HOUSTON — A lawsuit alleging a woman was injured after falling out of a rolling chair while waiting for her medical appointment is not a health care liability claim, according to the First Court of Appeals.
The lawsuit was brought by Eva Freeman, who sued the Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center for negligence.
Freeman alleges that in December 2023 she went to the hospital for a scheduled appointment. She attempted to sit in a rolling chair which suddenly rolled out from under her, causing her to fall to the floor.
Her petition does not provide further information about where or how the incident occurred. The Hospital generally denied Freeman’s allegations.
When filing a health care liability claim in Texas, plaintiffs are required to serve an expert report by the 120th day after the medical provider answers the suit.
Court records show Freeman served an expert report authored by the orthopedic surgeon treating her injuries before the deadline. The hospital filed a Texas Medical Liability Act motion to dismiss, arguing the report was deficient.
Freeman amended the report, which states “the provider’s inclusion of a rolling chair in their lobby was the proximate cause of Ms. Freeman’s right shoulder injury,” and Memorial Hermann argued the amended report was untimely.
The trial court denied the hospital’s motion to dismiss.
On appeal, Memorial Hermann contends the trial court abused its discretion while Freeman argued her claim is not an HCLC and therefore the TMLA does not apply.
On Sept. 22, the First Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling, finding that the hospital did not meet its burden to show that Freeman’s injury is substantively related to its provision of health care.
“Without knowing where the accident occurred, the record does not affirmatively demonstrate that Freeman was in a place where patients might be when they were receiving care or that the chair was an instrumentality used in providing health care,” the opinion states.
“And nothing suggests the Hospital’s alleged negligence was based on its failing to comply with any safety standards arising from its professional duties or any governmental or accrediting-agency requirements.”
Appeals case No. 01-25-00220-CV
