An Update from Our Firm about COVID-19

Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto, Aziz & Stogner remains fully operational and committed to serving our clients and colleagues throughout the Coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis. As we follow the CDC guidelines and practice social distancing, we remain available for phone consultations and scheduled in-person meetings with both current and prospective clients and colleagues. Please contact our office by email or by calling 713-222-7211 with any questions. We look forward to hearing from you.

Supreme Court Alters Statute Against Patients

On January 9, 2009, the Texas Supreme Court altered a statute to the disadvantage of patients seeking justice from doctors who have committed malpractice. In the case of Badiga v. Lopez, the Court ruled that a doctor can appeal a certain pre-trial ruling even though the medical malpractice statute says that no such appeal can be taken.

Victims of medical malpractice have very serious procedural hurdles to overcome when they seek to hold doctors responsible for their negligence. One requirement imposed only on these cases by statue is that patients must hire another doctor to write a report against the one who committed the malpractice, and then that report must be filed before a specific deadline. According to the statute, the trial court is allowed to grant one thirty-day extension to the deadline, and the doctor who was sued is prohibited by statute from appealing the decision to grant the extension.

In a prior decision, Ogletree v. Matthews, 262 S.W.3d 316, 321 (Tex. 2007), the Supreme Court enforced that statutory provision when the report was held to be deficient. That decision is in accordance with the statute, and with reality: appellate courts take an extremely strict approach when evaluating reports and they rule that reports are "deficient" alarmingly often.

The statute makes no distinction between extensions given because the trial court believes the report might be deficient, and those given when no report was filed. Under the statute, the law prohibits a pre-trial appeal by the doctor of the trial court's decision to grant the extension.

Or at least that was the law. Now, the Supreme Court has created a new distinction - that is not contained in the statute - to allow doctors to appeal the trial court's pre-trial decision, thus causing delay and added expense to malpractice victims. Even Justice Scott Brister, one of the most conservative members of the Supreme Court, disagreed with the ruling. "In the plainest of terms, this statute applies to all extensions - right or wrong, deficient report or no report. As the Court reads into this jurisdictional statute a distinction that is not there, I respectfully dissent."

Decisions like this one simply make the hurdles even higher for malpractice victims seeking to have their cases decided by a jury. The only redress for this system appears to be in the Texas Legislature.

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information
  • $50+ Million Fire & Explosion

    The firm successfully represented nearly 100 victims who suffered personal injuries and damages to property from a large fire and explosion resulting in a settlement of more than $50 million. The firm served as lead lawyers on the steering committee in this litigation.

  • $80 Million Plant Explosion

    The firm successfully represented 270 plaintiffs, taking a lead role in the plaintiffs’ steering committee, who suffered injuries in a large plant explosion resulting in a settlement of nearly $80 million.

  • $50+ Million Plant Fire & Explosion

    The firm successfully represented 45 personal injury victims in a plant fire and explosion, serving on the plaintiffs steering committee, concluding with a settlement of more than $50 million.

  • $22+ Million Worksite Accident

    The firm prevailed in a personal injury trial for a worksite injury client with the jury returning a verdict and resulting in a judgment of over $22 million for the firm’s client.

  • $12 Million 18-Wheeler Collision

    The firm successfully achieved a $12 million settlement for the family of a man who died in an 18 wheeler collision.

  • $48 Million Catastrophic Burns

    The firm prevailed on behalf of three burn victims with settlements totaling nearly $48 million.

Our Record Of Success

When you are hurt and you choose a law firm to represent you in court or at the negotiation table, you need to carefully consider the firm's record.

Read More Success Stories

Let Us Help You Request a Free Consultation Today

Get Help Now

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

Back to top