98 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1990–2024 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Krishnan v. Ramirezgreen2 sentences2016Morrell v. Finke, 184 S.W.3d 257, 271 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005, pet. denied); Linan v. Rosales, 155 S.W.3d 298, 302 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2004, pet. denied); Krishnan v. Ramirez, 42 S.W.3d 205, 212 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, pet. denied). 2010Morrell v. Finke, 184 S.W.3d 257, 271 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005, pet. denied); Linan, 155 S.W.3d at 302 ; Krishnan v. Ramirez, 42 S.W.3d 205, 212 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, pet. denied). | 12 | 13 |
Morrell v. Finkegreen2 sentences2016Morrell v. Finke, 184 S.W.3d 257, 271 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005, pet. denied); Linan v. Rosales, 155 S.W.3d 298, 302 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2004, pet. denied); Krishnan v. Ramirez, 42 S.W.3d 205, 212 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, pet. denied). 2013Morrell v. Finke, 184 S.W.3d 257, 271 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005, pet. denied); Cruz v. Paso Del Norte Health Foundation, 44 S.W.3d 622, 629-30 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2001, pet. denied). | 7 | 7 |
White v. Wahgreen2 sentences2001See Day v. Harkins & Munoz, 961 S.W.2d 278, 280 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no pet.); White v. Wah, 789 S.W.2d 312, 315 (Tex.App.— *704 Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no writ). 1998Id. | 6 | 9 |
MacGregor Medical Ass'n v. Campbellgreen2 sentences2024See id. 2009Id. at 40–41. | 6 | 6 |
Ocomen v. Rubiogreen2 sentences2010See Ocomen v. Rubio, 24 S.W.3d 461, 466 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.); see also Manner Health Care of Nashville, Inc. v. Robins, 321 S.W.3d 193, 205 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.). 2010Ocomen v. Rubio , 24 S.W.3d 461, 466 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.). | 6 | 6 |
Murphy v. Russellgreen2 sentences2015Ctr., 348 S.W.3d 512, 522 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2011, pet. denied) (“With the expert report requirement, the legislature imposed a threshold to prevent frivolous lawsuits from proceeding until a good-faith effort has been made to demonstrate that at least one expert believes that a breach of the applicable standard of care caused the claimed injury.”)(citing Murphy v. Russell, 167 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Tex. 2005)). 2015Id. at 802–04 (rejecting argument that A claimant bringing an as-applied open-courts chapter 74 “interefere[d] with the judiciary’s challenge to chapter 74 must show that the expert-report constitutional power to decide when and how to render requirements actually prevented him from bringing his judgments” (citing Murphy v. Russell, 167 S.W.3d 835 , claims. | 5 | 7 |
Smith v. Mosbackergreen2 sentences2008Krishnan v. Ramirez , 42 S.W.3d 205, 212 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2001, pet. denied); Smith v. Mossbacker , 94 S.W.3d 292, 294 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.); Schorlemer v. Reyes , 974 S.W.2d 141, 147 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1998, pet. denied). 2003Applicable Law The elements that must be proven for a medical malpractice action are: "(1) a physician's duty to act according to a certain standard; (2) a breach of the applicable standard of care; (3) an injury; and (4) a causal connection between the breach of care and the injury." Smith, 94 S.W.3d at 294 (quoting Day v. Harkins & Munoz , 961 S.W.2d 278, 280 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no pet.)). | 5 | 6 |
Schorlemer v. Reyesgreen2 sentences2008Krishnan v. Ramirez , 42 S.W.3d 205, 212 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2001, pet. denied); Smith v. Mossbacker , 94 S.W.3d 292, 294 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.); Schorlemer v. Reyes , 974 S.W.2d 141, 147 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1998, pet. denied). 2008Krishnan v. Ramirez, 42 S.W.3d 205, 212 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2001, pet. denied); Smith v. Mossbacker, 94 S.W.3d 292, 294 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.); Schorlemer v. Reyes, 974 S.W.2d 141, 147 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1998, pet. denied). | 4 | 4 |
