Supreme Court Protects Doctors, Again

Photo of Jay Jackson

Generally, a constitution determines whether a statute is permissible, not the other way around. But, on Friday, the Supreme Court used a finding within statute in order to determine that it was constitutional. And, with that finding, the court protected a doctor and hospital by dismissing a malpractice claim stemming from profound birth injuries, even before the injured child turned 18 years old.

Children cannot file lawsuits. (Instead, suits can be filed for them by a parent or guardian.) Accordingly, historically, a statute of limitations could not bar the claim of a minor because limitations on the claim did not begin to run until the minor turned 18 years old. In practice, a minor's claim would not be barred until he or she turned 20 years old.

In 2003, saying that doctors had to pay too much money for insurance, the Legislature passed sweeping legislation that made it more difficult for patients to obtain justice when doctors and other health care providers negligently injured them. One of the provisions was a "statute of repose." It stated that any claim was barred 10 years after the malpractice, regardless of any other consideration. In the past few years, the Supreme Court ruled that this statute of repose barred a valid malpractice claim when a sponge left in a woman was undiscoverable and undiscovered for more than 10 years.

In Friday's case, a child was severely injured at the time of her birth in 1996. Accordingly, the child had a vested claim seven years later, when the Legislature changed the medical malpractice law in 2003; and, under then-existing law, she would have had until her 20th birthday to bring suit.

The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the statute of repose was constitutional, even though it barred the suit filed by her mother when the child was 15 years old (i.e., while the child was still a minor). The court stated that, because the child's mother had sent notice of the claim earlier, the mother was not diligent when she filed suit, and as a result she could not raise a claim on her child's behalf that the statute violated the constitution's guarantee of "open courts" to hear a valid claim.

The child's mother also argued that the statute was unconstitutional as a "retroactive" law because it divested her child of a vested right-in other words, the right the child enjoyed prior to the passage of the law to bring suit prior to her 20th birthday was being taken away from her. Nevertheless, the court ruled that there were still three years left under the statute of repose when it was passed in 2003 in which to file suit. The court further ruled that the statute was constitutionally permissible because it contained a provision claiming that there was an insurance "crisis" for health care providers. The effect is that a child's legal claim has been taken from her-without any compensation-because providing doctors a better price for insurance premiums constitutes a "compelling public purpose." Thus, the Legislature, by simply including as part of a statute a "finding" that a crisis existed, was able to enact legislation that would otherwise be unconstitutional. In this manner, the constitution was deprived of its ability to protect citizens from impermissible legislation.

If you or someone you know has been a victim of medical malpractice, contact the attorneys at Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto, and Friend by calling 713-222-7211 or 1-800-870-9584.

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information

Awards & Recognition

  • 2016-2017 Equal Access to Justice Champion

    The Equal Access to Justice Champions Program was started by the Houston Bar Association in 2006, to help ensure placement of Houston Volunteer Lawyers cases with pro bono volunteers. Originally, firms were tiered according to size, and firms within each tier committed to accept a certain number of pro bono cases from HVL each year for five years.

  • The National Trial Lawyers | Top 100 Trial Lawyers

    The National Trial Lawyers: Top 100 is an invitation-only organization composed of the premier trial lawyers from each state or region who meet stringent qualifications as civil plaintiff and/or criminal defense trial lawyers. Selection is based on a thorough multi-phase objective and uniformly applied process which includes peer nominations combined with third-party research.

  • Million Dollar Advocates Forum

    Established in 1993, the Million Dollar Advocates Forum (which includes the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum) is one of the most prestigious groups of trial lawyers in the United States. Membership is limited to attorneys who have won million and multi-million dollar verdicts and settlements. There are over 4000 members throughout the country. Fewer than 1% of U.S. lawyers are members.

  • Recognized by Best Lawyers America | Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto & Aziz | 2017

    Recognition by Best Lawyers is based entirely on peer review. Their methodology is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area.

  • Lead Counsel Rated

    In order to earn the Lead Counsel Rating, an attorney must not only demonstrate significant legal experience, but must also receive multiple peer recommendations advocating his or her ability. This is a key component in the screening process.

  • Texas Super Lawyers | Texas Monthly

    Each year, Super Lawyers recognizes the top lawyers in Texas via a patented multiphase selection process involving peer nomination, independent research and peer evaluation. The Texas lawyers who receive the highest point totals during this selection process are further recognized in Texas Super Lawyers Top Lists.

Get Your Free Case Review 713.587.9668

Let Us Help You Today! Request a Free Consultation

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

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.


Privacy Policy

  • $50+ Million Personal Injury Fire and 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 Personal Injury Large 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 Personal Injury Plant Fire and 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 Personal Injury Work Site 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 Auto Accident 18-Wheeler Collision

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

  • $30 Million Personal Injury Burn Victims

    The firm prevailed on behalf of three burn victims with settlements totaling nearly $30 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.

More Success Stories