safety standards-based claim in Texas

2025“The pivotal issue in a safety standards-based claim is whether the standards on which the claim is based implicate the defendant’s duties as a health care provider, including its duties to provide for patient safety.” Id. at 505 .

2025“A safety standards-based claim does not come within the TMLA’s provisions just because the underlying occurrence took place in a health care facility, the claim is against a health care provider, or both.” Id. at 503 .

2018Our focus when determining whether a claim falls under the TMLA, including when we consider whether a plaintiff's allegations present a safety standards-based claim, is "the gravamen of the claim or claims against the health care provider." Id. at 178 .

2015In its motion, the hospital cited Texas West Oaks Hospital, L.P. v. Williams, 371 S.W.3d 171, 186 (Tex.2012), where we held that when a claimant asserts a safety standards-based claim against a health care provider, those standards need not be directly related to the provision of health care in order for the claim to be an HCLC under the Act.

2020Id. at 257 ; see also Ross v. St.

2015In Ross, the Texas Supreme Court placed its “substantive nexus” statement in the context of the existing and still valid concept that “if the facts underlying a claim could support claims against a physician or health care provider for departures from accepted standards of medical care health care, or safety or professional or administrative services directly related to health care, the claims are HCLCs regardless of whether plaintiff alleged defendants were liable for breach of the standards.” Id. at 503 (emphasis in original)(citing Loaisiga, 379 S.W.3d at 255 ).

2015Id. at 789 .

2015Id. at 789.

2019Partner, Inc. v. Rubio, 185 S.W.3d 842, 855 (Tex. 2005). 18 Ross, 462 S.W.3d at 505 . 19 Id. 8 To decide whether a plaintiff’s personal injury claim that arose from a fall asserted a health care liability claim subject to the Act, the Ross Court used these seven factors: 1.

2015See Rusk State of Williams and the TMLA, leaving uncertainty in the Hasp. v. Black, 392 S. W.3d 88, 95 (Tex. 2012) (noting law regarding whether a safety standards-based claim that if a court does not have jurisdiction, its opinion ad- must be related to health care.

2015See, e.g., Cage v. Methodist Hosp., 01-14-00341-CV, 2015 WL 4139322, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 9, 2015, no. pet. h.). 9 in a safety standards-based claim is whether the standards on which the claim is based implicate the defendant’s duties as a health care provider, including its duties to provide for patient safety.” Id.

2015See, e.g., Cage v. Methodist Hosp., 01-14-00341-CV, 2015 WL 4139322, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 9, 2015, no. pet. h.). 9 in a safety standards-based claim is whether the standards on which the claim is based implicate the defendant’s duties as a health care provider, including its duties to provide for patient safety.” Id.

2015Third, the hospital is required and, because Twilley's [*6] claims did not addresses the merits by asserting that the court of appeals have such a relationship, an expert report was not correctly held that a safety standards-based claim need required. !d. at 785. not be related to health care to fall within the TMLA's Page 3 2015 Tex. LEXIS 361, *6 ; 58 Tex. Sup. J. 766 ; 58 Tex. Sup. J. 802 In this case the court of appeals held that under effect the purpose of a rule" (quoting Verburgt v. Dorner, Williams "a connection between the act or omission and 959 S.W2d 615, 616-17 (Tex. 1997))) .