Wheeler v. Aldama-Luebbertgreen2 sentences2000Wheeler v. Aldama-Luebbert, 707 S.W.2d 213, 217 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, no writ); King v. Ramirez, 830 S.W.2d 801, 804 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1992, no writ). 1998Wheeler v. Aldama-Luebbert, 707 S.W.2d 213, 217 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st *854 Dist.] 1986, no writ). | 4 | 4 |
Pinckley v. Dr. Francisco Gallegos, M.D., P.A.green2 sentences1995White, 789 S.W.2d at 315 ; Pinckley v. Gallegos, 740 S.W.2d 529, 531 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1987, writ denied). 1992Pinckley v. Dr. Francisco Gallegos, M.D., 740 S.W.2d 529, 531 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1987, writ denied). | 4 | 4 |
Cruz v. Paso Del Norte Health Foundationgreen2 sentences2005There are four elements to be proved: (1) a duty by the physician/nurse/hospital to act according to applicable standards of care; (2) a breach of the applicable standard of care; (3) an injury; and (4) a causal connection between the breach of care and the injury. [2] Cruz v. Paso Del Norte Health Found., 44 S.W.3d 622, 629-30 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2001, pet. denied). 2005There are four elements to be proved: (1) a duty by the physician/nurse/hospital to act according to applicable standards of care; (2) a breach of the applicable standard of care; (3) an injury; and (4) a causal connection between the breach of care and the injury. 2 Cruz v. Paso Del Norte Health Found., 44 S.W.3d 622, 629-30 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2001, pet. denied). | 3 | 3 |
Day v. Harkins & Munozgreen2 sentences2003Applicable Law The elements that must be proven for a medical malpractice action are: "(1) a physician's duty to act according to a certain standard; (2) a breach of the applicable standard of care; (3) an injury; and (4) a causal connection between the breach of care and the injury." Smith, 94 S.W.3d at 294 (quoting Day v. Harkins & Munoz , 961 S.W.2d 278, 280 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no pet.)). 2002The elements that must be proven for a medical malpractice action are “(1) a physician’s duty to act according to a certain standard; (2) a breach of the applicable standard of care; (3) an injury; and (4) a causal connection between the breach of care and the injury.” Day v. Harkins & Munoz, 961 S.W.2d 278, 280 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no pet.). | 3 | 3 |
Garza v. Levingreen2 sentences2001Gonzales v. Outlar, 829 S.W.2d 931, 933 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1992, no writ); Garza v. Levin, 769 S.W.2d 644, 645 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1989, writ denied). 2001Gonzales v. Outlar , 829 S.W.2d 931, 933 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1992, no writ); Garza v. Levin , 769 S.W.2d 644, 645 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1989, writ denied). | 3 | 3 |
Elam v. Yale Clinicgreen2 sentences2000See LeNotre v. Cohen, 979 S.W.2d 723, 727 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. denied) (citing Elam v. Yale Clinic, 783 S.W.2d 638, 642 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, no writ)). 4 . 1998Elam v. Yale Clinic, 783 S.W.2d 638, 642 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, no writ). | 3 | 3 |
Denton Regional Medical Center v. LaCroixgreen2 sentences2024LaCroix, 947 S.W.2d at 950 . 2001There are four elements to be proved: (1) a duty by the physi *630 cian/nurse/hospital to act according to applicable standards of care; (2) a breach of the applicable standard of care; (3) an injury; and (4) a causal connection between the breach of care and the injury. 7 Denton Regional Medical Center v. LaCroix, 947 S.W.2d 941, 950 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1997, writ denied). | 2 | 4 |
Wilson-Everett v. Christus St. Josephgreen2 sentences2009In that case, the court reasoned "the expert report requirement in section 74.351 imposes a threshold to prevent frivolous or premature lawsuits from proceeding until a good-faith effort has been made to demonstrate that at least one expert believes that a breach of the applicable standard of care caused the claimed injury." Id. at 803 . 2009In that case, the court reasoned “the expert report requirement in section 74.351 imposes a threshold to prevent frivolous or premature lawsuits from proceeding until a good-faith effort has been made to demonstrate that at least one expert believes that a breach of the applicable standard of care caused the claimed injury.” Id. at 803 . | 2 | 4 |
