HOUSTON - The First Court of Appeals has ruled that a lawsuit alleging Houston Methodist handed over a newborn to adoptive parents against the birth mother’s wishes is a health care liability claim.
The lawsuit was brought by Shelby Cagle, who claims employees for Houston Methodist Clear Lake Hospital ignored her when she told them she changed her mind and wanted to keep her child.
Court records show that while Cagle was pregnant she made an adoption plan for her unborn child. She changed her mind, however, after her daughter was born, but the hospital still released the newborn to the intended adoptive parents.
Cagle further alleged that the hospital gave her baby to people who had no legal right to possession and denied that her cause of action was a health care liability claim, but still opted to serve an expert report written by a practicing family-law attorney.
Expert reports are required when filing a health care liability claim.
The hospital moved to dismiss Cagle’s claims under the Texas Medical Liability Act, and the trial court denied the motion, according to the First Court’s July 25 opinion.
On appeal, Methodist argued that Cagle’s claim is a health care liability claim and that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to dismiss.
“We do not imagine that the Legislature contemplated a situation like the one presented here when it enacted or amended the (Texas Medical Liability) Act,” the opinion states. “We conclude, however, that the language of the Act and the Supreme Court’s precedents compel a conclusion that Cagle’s claim is an HCLC alleging departures from standards for professional and administrative services.”
Justices further found that, “in the unusual circumstances presented here,” there was good reason to hold that the attorney-expert is a person with expertise for the purpose of the expert report.
“We conclude that the report contains the opinion of an individual with expertise that the claim has merit and implicates the hospital’s conduct,” the opinion states. “Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying the hospital’s motion to dismiss, and we remand this case to the trial court to determine whether to grant Cagle a thirty-day extension to cure the deficient report.”
The Law Office of Keith A. Gross represents Cagle.
The hospital is represented by the Lapin & Landa law firm.
Appeals case No. 01-25-00055-CV
