San Antonio Injury Attorney Blog

The most difficult aspect of proving the San Antonio and greater Texas medical malpractice case is proving causation through expert testimony.

There have been incredibly vast changes in the law of medical malpractice. In the late 1970s, the Texas legislature was tasked with remedying the "medical malpractice insurance crisis" which allegedly was the product of an increase in the number of malpractice claims and increasing frequency of accusations against doctors. In 1995, the Legislature passed several bills to address the issue of lawsuit abuse and additional tort reform measures in 2003 resulting in what is infamously known as Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code (CPRC).

Today, medical malpractice in San Antonio and Texas possesses its own specialized body of rules that are different from other types of traditional San Antonio and greater Texas personal injury cases.

Now, the emphasis is on utilizing expert testimony to educate a jury with the technical, scientific, or medical information to determine negligence.

A medical malpractice plaintiff in San Antonio and greater Texas must prove that their injuries were "proximately caused" by the negligence of the medical care provider. There are two elements of proximate cause : Cause in Fact (also known as Substantial Factor) and Foreseeability. The jury must decide whether by a preponderance of the evidence, the act of negligence was a substantial factor in causing the harm. Usually the evidence must meet the "degree of reasonable medical probability" that the doctor's negligence caused the injury. The injured plaintiff does not have to exclude every possible cause.

To prove cause in fact or substantial factor, a San Antonio Texas personal injury attorney must prove that had it not been for the doctor's act or omission, the serious injury would not have occurred based upon reasonable medical probability. Mere speculation, conjecture, or possibility does not meet the standard of reasonable medical probability.

The next issue in a Texas medical malpractice case is foreseeability. This term does not mean that the particular accident or injury could be predicted - it simply means that the harm that occurred could reasonably have been anticipated. For example, if a patient needs an escort for safety and the escort has to be able to prevent a patient from falling, then it is foreseeable that an injured plaintiff has a risk of falling unless an escort is provided. The jury applies a practical inquiry to determine whether an injury was foreseeable.

Whether you have been a victim of nursing home abuse or medical malpractice, contact a San Antonio and greater Texas injury lawyer today.

As an update to our last blog post, several important Texas medical malpractice cases
have emerged that can affect residents of San Antonio and greater Texas.

In Dallas, a patient suffered severe and permanent brain damage in Texas when Baylor medical center's emergency care center did not allegedly detect a cerebral hemorrhage in the patient. The patient's medical expert discussed the standards of emergency care specifically with respect to a physician assistant (PA) and his report met the statutory elements of causation.

In another case involving a birth injury, a mother sued on behalf of her son when he suffered severe impairment and disfigurement at birth. The personal injury lawsuit alleged that the doctor failed to perform a caesarian section. However, statutorily, the mother failed to serve the offending doctor within the 120 day period. This is a major lesson in San Antonio medical malpractice cases - you must serve your expert report of medical malpractice and negligence within the 120 day period.

In another medical negligence case arising in Corpus Christi, a woman's legs were burned and scarred when a nurse allegedly committed medical negligence with a laser. The patient also sued the doctor, claiming vicarious liability for the nurse's negligence. The court did not consider the suit a health care liability claim per se, although it did classify the laser as a regulated medical device, which can represent a form of San Antonio product liability negligence .

Finally, in another Dallas claim, the Court ruled that claims against a plastic surgeon and the plastic surgery company after a negligent face lift procedure was considered to be a health care liability claim and not a claim under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)
. The plaintiff had to satisfy the expert report requirement for medical malpractice claims. Causation and damages were an essential part of the claims and the finding of negligence against the plastic surgery company was dependent on a medical malpractice finding as to the surgeon.

If you have been a victim of medical malpractice or suffered injury from a medical device or pharmaceutical drug, contact a San Antonio and greater Texas personal injury attorney immediately.

In 2009, there were several major San Antonio and greater Texas pharmaceutical drug injury cases.

In Houston, an injured woman brought suit against Wyeth Pharmaceuticals claiming several prescription drugs used for her hormone replacement therapy had caused her serious personal injury. Her causes of action included failure to warn and design defects in the drug. The Appellate Division indicated that federal laws did not preempt the failure to warn claim, even if the FDA had approved the label's warnings. However, the cause of action claim for a design defect was dismissed on account the plaintiff had not proven a safer alternative.

In a Texas personal injury auto accident case in Houston, the injured driver sued the manufacturer of a truck for negligence and product liability claims. In these types of cases, the burden is on the plaintiff to show evidence of a safer alternative design. It is also critical that the injured plaintiff's expert have the training, experience, and special knowledge to comment on design defect and the use of safer alternative designs.

