Tenet Hospitals Limited, a Texas Limited Partnership, D/B/A the Hospitals of Providence Memorial Campus v. Ashlee M. Balderrama and Alejandro J. Martinez

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 16, 2024
• Docket: 08-23-00263-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

TENET HOSPITALS LIMITED, a TEXAS § No. 08-23-00263-CV LIMITED PARTNERSHIP D/B/A THE HOSPITALS OF PROVIDENCE § Appeal from MEMORIAL CAMPUS, § County Court at Law No. 3 Appellant, § of El Paso County, Texas v. § (TC# 2023DCV2379) ASHLEE M. BALDERRAMA and ALEJANDRO J. MARTINEZ,

Appellees.

DISSENTING OPINION

Based on the gravamen of the claims and the limited record before us, I would conclude

that the Parents’ claims are not health care liability claims under the Texas Medical Liability Act.

As the majority opinion notes, the Texas Supreme Court expressly left open the question

of whether performing an autopsy or failing to obtain informed consent to perform an autopsy,

without more, is health care under the TMLA. See CHRISTUS Health Gulf Coast v. Carswell, 505

S.W.3d 528, 536 (Tex. 2016). In my view, the Parents’ narrowly tailored claims fall squarely within

this open question. Like the two cases from our sister courts discussed by the Carswell Court, this

case involves no link to pre-mortem health care of any patient but is instead “based entirely on

postmortem actions of the defendants that were directed to a dead body.” Id. at 537 (discussing

1 Hare and Salazar). But unlike this case, Carswell involved substantial allegations regarding

deficient health care, including circumstances surrounding the deceased’s cause of death and the

manner in which the autopsy was performed (and to what end). Id. at 531–32. There, “the

professional or administrative services underlying the Carswells’ complaint were directly related

to the improper health care they alleged Jerry Carswell received, or health care they alleged he

should have received but did not.” Id. at 537. While Carswell illustrates a case in which an autopsy

is a professional or administrative service directly related to health care, the majority opinion in

this case seems to hinge the “direct relation to” health care solely on the fact that Aiden was a

patient at the hospital where he passed.

Classifying an autopsy-based claim as a health care liability claim solely based on whether

the deceased was a hospital patient disregards our duty to “examine the underlying nature and

gravamen of the claim, rather than the way it is pleaded.” Id. at 534. Just as a plaintiff cannot

artfully plead her way out of the TMLA’s orbit, neither can a defendant reshape a plaintiff’s case

to fit within it.

The gravamen of the claims against this party in this case regard the Parents’ right to

consent and Providence’s failure to adhere to the scope of that consent and the resulting handling

of Aiden’s remains. I see nothing more in the nascent record before us. Because neither the TMLA’s

language nor the precedent interpreting it dictate that the Parents’ claims are health care liability

claims, I would have affirmed the trial court’s order concluding that they are not.

LISA J. SOTO, Justice

August 16, 2024

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.