Walker v. Gutierrezgreen2 sentences2013Id. at 802-04 (rejecting argument that chapter 74 “inter-efere[d] with the judiciary’s constitutional power to decide when and how to render judgments” (citing Murphy v. Russell, 167 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Tex.2005) (per curiam); Walker, 111 S.W.3d at 66 ). 2013Id. at 802-04 (rejecting argument that chapter 74 “interefere[d] with the judiciary’s constitutional power to decide when and how to render judgments” (citing Murphy v. Russell, 167 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam); Walker, 111 S.W.3d at 66 ). | 2 | 3 |
Christus Spohn Health System Corp. v. Sanchezgreen2 sentences2010Corp. v. Sanchez , 299 S.W.3d 868, 874 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2009, pet. denied) (holding that plaintiff's claim against two nurses that she was sexually assaulted during an examination was not a "health care liability claim" in part because the nurses' alleged conduct "was [not] related to the health care being provided" and did not "somehow involve[] the professional judgment of [the nurses]"); Jones v. Khorsandi , 148 S.W.3d 201, 206 (Tex. App.-Eastland 2004, pet. denied) (holding that plaintiff's claim that he was sexually assaulted by a doctor while under the influence of medication wa 2010Corp. v. Sanchez, 299 S.W.3d 868, 874 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2009, pet. denied) (holding that plaintiff’s claim against two nurses that she was sexually assaulted during an examination was not a “health care liability claim” in part because the nurses’ alleged conduct “was [not] related to the health care being provided” and did not “somehow involve[] the professional judgment of [the nurses]”); Jones v. 6 Khorsandi, 148 S.W.3d 201, 206 (Tex. App.–Eastland 2004, pet. denied) (holding that plaintiff’s claim that he was sexually assaulted by a doctor while under the influence of medication wa | 2 | 2 |
Mariner Health Care of Nashville, Inc. v. Robinsgreen2 sentences2010See Ocomen v. Rubio, 24 S.W.3d 461, 466 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.); see also Manner Health Care of Nashville, Inc. v. Robins, 321 S.W.3d 193, 205 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.). 2010See Ocomen v. Rubio, 24 S.W.3d 461, 466 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.); see also Mariner 16 Health Care of Nashville, Inc. v. Robins, No. 01-08-00830-CV, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 5114, at *21 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] July 1, 2010, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
Jones v. Khorsandigreen2 sentences2010Corp. v. Sanchez , 299 S.W.3d 868, 874 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2009, pet. denied) (holding that plaintiff's claim against two nurses that she was sexually assaulted during an examination was not a "health care liability claim" in part because the nurses' alleged conduct "was [not] related to the health care being provided" and did not "somehow involve[] the professional judgment of [the nurses]"); Jones v. Khorsandi , 148 S.W.3d 201, 206 (Tex. App.-Eastland 2004, pet. denied) (holding that plaintiff's claim that he was sexually assaulted by a doctor while under the influence of medication wa 2010Corp. v. Sanchez, 299 S.W.3d 868, 874 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2009, pet. denied) (holding that plaintiff’s claim against two nurses that she was sexually assaulted during an examination was not a “health care liability claim” in part because the nurses’ alleged conduct “was [not] related to the health care being provided” and did not “somehow involve[] the professional judgment of [the nurses]”); Jones v. 6 Khorsandi, 148 S.W.3d 201, 206 (Tex. App.–Eastland 2004, pet. denied) (holding that plaintiff’s claim that he was sexually assaulted by a doctor while under the influence of medication wa | 2 | 2 |
Windsor v. Maxwellgreen2 sentences2007See Windsor v. Maxwell , 121 S.W.3d 42, 47-48 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2003, pet. denied). 2007See Windsor v. Maxwell, 121 S.W.3d 42, 47-48 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, pet. denied). | 2 | 2 |
| Ortiz v. Shahgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Gonzales v. Outlargreen | 2 | 2 |
| Sorokolit v. Rhodesgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Bradford v. Alexandergreen | 2 | 2 |
Linan v. Rosalesgreen2 sentences2016Morrell v. Finke, 184 S.W.3d 257, 271 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005, pet. denied); Linan v. Rosales, 155 S.W.3d 298, 302 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2004, pet. denied); Krishnan v. Ramirez, 42 S.W.3d 205, 212 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, pet. denied). 2010Morrell v. Finke, 184 S.W.3d 257, 271 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005, pet. denied); Linan, 155 S.W.3d at 302 ; Krishnan v. Ramirez, 42 S.W.3d 205, 212 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, pet. denied). | 1 | 5 |
Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Gilliesgreen2 sentences2016Ethicon, 343 S.W.3d at 211-12 . 2015Ethicon, 343 S.W.3d at 211-12 . | 1 | 3 |
Mills v. Angelgreen2 sentences2021Ctr., 947 S.W.2d at 950 ; see Chau v. Riddle, No. 01-04-00551-CV, 2008 WL 4836500 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 6, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.); Mills, 995 S.W.2d at 267 ; see also Tex. Civ. 2000Mills v. Angel, 995 S.W.2d 262, 267 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1999, n.w.h.). | 1 | 2 |
| Tenet Health Ltd. v. Zamoragreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.red | 1 | 1 |
| Frankie Marie Miller, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of T.J. Miller v. John B. Mullen, M.D., and Titus Regional Medical Centergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gregory Sage v. James R. Howard, M. D.green | 1 | 1 |
| Benish v. Grottiegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hightower v. Baylor University Medical Centergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Estrada v. Mijaresgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Harris Methodist Fort Worth v. Olliegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brandt v. Surbergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Moreno v. Quintanagreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Lumsdengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hutchinson v. Montemayorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
NCED Mental Health, Inc. v. Kidd
green
2 sentences2010Ammons, 266 S.W.3d at 57 ; Kidd, 214 S.W.3d at 33 . 2010Ammons, 266 S.W.3d at 57 ; Kidd, 214 S.W.3d at 33 . | 3 | 2010–2010 |
Wilson N. Jones Memorial Hospital v. Ammons
green
2 sentences2010Ammons, 266 S.W.3d at 57 ; Kidd, 214 S.W.3d at 33 . 2010Ammons, 266 S.W.3d at 57 ; Kidd, 214 S.W.3d at 33 . | 3 | 2010–2010 |
Sax v. Votteler
green
2 sentences2015Sax, 648 S.W.2d at 666 . that a breach of the applicable standard of care caused the [22] claimed injury. 2015Sax, 648 S.W.2d at 666 . that a breach of the applicable standard of care caused the [22] claimed injury. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
UHS of Timberlawn, Inc. v. S.B. Ex Rel. A.B.
green
2 sentences2013We explained that “in some healthcare liability claims, the “injury, harm, or damages claimed” flow from the existence of a medical condition that itself resulted from the breach of the applicable standard of care.” Id. 2012In rejecting this premise, the court distinguished health care liability claims in which “the ‘injury, harm, or damages claimed’ flow from the existence of a medical condition that itself resulted from the breach of the applicable standard of care.” Id. at 212 . | 2 | 2012–2013 |
Wilson v. Korthauer
green
2 sentences2011Wilson v. Korthauer , 21 S.W.3d 573 , 579 n.3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). 2011Wilson v. Korthcmer, 21 S.W.3d 573 , 579 n. 3 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Vanderwerff v. Beathard
green
2 sentences2010Dr. Loaisiga relies on Vanderwerff v. Beathard , 239 S.W.3d 406 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.), in arguing that the claims made against him were in fact "health care liability claims." In Vanderwerff , the plaintiff alleged that the defendant chiropractor "rubbed her genitals" while performing a chiropractic examination. 2010Dr. Loaisiga relies on Vanderwerff v. Beathard, 239 S.W.3d 406 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2007, no pet.), in arguing that the claims made against him were in fact “health care liability claims.” In Vanderwerff, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant chiropractor “rubbed her genitals” while performing a chiropractic examination. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| Gomez v. Matey green | 2 | 2004–2004 |
| Annie DORSEY, Individually and Appellant, A/N/F of Ezra Dorsey, v. Nikhilkumar C. RAVAL, M.D., Appellee green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Russ v. Titus Hospital District green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Rubio v. Diversicare General Partner, Inc. green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| McCombs v. Children's Medical Center of Dallas green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.