HOUSTON - The 14th Court of Appeals has found that an expert report was not adequate in a health care liability claim against CHI St. Luke’s Health - The Vintage Hospital, reversing a ruling denying the hospital’s motion to dismiss.
The lawsuit was brought by Richard Aurisano, who, after lifting some heavy weights at the age of 75, presented at the emergency room with increasing abdominal distention. The surgery also resulted in an anastomosis, which was the reconnecting of two healthy ends of the bowel, according to the opinion.
Aurisano underwent a laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy, which removed a segment of the colon. Later that night, he became hypotensive and fell while going to the bathroom. A CT scan revealed a hematoma at the site of the anastomosis. A second CT scan three days later showed an anastomotic leak, which led to sepsis.
Aurisano underwent a second surgery and additional complications followed, which required a tracheostomy. He also developed a bed sore.
Aurisano sued both his surgeon and the hospital, alleging the hospital negligently failed to provide adequate nursing care, follow proper protocols to prevent bed sores, and identify a fall risk patient.
To comply with Chapter 74 of the Texas Medical code, Aurisano timely served the hospital with an original expert report, which was authored by Dr. Fred Simon.
“Though Dr. Simon recognized in his summary of the facts that Aurisano had fallen and had developed a bed sore, Dr. Simon did not specifically address these injuries in connection with his discussion of the Hospital’s standard of care or how the Hospital had allegedly breached that standard of care,” the opinion states.
The hospital moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that Dr. Simon’s report was insufficient. The trial court denied the motion and the hospital appealed.
“An expert cannot say, from the mere fact that a fall occurred, that the Hospital’s failure to meet some unspecified standard of care is what caused Aurisano’s fall,” the opinion states. “Absent specific facts explaining the ‘how and why’ of proximate causation, we likewise hold that Dr. Simon’s report is conclusory.”
Justices reversed the order denying the hospital’s motion to dismiss. However, because the record does not reveal that the trial court has previously sustained an objection to the adequacy of Dr. Simon’s report, the trial court may consider on remand whether to grant a thirty-day extension to cure the deficiencies in the report, the opinion states.
Appeals case No. 14-24-00742-CV
