Court Opinion

ID: 9612317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:07:00.962024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:20.383728
License: Public Domain

GRANT, Justice,
concurring.
Roxanna Cox wore a nurse’s uniform and had a name tag identifying her as a “C.M.A.” This meant that she was a certified medical assistant, and, according to her testimony, the job of a certified medical assistant was to assist the office doctors in any procedure. She was not licensed by the State of Texas, but had a certification from the American Medical Association based upon a test she had taken after studying the books and tapes provided by the American Medical Association. She testified that she had no training or education in pharmacology, which she explained meant “dispensing medication.”
The summary judgment rendered in this case cites that one of the bases for granting was the Hinkles’ failure to provide proof of the standard of care for Roxanna Cox.
With some exceptions, testimony is required to establish the standard of care for professional persons and those who undertake any work calling for special skills. See PROSSER & Keeton on The Law of Torts, § 32, p. 185 (5th ed.1984).
In the present case, Cox admits that she had no training or education in the field of pharmacology. It is difficult to determine a standard of care for a person undertaking to give medical advice on the taking of medications, a field in which she has no training or license. Such a requirement *197would entail testimony to the effect that she did not use ordinary care in applying a learning and skill which she did not possess. At most, the standard of care applied to her would have been what a person of reasonable prudence would have done under the same or similar circumstances. The reasonably prudent person rule does not require testimony by experts, but is rather a matter for the fact-finder at trial.
Although counsel at oral argument contended strongly that the trial court erred in rendering a summary judgment based upon there being no showing of the proper standard of care for Cox and the violation thereof, no point of error or argument on this matter is presented by Hinkles’ brief.
Therefore, I must concur with the majority opinion.