In another Houston Texas pharmaceutical drug injury case, a woman sued her doctor and Wyeth Laboratories for injuries from the dietary drugs Pondimin and Reduc. She alleged personal injuries including heart damage. However, the case was dismissed. San Antonio and greater Texas products liability cases must be brought within 2 years after the person suffers the injury.

In 2009, there were several seminal cases in the area of Texas medical malpractice and Texas nursing home abuse litigation .

In Dallas, the patient brought an action against both the physician and the physician's assistant (PA) for their failure to follow up on a mass detected on a mammogram. It is important to note that the expert report on behalf of the plaintiff has to address the specific standard of care for both the doctor and the PA.

In a Texas dental malpractice case out of Corpus Christi, the dentist allowed her assistant to remove the crown and grind the plaintiff's teeth. The dentist was alleged to have committed malpractice by giving work to a non-dentist and keeping unsuitable dental records.

In a Houston Texas Gynecology malpractice case, a woman experienced grave difficulties during childbirth and suffered serious personal injuries during childbirth. Under Texas law, the employer of the obstetrician has 21 days to object to the plaintiff’s expert report. By failing to object within the statutory timeframe, the employer waived his right to object to the report. Also, the injured mother's claims against the obstetrician's employer under respondeat superior and Texas Professional Association Act did not require a separate report to discuss negligence of the employer.

In a Texas nursing home abuse case , the plaintiff sued on behalf of a family member who allegedly had been abandoned during Hurricane Rita leading to her death from dehydration and malnutrition. The Court ruled that such claims were considered Texas health care liability claims and required an expert report.

If you or a family member has been the victim of nursing home negligence a breach in the standard of care by a medical professional, you owe it to yourself to contact a San Antonio and greater Texas nursing home and medical injury lawyer today.

Since January 1, 2009, there have been several important developments affecting motor vehicle accident personal injury litigation in San Antonio and greater Texas .

Specifically, the Texas legislature updated the minimum limits for auto insurance to $25,000 for injuries per person for policies written after April 1, 2008 and $50,000 per accident if more than 1 person is injured. There is a $25,000 minimum coverage for property damage for policies written after April 1, 2008 with allowances of a $250 deductible per person injured or for property damage and $500 per accident. See Tex. Transportation Code § 601.072.

In a recent San Antonio accident San Antonio car accident involving a dump truck and eighteen-wheeler (18 wheeler), the Court of Appeals upheld a jury verdict against the dump truck driver and his employee. The court ruled that had the employer followed the law and contacted the driver’s former employee, he would have discovered the driver’s multiple speeding citations and positive drug test for cocaine. Moreover, the court upheld the award of $400,000 for pain and suffering, because it appeared the driver was at least conscious while his vehicle spun out of control and was aware he would soon die.

In another auto accident case, drivers brought suit against the Texas Department of Transportation for deaths and injuries caused by loose gravel on the road. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that loose gravel was not a special defect under the Texas Tort Claims act, and the TxDOT did not owe a invitee standard of care to drivers.

If you have been in an auto accident, do not delay. Contact a San Antonio injury auto accident lawyer today.

There have been several important cases regarding the Texas Tort Claims Act in 2009. As you may recall, the Texas Tort Claims Act governs the liability of governmental entities. Under Section 101.021 of the Civil, Practice and Remedies Code, the Texas Tort Claims act lays out the conditions under which a person may sue governmental entities with caps of $250,000 - $500,000 for bodily injury or death. A San Antonio personal injury attorney can guide you through the intricacies of pursuing a governmental entity for negligence.

According to the Act, the personal injury must have been caused by a condition or use of tangible personal or real property.

In one case, a family of a Dallas inmate who committed suicide with a corded telephone on his cell sued the county for negligence. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that governmental immunity was not waived because the inmate’s use of the telephone cord did not constitute a condition or use of tangible personal property within the definition of the Texas Tort Claims Act.

In Travis County, a bicyclist sued UT Austin when his bicycle collided with a metal chain, which threw him off the bicycle and caused personal injuries. The Appellate Court held that the chain could cause an unreasonable risk of harm , and the university had a duty to warn of dangerous conditions caused by the chain. For bicycle and motorcycle injuries in San Antonio , consult with a vehicular accident injury in Texas.

In another case in Brazoria County, the Court held that a laborer who was injured when the floor in the jail collapsed failed to give proper notice to the county of his negligence and premises liability claims as required under the Texas Tort Claims Act. This case is a grave reminder that if you have been injured and wish to sue a governmental entity, you must give the proper notice in order to file suit. Consult with a San Antonio personal injury attorney on the Texas Tort Claims Act today.