Court Opinion

ID: 9393052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-09 13:07:24.019879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:50.600530
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                     San Antonio, Texas
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                          No. 04-22-00687-CV

                                  SEA WORLD OF TEXAS, LLC,
                                          Appellant

                                                  v.

                          Renada MATHIS, Perreal Woods, and Joe Boston,
                                          Appellees

                     From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                  Trial Court No. 2019-CI-17204
                            Honorable Rosie Alvarado, Judge Presiding

Opinion by:       Beth Watkins, Justice

Sitting:          Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
                  Beth Watkins, Justice
                  Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 3, 2023

AFFIRMED

           Sea World of Texas, LLC challenges the trial court’s order denying its motion to dismiss

under Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. We affirm the trial court’s order.

                                            BACKGROUND

           In August of 2019, Joe Boston died after swimming in the wave pool at Sea World’s water

park. Although there are few details in the record on this point, it appears that Sea World’s

lifeguards engaged in unsuccessful rescue efforts before Boston died. Appellees, who are Boston’s
                                                                                        04-22-00687-CV

mother, brother, and father, subsequently sued Sea World. Appellees allege that Sea World’s

negligence proximately caused Boston’s death.

       On July 27, 2022, Sea World filed a motion arguing that appellees’ claims are health care

liability claims that are subject to the expert report requirement of Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil

Practice and Remedies Code. Because appellees did not serve Sea World with an expert report,

Sea World argued the trial court was required to dismiss their lawsuit.

       After a hearing, the trial court denied Sea World’s motion to dismiss. Sea World now

appeals.

                                              ANALYSIS

                             Standard of Review and Applicable Law

       Under Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, a claimant who asserts

a “health care liability claim” against a “physician or health care provider” is required to “serve on

each defendant one or more expert reports describing the expert’s opinions addressing the

applicable standards of care, how the defendant’s conduct failed to meet those standards, and how

those failures caused the claimant’s injury, harm, or damages.” Lake Jackson Med. Spa, Ltd. v.

Gaytan, 640 S.W.3d 830, 836 (Tex. 2022) (citing TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 74.351(a),

(r)(6)). If the claimant does not timely file the expert report, “the trial court must dismiss the claim

with prejudice[.]” Id.

       For purposes of Chapter 74, “‘[h]ealth care’ means any act or treatment performed or

furnished, or that should have been performed or furnished, by any health care provider for, to, or

on behalf of a patient during the patient’s medical care, treatment, or confinement.” TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 74.001(a)(10). A “[h]ealth care provider” is “any person, partnership,

professional association, corporation, facility, or institution duly licensed, certified, registered, or

                                                  -2-
                                                                                        04-22-00687-CV

chartered by the State of Texas to provide health care[.]” Id. § 74.001(a)(12)(A). A “[h]ealth care

liability claim” is:

        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 or professional or administrative services directly related to
        health care, which proximately results in injury to or death of a claimant[.]

Id. § 74.001(a)(13).

        We generally review a trial court’s ruling on a Chapter 74 motion to dismiss for abuse of

discretion. Complex Rehab Techs., LLC v. Molina, 660 S.W.3d 535, 537 (Tex. App.—San Antonio

2022, no pet.). “However, when we are required to determine whether Chapter 74’s statutory

scheme applies to a defendant or to a plaintiff’s claims, we perform a de novo review” of the entire

record. Id.

                                             Application

        While Sea World does not contend that it is a “health care provider,” it argues its lifeguards

“are licensed to and were providing health care [to Boston] as that term is broadly defined in the

statute.” To be entitled to dismissal under Chapter 74, Sea World bears the burden to establish: (1)

its lifeguards fall within the statutory definition of “health care provider”; (2) appellees’ claims are

health care liability claims; and (3) “the acts or omissions complained of” proximately caused

injury to appellees. Id. at 538; Brown v. Villegas, 202 S.W.3d 803, 806 (Tex. App.—San Antonio

2006, no pet.).

