Court Opinion

ID: 9748199
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:54:40.041914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:32.588737
License: Public Domain

BILL MEIER, Justice, dissenting.
I dissent because I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Coffman’s claim is a health care liability claim. The gravamen of the claim and the injury- or damage-causing event is the release by Presbyterian of the confidential results of Coffman’s urine test to the University of North Texas Police Department, ultimately resulting in her dismissal from the university. I do not believe that the unauthorized release of the confidential information meets the requirement articulated by Justice Medina in Marks v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hospital, stating
Whether the underlying claim involves a health care provider’s negligent act or omission, or the patient’s exposure to some other safety risk, the relationship between the injury causing event and the patient’s care or treatment must be substantial and direct for the cause of action to be a health care liability claim under the MLIIA.
319 S.W.3d 658, 664 (Tex.2010). Because the majority concludes otherwise, I respectfully dissent.