nursing standard in Texas

2008Accord Torres, 186 S.W.3d at 47–48; Devereaux v. Harris County Hosp.

2008Accord Torres , 186 S.W.3d at 47–48; Devereaux v. Harris County Hosp.

2019Code Ann. § 301.002 (2) (West Supp. 2018). 4 Appellant argues that nurses in Texas have “no legal duty to draw any conclusion from their observations about the patient’s signs, symptoms, and responses that would require a medical diagnosis.” See Methodist Hosp. v. German, 369 S.W.3d 333, 343 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. denied.) Appellant argues that Dr. Akin sought to hold the nurses— and by extension, the Medical Center—to a standard that is beyond the scope of nursing practice. 4 We cite the current version of the statute because subsequent amendments do not affect our disposit

2018Code Ann. § 301.002 (2) (West Supp. 2018). 5 Appellant argues that nurses in Texas have “no legal duty to draw any conclusion from their observations about the patient’s signs, symptoms, and responses that would require a medical diagnosis.” See Methodist Hosp. v. German, 369 S.W.3d 333, 343 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. denied.) Appellant argues that Dr. Akin sought to hold the nurses— and by extension, the Medical Center—to a standard that is beyond the scope of nursing practice. 5 We cite the current version of the statute because subsequent amendments do not affect our disposit

2016See Baylor Medical Center v. Wallace, 278 S.W.3d 552, 558 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.).

2016See Wallace, 278 S.W.3d at 558 ; see also Tenet Hosps, Ltd. v. De La Rosa, No. 08-13-00290-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 6060, at **9-10 (Tex. App.— El Paso June 8, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding that a doctor can opine about the standard of care applicable to nurses, especially when the expert reports demonstrate that the physician “is familiar with the applicable nursing standard of care in a hospital inpatient setting, he has taught courses to nurses, and he has worked with and interacted with nurses in the hospital inpatient setting”) (citing Hall v. Huff, 957 S.W.2d 90, 100 (Tex. App.—T

2016See Hall v. Huff, 957 S.W.2d 90, 100 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1997, pet. deniedXphysician was qualified to testify as expert about nursing standards of care where he had taught nursing courses, including management of critical care patients, and had testified about nursing standard).

2016See Wallace, 278 S.W.3d at 558 ; see also Tenet Hosps, Ltd. v. De La Rosa, No. 08-13-00290-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 6060, at **9-10 (Tex. App.— El Paso June 8, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding that a doctor can opine about the standard of care applicable to nurses, especially when the expert reports demonstrate that the physician “is familiar with the applicable nursing standard of care in a hospital inpatient setting, he has taught courses to nurses, and he has worked with and interacted with nurses in the hospital inpatient setting”) (citing Hall v. Huff, 957 S.W.2d 90, 100 (Tex. App.—T

2016“Close calls must go to the trial court.” Larson v. Doming, 197 S.W.3d 303, 304 (Tex.2006) (per curiam) (upholding trial court’s decision to strike expert testimony of physician because he was not qualified as expert).

2016See Clark v. HCA, Inc., 210 S.W.3d 1, 7-8 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2006, no pet.) (concluding that trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found plaintiffs expert not qualified because record did not indicate doctor’s current role in relevant field or his experience with antieoagulation therapy at issue); In re Windisch, 138 S.W.3d 507, 514 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 2004, no pet.) (per curiam) (finding expert report inadequate for statutory purposes because report failed to indicate experience which could “reasonably be said to demonstrate that he has knowledge of the accepted standard of care for

2016See Clark v. HCA, Inc., 210 S.W.3d 1, 7-8 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2006, no pet.) (concluding that trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found plaintiffs expert not qualified because record did not indicate doctor’s current role in relevant field or his experience with antieoagulation therapy at issue); In re Windisch, 138 S.W.3d 507, 514 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 2004, no pet.) (per curiam) (finding expert report inadequate for statutory purposes because report failed to indicate experience which could “reasonably be said to demonstrate that he has knowledge of the accepted standard of care for

2016See Wallace, 278 S.W.3d at 558 ; see also Tenet Hosps, Ltd. v. De La Rosa, No. 08-13-00290-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 6060, at **9-10 (Tex. App.— El Paso June 8, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding that a doctor can opine about the standard of care applicable to nurses, especially when the expert reports demonstrate that the physician “is familiar with the applicable nursing standard of care in a hospital inpatient setting, he has taught courses to nurses, and he has worked with and interacted with nurses in the hospital inpatient setting”) (citing Hall v. Huff, 957 S.W.2d 90, 100 (Tex. App.—T

2015Hospital v. Wright, 79 S.W.3d 48, 52 (Tex.2002) (citing the Found., Inc. v. Baird, 991 S.W.2d 918, 921 (Tex.App.- two-part test set forth in American Transitional Care Ctrs. of Forth Worth 1999, pet. denied) (nurse was not qualified to Tex., Inc. v. Palacios, 46 S.W.3d 873, 879 (Tex.2001)).

2015Hospital v. Wright, 79 S.W.3d 48, 52 (Tex.2002) (citing the Found., Inc. v. Baird, 991 S.W.2d 918, 921 (Tex.App.- two-part test set forth in American Transitional Care Ctrs. of Forth Worth 1999, pet. denied) (nurse was not qualified to Tex., Inc. v. Palacios, 46 S.W.3d 873, 879 (Tex.2001)).

2015See enough information to fulfill two purposes: (1) it must inform Pace v. Sadler, 966 S.W.2d 685, 690 (Tex.App.-San Antonio the defendant of the specific conduct the plaintiff has called 1998, no pet.) (although qualified to render expert opinion into question, and (2) it must provide a basis for the trial court on nursing standard of care, nurse was not qualified to to conclude that the claims have merit.” Bowie Memorial medically diagnose heart condition); Arlington Mem'l Hosp.

2015Hospital v. Wright, 79 S.W.3d 48, 52 (Tex.2002) (citing the Found., Inc. v. Baird, 991 S.W.2d 918, 921 (Tex.App.- two-part test set forth in American Transitional Care Ctrs. of Forth Worth 1999, pet. denied) (nurse was not qualified to Tex., Inc. v. Palacios, 46 S.W.3d 873, 879 (Tex.2001)).