An Ohio bridal dress shop, shuttered following the 2014 Ebola virus scare in Dallas, lost its claim for redress in Texas courts Friday.
The Supreme Court of Texas concluded unanimously, in effect, that when it comes to making medical claims businesses are people, too.
Friday’s decision affirmed a lower court ruling that the bridal business had failed to provide expert testimony documenting the factual basis for their claim against Texas Health Resources, owner of Dallas Presbyterian Hospital, which was the focus of the well-documented scare.
In September 2014, Thomas Eric Duncan, a 42-year-old man visiting Dallas from Liberia, was admitted to Dallas Presbyterian suffering from what was diagnosed as Ebola. Duncan had apparently contracted the virus before leaving Liberia, a fact unknown until he fell ill. Duncan died Oct. 8, 2014, from complications of the disease.
“By changing ‘patient’ to ‘claimant’ and defining ‘claimant’ to be a ‘person,’ including an estate, who seeks damages for a health care claim, the legislature expanded the statute beyond patient claims.”
After Duncan’s death, two nurses who treated him were found to have contracted the virus, including Amber Vinson, who had traveled to Cleveland and Akron with the hospital’s assurance that she had not contracted the dangerous virus.
Upon her return, however, it was discovered that she had been infected and public health officials began retracing her travels and contacts to ward off any spread of the virus.
One of the places she had visited was Coming Attractions Bridal and Formal — a shop in Akron. Because of that visit, the shop had to close briefly to allow for a thorough cleansing of the site. But even after it reopened in November 2014, the taint of possible contagion made it too difficult for the shop to remain in business and Coming Attractions was forced to close for good.
The company sued Texas Health Resources in a Dallas County Court at Law claiming that Dallas Presbyterian’s inadequate response to the outbreak had been the proximate cause of the shop’s demise. But in its response Texas Health Resources said the filing should have included an expert analysis outlining the specific medical issues that formed the source of the claim — a requirement under the Texas Medical Liability Act, a tort reform measure revised by the Texas legislature in 2003.
When Texas Health’s motion to dismiss was denied by the trial court, Texas Health Resources appealed, and in May 2018, the Dallas-based Fifth Court of Appeals reversed.
In affirming that opinion, newly appointed Justice Jane Bland said the Fifth COA interpreted the issue exactly right. Coming Attractions had argued that as a business it should not be bound by the Texas Medical Liability Act, a statute they said had been designed for claims by patients rather than corporate entities seeking only monetary redress.d
Bland pointed out that an earlier version of TMLA outlined requirements for the claims of “patients.” That wording, she said, had specifically been changed to “claimants” to include businesses like Coming Attractions.
“By changing ‘patient’ to ‘claimant’ and defining ‘claimant’ to be a ‘person,’ including an estate, who seeks damages for a health care claim, the legislature expanded the statute beyond patient claims,” Bland wrote.
“Coming Attractions nonetheless contends that ‘person’ in this context is limited to human beings and does not include corporations. We reject this contention for two reasons. First, the legislature has directed that the definition of ‘person’ includes a corporation, ‘unless the statute or context in which the word or phrase is used requires a different definition.’ Second, the common-law meaning of ‘person’ includes a corporation, and because the (Texas Medical Liability) Act does not otherwise define ‘person,’ we use the common-law meaning of ‘person’ in interpreting it,” Bland wrote.
Coming Attractions also argued that its claim was not, strictly speaking, a healthcare claim as envisioned in the TMLA: that it involves the hospital’s actions after Duncan’s death and that it involved purely monetary damages — no personal or non-economic damages as one might expect in a healthcare claim.
Bland wrote that even though Coming Attraction’s claim involves events that occurred after Duncan’s death from Ebola, “The question of contagion and its prevention in a hospital setting directly relates to public health and health care.”
“We have held, however, that claims alleging the negligent provision of health care fall within the Act when the alleged damages stem from health-care-related claims, regardless of the type of injury alleged,” Bland wrote.
While the TMLA does, at points, refer to differences between “bodily injury” and “non-economic damages,” no such distinction is made where the statute defines “claimant.”
“We do not imply the term where the legislature did not use it,” Bland wrote.
The case was argued by Michelle Robberson of Cooper and Sculley in Dallas. Matthew J. Kita, an appellate practitioner in Dallas represented Coming Attractions.
The case is Coming Attractions Bridal and Formal, Inc. v. Texas Health Resources (18-0591).