Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Louisa D. Reddic v. East Texas Medical Center Regional Health Care System, Individually and D/B/A East Texas Medical Center-Crockett, Inc.green1 sentence2016See Reddic, 474 S.W.3d at 675 (for a claim to be a health care liability claim, “it must have more of a relationship to the provision of health care than that it arises from an occurrence inside a hospital”). | 1 | 1 |
Diversicare General Partner, Inc. v. Rubiogreen1 sentence2014On appeal, Shelley presents the following arguments: (1) Shelley’s injuries are nothing like the circumstances in Williams; (2) the Williams court did not hold that no relationship whatsoever is required between the claimant’s injury and the provision of health care to trigger Chapter 74’s expert-report requirements; (3) various sister courts of appeals have held that there must be a nexus between a claim based upon alleged departures from accepted standards of safety and the provision of health care to trigger Chapter 74’s expert-report requirements; (4) Shelley relies upon two sentences from | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Texas West Oaks Hospital, LP v. Williams
green
2 sentences2014The court in finding that the employee’s claim was a HCLC, reasoned that the employee was a health care provider with “[cjlaims based on departures from accepted standard of health care,” and “therefore involve[d] a nexus between the standard departed from and the alleged injury.” Id. at 181 . 2014The Court further noted that “[cjlaims based on departures from accepted standards of health care therefore involve a nexus between the standard departed from and the alleged injury.” Id. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Delaney v. University of Houston
green
1 sentence2018Delaney , 835 S.W.2d at 59 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Memorial Hermann Hospital System D/B/A Memorial Hermann Southwest Hospital v. Sylvia Galvan
green
1 sentence2014On appeal, Shelley presents the following arguments: (1) Shelley’s injuries are nothing like the circumstances in Williams; (2) the Williams court did not hold that no relationship whatsoever is required between the claimant’s injury and the provision of health care to trigger Chapter 74’s expert-report requirements; (3) various sister courts of appeals have held that there must be a nexus between a claim based upon alleged departures from accepted standards of safety and the provision of health care to trigger Chapter 74’s expert-report requirements; (4) Shelley relies upon two sentences from | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.