l ne g lig e nc e c la im on her own behalf

, the Palosi brothers’ c laims would have died with their father , but for the e x istence of t he wr ong ful death and survival statutes. Ac cording ly , Rankin is disti ng uishable and doe s not compel the r esult sought by the Palosi brothers.

C ONCL US I ON Desp i t e t h e u n fo rt u n at e c i rc u m s t an ce s , b ec au s e t h e P al o s i b ro th er s ca n n o t , as a m at t er o f law, establish the exist ence of a c og nizable common law ca use of a ction, the open c ourts doctrine doe s not apply to this case. Ac cording ly , we ove rrule the ir issue and a ffirm the tria l court’s judg ment.
Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice