Opinion ID: 894688
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The MLIIA

Text: Although Rubio's claims involve premises liability rather than medical malpractice, the distinction is not outcome determinative here. The Legislature has captured both concepts under the broad rubric of health care liability claim, as defined by the MLIIA: Health care liability claim means a cause of action against a health care provider or physician for treatment, lack of treatment, or other claimed departure from accepted standards of medical care or health care or safety which proximately results in injury to or death of the patient, whether the patient's claim or cause of action sounds in tort or contract. Act of May 30, 1977, 65th Leg., R.S., ch. 817, § 1.03(a)(4), 1977 Tex. Gen. Laws 2039, 2041 (former TEX.REV.CIV. STAT. art. 4590i, § 1.03(a)(4)), repealed and codified as amended by Act of June 2, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 204, §§ 10.01, 10.09, 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws 847, 864, 884 (current version at TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE § 74.001(a)(13)). Here, there can be little doubt that Rubio's complaint involves a claimed departure from accepted standards of safety. [3] Id. Thus, I agree that Rubio's claims fall within the statute. Both JUSTICE O'NEILL and Rubio favor a narrower interpretation of safety advanced by several of the courts of appeals under which safety is read to mean safety as it relates to the provision of health care. At 866 (O'Neill, J., dissenting); see Rogers v. Crossroads Nursing Serv., Inc., 13 S.W.3d 417, 418-19 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1999, no pet.) (opining that [t]he word `safety' cannot be read in isolation, and the phrase `accepted standard of ... safety' must be read in context to mean `accepted standard of safety within the health care industry. ') (italics in original), cited with approval in Bush, 39 S.W.3d at 673, and Rigby, 97 S.W.3d at 621; see also Zuniga, 94 S.W.3d at 783 (quoting Rigby, 97 S.W.3d at 620-21). While this construction of safety is defensible as a matter of policy, it is not faithful to the statute's plain text. As we have often explained: Courts must take statutes as they find them. More than that, they should be willing to take them as they find them. They should search out carefully the intendment of a statute, giving full effect to all of its terms. But they must find its intent in its language, and not elsewhere. They are not the law-making body. They are not responsible for omissions in legislation. They are responsible for a true and fair interpretation of the written law. It must be an interpretation which expresses only the will of the makers of the law, not forced nor strained, but simply such as the words of the law in their plain sense fairly sanction and will clearly sustain. Simmons v. Arnim, 110 Tex. 309, 220 S.W. 66, 70 (Tex.1920), quoted in St. Luke's Episcopal Hosp. v. Agbor, 952 S.W.2d 503, 505 (Tex.1997), RepublicBank Dallas, N.A. v. Interkal, Inc., 691 S.W.2d 605, 607 (Tex. 1985), and Tex. Highway Comm'n v. El Paso Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 149 Tex. 457, 234 S.W.2d 857, 863 (1950). Straightforward statutory construction ensures that ordinary citizens are able to rely on the plain language of a statute to mean what it says. Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Sys., 996 S.W.2d 864, 866 (Tex.1999). But when courts abandon the plain meaning of words, statutory construction rests upon insecure and obscure foundations at best. State v. Jackson, 376 S.W.2d 341, 346 (Tex.1964) (quoting State Bd. of Ins. v. Betts, 158 Tex. 612, 315 S.W.2d 279, 281(1958)). The MLIIA explicitly provides that any legal term or word of art used in this part, not otherwise defined in this part, shall have such meaning as is consistent with the common law. Act of May 30, 1977, 65th Leg., R.S., ch. 817, § 1.03(b), 1977 Tex. Gen. Laws 2039, 2041 (former TEX. REV.CIV. STAT. art. 4590i, § 1.03(b)), repealed and codified as amended by Act of June 2, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 204, §§ 10.01, 10.09, 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws 847, 866, 884 (current version at TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE § 74.001(b)). Because the statute does not define safety, we must assign it its common meaning. Id. Safety is commonly understood to mean protection from danger. See BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1362 (8th ed.2004) (defining safe as [n]ot exposed to danger; not causing danger). The specific source of that danger, be it a structural defect, criminal assault, or careless act, is without limitation. While it may be logical to read into the statute a requirement that a safety related claim also involve health care, there is nothing implicit in safety's plain meaning nor explicit in the MLIIA's language that allows us to impose such a restriction. [4] Accordingly, to give full effect to the MLIIA's language, we must recognize that a health care liability claim includes a complaint that a patient was inadequately protected from the danger of sexual assault. III