Opinion ID: 2831496
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 51.014(a)(10) permits an appeal from an interlocutory order granting relief sought by a motion to dismiss an HCLC for failure to file an expert report. Generally, the court of appeals’ judgment is final on interlocutory appeals. See TEX . GOV ’T CODE § 22.225(b)(3). However, we have jurisdiction if the justices of the court of appeals disagree 3 on a question of law material to the decision, or if a court of appeals holds differently from a prior decision of another court of appeals or this Court. Id. § 22.225(c). Ross asserts that this Court has jurisdiction because the court of appeals’ opinion in this case conflicts with Good Shepherd Medical Center-Linden, Inc. v. Twilley, 422 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013, pet. denied). In that case, Bobby Twilley, the director of plant operations for a medical center, asserted premises liability claims against his employer after he fell from a ladder and also tripped over a mound of hardened cement. Id. at 783. The medical center moved for dismissal under the TMLA because Twilley failed to file an expert report. Id. at 783-84. The trial court denied the motion and the medical center appealed, arguing that even though Twilley’s claims were unrelated to the provision of health care, under Williams they still fell within the ambit of the TMLA. The court of appeals interpreted Williams as holding that a safety standards-based claim need not be directly related to the provision of health care to be an HCLC. Id. at 789. The court stated, however, that it did not understand Williams to hold that a safety standards claim falls under the TMLA when the claim is completely untethered from health care. Id. The appeals court concluded that at least an indirect relationship between the claim and health care is required and, because Twilley’s claims did not have such a relationship, an expert report was not required. Id. at 785. In this case the court of appeals held that under Williams “a connection between the act or omission and health care is unnecessary for purposes of determining whether Ross brings an HCLC.” Ross, ___ S.W.3d at ___. The hospital asserts that the decision of the court of appeals and Twilley do not conflict. But, for purposes of our jurisdiction, one court holds differently from another when 4 there is inconsistency in their decisions that should be clarified to remove unnecessary uncertainty in the law. TEX . GOV ’T CODE § 22.001(e). As other courts of appeals have noted, Ross and Twilley are inconsistent in their interpretations of Williams and the TMLA, leaving uncertainty in the law regarding whether a safety standards-based claim must be related to health care. See, e.g., Weatherford Tex. Hosp. Co. v. Smart, 423 S.W.3d 462, 467-68 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014, pet. filed); DHS Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Castro, 435 S.W.3d 919, 922 & n.3 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.). That being so, we have jurisdiction and move to the hospital’s waiver claim.