### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-03-00236- CV

M ir iamHoe lsc he r , A ppe lla nt

v. San A nge lo C om m unit y M e dic al C e nt e r ; K e lli Eve r e tt , R .N .; St e ve Re ye s, CV T; and Joh n/Jan e Doe , Appellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY , 391ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-02- 0344 -C, H ONO RAB LE THO MAS J. GO SSETT, JUDGE PRESI DING

D I S S E N T I N GO P I N I O N
B e c a us e Ibe lie ve that th e e xpe r t w i t n e ss r e po rt

wa s a g oo d- fa ithe ff

or t to c omp ly

wi th the statute, I respe ctfully

dissent. The supre me cour t in Palacios outlined what constitutes a g oodfaith ef fort to provide the se nec essar y elements of the expert’s repor t. Am e ric an Tra ns iti on al C ar e C t r s . v. P a l a ci os , 46 S.W .3d 873, 879-80 (Te x . 2001). A re port filed in g ood faith must provide enoug h information on these elements to f ulfill two purposes: (1) it must inform the def en d an t of the s pecif ic conduct the pl aintiff attacks, and (2) it must provide a basis for the trial court to conc lude that the claims have merit. Id
. at 879. The report need not marshal all of the plaintiff’ s proof, but it must include the expert’s opinion on eac h of the statutory elements. Id
. “ W h i l e a

‘ f a i r s u m m ar y’ is something less than a full statement of the applicable s tandar d of care a nd how it was bre ache d,2

ev en a fa ir summary

must set out what car e wa s expected, but not g iven.” Id
. a t 8 8 0
. The re port must “put the defe ndant or the tria l court on not i ce o f t he conduc t complained of” reg ardingthe requisite ele ments. Id
. A re po rt that omits or is co nc lus or y re g ard ingon e of

the ne c e ssa

ry e le me nts is not a g ood-fa ith effor

t. Id . at 879. The dispute in this c ause is not whethe r Hoe lscher ha s a torn rotator cuff , but whether appellee s cause d the i njury by brea ching the standar d of ca re. The dispute in this appeal is whether H o e l s c h e r ’ s e x p e rtm a d e a g o o d
- f a i t h e f f o rt t o e x p l a i n h o w a

p p e l l e e s ar e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i n j u r y. A lt h o u gh F r u mi n ’ s r e p o r

ts c o uld be more de tailed, neither the statute nor the c ase- law require s an exhaustive repor t. The statute expressly

require s onl y t h at the re port be a go od -f ait h
e ffo rt to provide a fai r su mm ar y of the expert’s opinions reg ardingthe standar d of ca re, its bre ach, and ca usation of any

injury . Section 13.01( l), (r )( 6) . T he su pr e me c ourt

he ld that th e re po rt

in Pa lac ios was de ficient be cause the expert failed to r elate the injurious event—a hospital patient’s fall fr om bed despite re straints—to a single failing or the brea ch of a particula r standard of ca

re; that t h e ex pert fa iled to state whethe r the standa rd of c are require d closer supe rvision, more sec ure restra int, or something else entirely
. 46 S.W .3d at 880. By contra st, the repor ts in thi s case focus on a sing le incident and sing le ca use. Ibe lie ve tha

t th e str a ig htf

or wa rd natur e of

thi s c a se re qu ir e s a

dif fe re nt r e su lt. Fr umin’s r eport focuse s on the transfe r of Hoelsche r betwee n the gurney and the p ro ce d u re table. He art ic ulate s a

sim ple sta ndard of c are ba se d o n h is e xpe ri e nc e : w hate ve r m e tho d a pp e lla nts us e to transfe r a patient, transfe rs must b e per formed in a manner that does not harm the patient’s extremiti es or other

body parts. He opines that Hoelsche r’s injury indicates a

ppellees br eac hed that3

responsibility

by failing to use proper mecha nics and lifting techniques. A lthough F rumin was not in the proce dure room and did not treat H oelsche r at the hospital, he supports his opinion reg arding
c a us a tio n w ithre po rt s f

ile d b y do c tor s w ho tr e a te d, ob se rv e d, and te ste d Hoe lsc he r at

the ho sp ita l. He c oncludes that the tra

nsfer cause d the injury

beca use she did not have shoulde r pain be fore the proce dure, suf

fer ed pain dur ing the t ra n s fe r, and after war d had pain a

nd a torn rotator cuff

. The nature of the a lleg ations makes cle ar the role of th e i n d ividual appellee s in this claim. Frumin’s repor ts plainly informed a

ppellees that Hoelsche r wa s attackingtheir manne r o f t ra n s fer ring her betwee n the g urney and the proce dure table, and provided the trial court a basis to conclude that the
c la ims have me ri t.

Be cause , in my

opinion, the district court abused its discre t i on by concluding oth e rw ise , I

re sp e c tf ull y dis se nt.

Mack K idd, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces K idd and Pury ear Filed: De cembe r 2, 2004