        In support of its motion to dismiss, Sea World presented evidence that the lifeguards

assigned to the wave pool on the day Boston died were certified by the American Red Cross. It

also noted that at that time, the Texas Administrative Code required lifeguards at certain types of

public pools to “hold a current ARC ‘Lifeguard Training’ certificate or the equivalent certification

from an aquatic safety organization, which also includes training in ARC ‘Adult, Infant, and Child

                                                  -3-
                                                                                          04-22-00687-CV

CPR’ and ‘Community First Aid’ or their equivalent[.]” 25 TEX. ADMIN CODE § 265.199(g)(1)

(2005), repealed by 45 Tex. Reg. 5088, 5090 (2020). Based on these facts, Sea World argues the

American Red Cross was administratively “chartered” to certify lifeguards to provide health care

and, as a result, Sea World’s lifeguards were “certified as required by the State of Texas[.]”

        We note as a threshold matter that the now-repealed regulation upon which Sea World

relies used the term “ARC” and did not specify that “ARC” was an abbreviation for “American

Red Cross.” See id. But even if we assume that “ARC” meant “American Red Cross,” the trial

court did not err by rejecting Sea World’s argument. Chapter 74 does not require a health care

provider to be “certified as required by” the state; its plain language requires a health care provider

to be “licensed, certified, registered, or chartered by the State of Texas[.]” See TEX. CIV. PRAC. &

REM. CODE § 74.001(a)(12)(A) (emphasis added); Complex Rehab Techs., 660 S.W.3d at 540;

Brown, 202 S.W.3d at 806. We see nothing in the regulation upon which Sea World relies that

deputized non-state organizations like the American Red Cross to act as licensing bodies of the

State of Texas. See 25 TEX. ADMIN CODE § 265.199(g)(1) (2005), repealed by 45 Tex. Reg. 5088,

5090 (2020); Brown, 202 S.W.3d at 806. Accordingly, Sea World presented no evidence below

that its lifeguards are certified, licensed, registered, or chartered directly by the state. See TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE § 74.001(a)(12)(A).

        In its reply brief, Sea World argues, “It is not unusual for Texas to require an individual to

hold a certification from an outside organization in order [to] comply with a statute.” As support

for this assertion, Sea World cites a portion of the Texas Administrative Code that provides, “A

candidate for emergency medical services (EMS) certification shall . . . provide evidence of

current active or inactive National Registry [of Emergency Medical Technicians] certification at

the appropriate level[.]” 25 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 157.33(a)(6). However, the outside certification

required by section 157.33(a)(6) is one of several prerequisites an applicant must satisfy to obtain

                                                   -4-
                                                                                      04-22-00687-CV

a certification that is ultimately issued by a state agency: the Texas Department of State Health

Services. See generally 25 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 157.33(a); 25 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 157.3

(establishing procedures for TDSHS issuance of EMS certifications); see also Tex. Dep’t of State

Health Servs. v. Kerr, 643 S.W.3d 719, 729 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2022, no pet.) (identifying

TDSHS as “a state entity”). Section 157.33(a)(6) does not equate “certification . . . through the

National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians” to a certification by the State of Texas. See

25 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 157.33(a)(6). Nor does Sea World cite any other authority establishing

that certification by a non-state actor like the American Red Cross satisfies Chapter 74’s definition

of “health care provider.” See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 74.001(a)(12)(A).

       Because Sea World presented no evidence that its lifeguards were “duly licensed, certified,

registered, or chartered by the State of Texas to provide health care,” it did not carry its burden to

show the lifeguards were health care providers for the purposes of Chapter 74. See id.; Complex

Rehab Techs., 660 S.W.3d at 540. As a result, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Sea World’s motion to dismiss. See Complex Rehab Techs., 660 S.W.3d at 540; Brown, 202

S.W.3d at 806. Because this issue is dispositive, we need not address Sea World’s additional

contention that appellees asserted a health care liability claim. See Complex Rehab Techs., 660

S.W.3d at 540–41; TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1.

                                            CONCLUSION

       We affirm the trial court’s order.

                                                  Beth Watkins, Justice

                                                 -5-