Court Opinion

ID: 9759597
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:21:08.601306+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:03.152308
License: Public Domain

DODSON, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
The initial opinion in this cause, rendered on June 12, 1992, reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the cause. On June 26, 1992, appellees filed a motion for rehearing advancing three points of error. By written opinion, a majority of the panel sustained appellees’ first point of error, severed the cause of action against appel-lee, St. Mary of the Plains Hospital Foundation, and affirmed the trial court’s take nothing summary judgment as to that entity. However, a majority of the panel overruled appellees’ second and third points of error, withdrew the initial opinion and accompanying judgment, rendered a second opinion and accompanying judgment sustaining appellants’ first point of error in their initial brief, and reversed and remanded as to appellee, Sisters of Saint Joseph of Texas d/b/a St. Mary of the Plains Hospital and Rehabilitation Center.
I would sustain appellees’ first, second and third points of error on rehearing. Further, I would overrule appellants’ first and second points of error in their original brief and affirm the trial court’s take nothing summary judgment on appellants’ cause of action against appellees, Sisters of Saint Joseph of Texas d/b/a St. Mary of the Plains Hospital and Rehabilitation Center and St. Mary of the Plains Hospital Foundation.
Accordingly, I will address the two points of error advanced in appellants’ initial brief. Appellants’ first point of error required us to construe sections 4.01(a), (b), and (c) of Article 4590i. These sections provide:
Sec. 4.01 (a) Any person or his authorized agent asserting a health care liability claim shall give written notice of such claim by certified mail, return receipt requested, to each physician or health care provider against whom such claim is being made at least 60 days before the filing of a suit in any court of this state based upon a health care liability claim.
(b) In such pleadings as are subsequently filed in any court, each party shall state that it has fully complied with the provisions of this section and shall provide such evidence thereof as the judge of the court may require to determine if the provisions of this Act have been met.
*76(c) Notice given as provided in this Act shall toll the applicable statute of limitations to and including a period of 75 days following the giving of the notice, and this tolling shall apply to all parties and potential parties. (Emphasis added). Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 4590i (Vernon Supp.1992).
Section (a) requires 60 days notice before filing suit, section (b) states pleading and evidentiary requirements and section (c) contains the seventy-five day tolling provision. Additionally, I note that section 10.01 of Article 4590i provides a two-year limitation period for bringing a health care liability claim.
Appellants contend when the required notice is given at anytime within the two-year limitation period, the statutory period is tolled for seventy-five days. Thus, allowing a period of two years and seventy-five days from the date of the occurrence of the alleged tort in which to sue the proper defendant. The majority accepts this position.
I disagree. I am persuaded section 4.01(c) applies only in those situations where the required notice, for any reason, is given within the sixty days immediately before the limitation period expires.
When construing a statute, the fundamental rule of construction is to ascertain the legislative intent and give effect to the purpose of the legislature. See State v. Terrell, 588 S.W.2d 784, 786 (Tex.1979); Railroad Commission v. Shell Oil Co., 146 Tex. 286, 206 S.W.2d 235, 241 (1947); Ezell v. Knapp & Elliott, 120 Tex. 503, 39 S.W.2d 829, 831 (1931); and State v. Estate of Loomis, 553 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tex.Civ.App. — Tyler 1977, writ ref’d.). In Morrison v. Chan, 699 S.W.2d 205, 208 (Tex.1985), the Court acknowledged the legislative purpose of the act by the following language:
The Legislature enacted the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act to alleviate a perceived medical malpractice insurance crisis in the State of Texas. In an effort to accomplish this goal, the Legislature adopted an absolute two-year limitations period. (Emphasis added).
I believe the Court’s language could legitimately be extended to include: the Legislature adopted an absolute two-year limitation period with a seventy-five day tolling period for an action brought when the required notice was given within sixty days of the expiration of the limitation period. This construction gives effect to the seventy-five day tolling provision without converting the statute into an absolute two year and seventy-five day limitation period, as construed by the majority.
I am persuaded the Legislature’s purpose and intent was to prevent the notice provision from violating the “open courts” provision of the Texas Constitution. I disagree with the determination of the majority that the Legislature intended to create an automatic (i.e., absolute) two year and seventy-five days period of limitation, without regard to when the required notice is given. Consequently, I would overrule the first point of error in appellants’ initial brief.
In their second point of error, appellants argued summary judgment was improper because a material fact issue existed as to whether the “Hospital” was prejudiced when appellants initially sued and served a “Foundation” with a substantially similar name. The agent of service and attorney of record were the same for both the “Hospital” and the “Foundation”. Appellants further asserted absent a showing of prejudice, the subsequent pleading naming the “Hospital” as a defendant relates back to the pleading in which the “Foundation” was sued. I disagree.
Texas courts have recognized a distinction between misnomer and misidentification. Enserch Corp. v. Parker, 794 S.W.2d 2, 4-5 (Tex.1990). Concerning misnomer, the Court in Enserch Corp. v. Parker, Id., stated:
“If the plaintiff merely misnames the correct defendant (misnomer), limitations is tolled and a subsequent amendment of the petition relates back to the date of the original petition.” (Emphasis added).
*77Concerning misidentification, the Court stated:
“If, however, the plaintiff is mistaken as to which of two defendants is the correct one and there is actually existing a cor-. poration with the name of the erroneously named defendant (misidentification), then the plaintiff has sued the wrong party and limitations is not tolled.”
In this instance, appellants simply sued the wrong party in their original petition. Appellants initially sued the “Foundation” which is a separate legal entity. Therefore, the instant case is one of misidentifi-cation rather than misnomer.
For the plaintiff to prevent a summary judgment in a misidentification case, he must plead and prove by the summary judgment evidence the proper defendant was not prejudiced by the mistake in pleading. See Continental Southern Lines, Inc. v. Hilland, 528 S.W.2d 828 (Tex.1975); and Enserch Corp. v. Parker, 794 S.W.2d 2, 5-6 (Tex.1990). Here, appellants raised the matter of “no prejudice” for the first time on appeal. Since the “no prejudice” claim was absent from appellants’ response to the motion for summary judgment, the claim cannot be raised on appeal. See City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, 589 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.1979). Moreover, appellants’ have failed to present any evidence by affidavit, or otherwise on the “no prejudice” claims. Consequently, I would overrule appellants’ second point of error.
In summary, I would grant appellees’ motion for rehearing, overrule appellants’ points of error on appeal, and affirm the judgment of the trial court.