HOUSTON - The First Court of Appeals today found that an expert report in a health care liability claim against Methodist Health Centers is sufficient, allowing the litigation to continue.
The lawsuit was brought by Scott Mackender, who claims that he contracted a bacterial infection from Methodist’s failure to promptly remove his intravenous catheter.
According to the opinion, Methodist treated Mackender for pneumonia due to COVID-19. The day he was admitted to the hospital, a peripheral IV was placed in his right arm. Although he complained of issues with his IV and drainage was noted on the sixth day of his hospital stay, the IV was not removed until four days later. When the IV was removed, it had old drainage residue and was damaged. After twelve days in Methodist’s care, Mackender was discharged.
Mackender continued to have pain and inflammation at the IV site and two months later he went to a different hospital where he was diagnosed with sepsis and bacteremia.
As required by Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Code, Mackender served Methodist with expert reports to support his healthcare liability claim. Methodist objected to the adequacy of both expert reports.
After Mackender was given a chance to file an amended report, Methodist again objected and moved to dismiss his claims, arguing that the amended report, which was authored by Dr. Warren Gavin, was still conclusory and speculative because it did not explain how relocating the IV earlier would have prevented the infection.
On appeal, Methodist contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying its motion to dismiss for failure to serve an adequate expert report on the element of causation.
The First Court held that Dr. Gavin’s expert report was sufficient under the Texas Medical Liability Act, affirming the trial court’s order.
“In his amended report, Dr. Gavin opined that Mackender’s cellulitis ‘likely could have been avoided’ had Methodist followed the standard of care (and its own policies) for IV removal,” the opinion states. “Dr. Gavin further opined that the cellulitis resulted in bacteremia. He set out the timeline of events and sufficiently connected Methodist’s breach of the standard of care to Mackender’s injuries.
“Under the ‘fair summary’ standard, the amended report sufficiently informs Methodist of the specific conduct at issue and provides a basis for the trial court to conclude Mackender’s claims have merit.
Appeals case No. 01-24-00351-CV
