Opinion ID: 895480
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Addressing Theories of Liability

Text: Certified EMS contends that if a claimant’s report does not adequately address each asserted theory, the trial court must dismiss those theories that are unsupported by a report. Thus, if a plaintiff’s allegations include both direct and vicarious liability claims, the report is deficient if it does not cover both. We are not persuaded. Several courts of appeals rely on the statute’s use of the term “cause of action” to decide this issue. When we discussed the phrase in In re Jorden, we noted that it “generally applies to facts, not filings.” Jorden, 249 S.W.3d at 421. We also looked to Black’s Law Dictionary, which “defines ‘cause of action’ as [a] group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another person.” Id. (quoting BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 235 (8th ed. 2004)). From this, several appellate courts have relied on “operative facts” to reach opposing results—either that an expert report must address every pleaded liability theory,9 or that it need not.10 The competing conclusions demonstrate the pitfalls of this approach. The focus on operative facts raises more questions than it answers. Are the “operative facts” underlying alleged liability for failure to train different from the underlying allegations of vicarious liability for medical malpractice? The court of appeals here said no,11 but others would say yes.12 9 See, e.g., MSHC the Waterton, 2012 W L 6218001, at –7. 10 See, e.g., Qi, 370 S.W .3d at 415–16. 11 355 S.W .3d at 690–92. 12 See, e.g., MSHC the Waterton, 2012 W L 6218001, at ; Fung, 365 S.W .3d at 522. 7 Would each of Potts’s direct liability theories against Certified EMS—for failing to train its employees, failing to enforce accepted standards of care, and failing to employ protocols to ensure quality care for patients—require its own expert report, because the facts underlying each allegation may differ? Will, as the cases suggest, the relevant operative facts be disputed in every case, leading to additional time, expense, and interlocutory appeals? We appreciate the courts of appeals’ reasoning, but decline to follow that approach. No provision of the Act requires an expert report to address each alleged liability theory. The Act requires a claimant to file an expert report “[i]n a health care liability claim.” TEX . CIV . PRAC. & REM . CODE § 74.351(a). Once an expert report is timely served and properly challenged, the trial court: shall grant a motion challenging the adequacy of an expert report only if it appears to the court, after hearing, that the report does not represent an objective good faith effort to comply with the definition of an expert report. Id. § 74.351(l); see also Loaisiga v. Cerda, 379 S.W.3d 248, 260 (Tex. 2012) (same). A valid expert report has three elements: it must fairly summarize the applicable standard of care; it must explain how a physician or health care provider failed to meet that standard; and it must establish the causal relationship between the failure and the harm alleged. TEX . CIV . PRAC. & REM . CODE § 74.351(r)(6); see Scoresby v. Santillan, 346 S.W.3d 546, 556 (Tex. 2011). A report that satisfies these requirements, even if as to one theory only, entitles the claimant to proceed with a suit against the physician or health care provider. The report serves two functions. “First, the report must inform the defendant of the specific conduct the plaintiff has called into question. Second, and equally important, the report must 8 provide a basis for the trial court to conclude that the claims have merit.” Am. Transitional Care Ctrs. of Tex., Inc. v. Palacios, 46 S.W.3d 873, 879 (Tex. 2001). A report need not cover every alleged liability theory to make the defendant aware of the conduct that is at issue. Palacios recognized that an expert report does not require litigation-ready evidence. Rather, “to avoid dismissal . . . [t]he report can be informal in that the information in the report does not have to meet the same requirements as the evidence offered in a summary-judgment proceeding or at trial.” Id. For the particular liability theory addressed, the report must sufficiently describe the defendant’s alleged conduct. Such a report both informs a defendant of the behavior in question and allows the trial court to determine if the allegations have merit. If the trial court decides that a liability theory is supported, then the claim is not frivolous, and the suit may proceed.