Guzman v. Memorial Hermann Hospital System, Civil Action No. H-07-3973.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
Writing for the CourtLee H. Rosenthal
Citation637 F.Supp.2d 464
PartiesWendy GUZMAN, Individually and as Next Friend of T. Guzman, a Minor, Plaintiff, v. MEMORIAL HERMANN HOSPITAL SYSTEM, d/b/a Memorial Hermann Southeast Hospital, Defendants.
Decision Date16 June 2009
Docket NumberCivil Action No. H-07-3973.
637 F.Supp.2d 464
Wendy GUZMAN, Individually and as Next Friend of T. Guzman, a Minor, Plaintiff,
v.
MEMORIAL HERMANN HOSPITAL SYSTEM, d/b/a Memorial Hermann Southeast Hospital, Defendants.
Civil Action No. H-07-3973.
United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division.
June 16, 2009.

Page 465

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 466

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 467

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 468

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 469

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 470

Phillip A. Pfeifer, Attorney at Law, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff.

Craig Smyser, Christina A. Bryan, Smyser Kaplan & Veselka, Charles C. Brennig, III, Henke Law Firm, LLP, Callie E. Murphy, Houston, TX, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION

LEE H. ROSENTHAL, District Judge.


This case arises out of medical care provided to a child in a hospital emergency room in February 2006. Wendy Guzman, individually and on behalf of her son, "T," sued Memorial Hermann Hospital System, d.b.a. Memorial Hermann Southeast Hospital ("Memorial Hermann") in November 2007. Guzman filed this suit in Texas state court, asserting a claim under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd ("EMTALA"), and Memorial Hermann timely removed on the basis of federal-question jurisdiction. Guzman amended her complaint to add state-law negligence claims against Memorial Hermann, Philip Haynes, M.D., Ph.D., Memorial Southeast Emergency Physicians, LLP ("MSEP"), and Emergency Consultants, Inc. ("ECI").

Dr. Haynes was the emergency-room physician who saw T. at Memorial Hermann. Dr. Haynes was a partner in MSEP, a limited liability partnership of emergency-room physicians. MSEP is a Michigan LLP registered to do business in Texas. MSEP had a contract with Memorial Hermann to provide emergency-physician staffing to the hospital. ECI, a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business in Michigan, had an administrative services agreement with MSEP to provide administrative and support services. On December 17, 2008, this court granted ECI's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Docket Entry No. 53).

Memorial Hermann has moved for summary judgment on Guzman's EMTALA claims. (Docket Entry No. 95). Guzman responded, (Docket Entry No. 100), and moved for a continuance to conduct discovery under Rule 56(f). (Docket Entry No. 99). Memorial Hermann replied, (Docket Entry No. 103), Guzman filed a surreply, (Docket Entry No. 106), and Memorial Hermann filed a supplemental reply, (Docket Entry No. 108). Memorial Hermann also moved to strike the affidavit of Guzman's expert witness, Dr. Stephen Hayden, M.D., (Docket Entry No. 104), and Guzman responded, (Docket Entry No. 107). After this court heard oral argument on the parties' motions on May 28, 2009, Guzman filed a supplemental response, (Docket Entry No. 110), and Memorial Hermann filed a supplemental reply, (Docket Entry No. 113).

Based on a careful review of the motions, responses, and replies, the parties' submissions, the arguments of counsel, and the applicable law, this court grants Memorial Hermann's motion for partial summary judgment and grants in part and denies in part Memorial Hermann's motion to strike. Guzman's Rule 56(f) motion is

Page 471

denied. The reasons for these rulings are explained below.

I. The Summary Judgment Evidence

A. Factual Background

On February 12, 2006, Guzman's son "T," then seven years old, was feeling ill. His parents took him to the emergency room at Memorial Hermann in Houston, Texas. They arrived at the hospital at 7:39 a.m. and were taken to the triage area at 7:42 a.m. Guzman reported that her son had vomited seven or eight times during the night and complained of nausea. Guzman also stated that the child had been running a fever, but that she had not recorded his temperature with a thermometer. The triage nurse recorded the child's temperature as 98.1 degrees, his blood pressure as 110/67, and his heart rate as 145. Under Memorial Hermann policy, all pediatric patients with a heart rate above 140 are categorized as Emergent Level 2. The triage nurse, April Ganz, placed Guzman's son in this category based solely on his elevated heart rate. Memorial Hermann policy required all patients categorized as Emergent Level 2 to be seen by a physician. In accordance with this policy, Nurse Ganz completed triage at 7:47 a.m. and took the child to an examination room to be seen by Dr. Haynes.

At 7:55 a.m., an emergency room nurse, Frank Blain, examined T., who complained of cough and generalized pain. (Docket Entry No. 95, Ex. A, at MHSE-0013). Guzman had given T. Motrin at 4:00 a.m. and Tylenol at 6:30 a.m. (Id.). Nurse Blain noted that the child's respiratory effort was "even, unlabored, relaxed," his respiratory pattern was "regular symmetrical," and his breath sounds were "clear bilaterally." (Id., at MHSE-0014).

At 8:00 a.m., Dr. Haynes began taking the child's medical history in advance of performing a physical examination. (Id., at MHSE-0009, MHSE-0010). Dr. Haynes learned that the child had been coughing, vomiting, and complaining of nausea. Dr. Haynes then examined "T." In his deposition, Dr. Haynes testified that the child was "clinically stable, his saturation on room air was normal. He had clear breath sounds bilaterally, had no retractions, was in no respiratory distress." (Docket Entry No. 95, Ex. N, Deposition of Philip Haynes, M.D., at 24:4-7). At this point, Dr. Haynes believed that the child likely had a virus. At 8:34 a.m., Dr. Haynes ordered several laboratory tests, including a complete blood count (CBC). A CBC includes a white blood cell differential test, which examines and classifies 100 white blood cells. One of the classifications is a band count. A high band count indicates that a patient is fighting off infection.

At approximately 9:10 a.m., the CBC results were made available on the hospital's computer, except for the white blood cell differential test results. The automated processor for the CBC had generated an abnormality flag, requiring a manual white blood cell differential test. That manual test was completed and the results available on the hospital's computer system by 9:35 a.m., but Dr. Haynes did not see them that day. (Docket Entry No. 100, Ex. F, Deposition of Doug Mitchell, at 38:3-13).

Sometime between 8:30 and 10:00 a.m., Dr. Haynes checked back on T. to ask how he was doing and to make sure he was getting fluids and everything he needed. (Docket Entry No. 95, Ex. N, Deposition of Philip Haynes, M.D., at 79:4-18). Shortly before 10:00 a.m., Nurse Blain told Dr. Haynes that the Guzmans wanted to know their son's lab values. Blain said that the family was interested in going home and wanted to know what the doctor planned. When Dr. Haynes had this conversation

Page 472

with Nurse Blain, he knew that he had the CBC results except for the white blood cell differential test results. (Id., at 23:8-11). Dr. Haynes testified that when he looked at the lab values on the computer around 10:00 a.m. the differential count was not on the screen. (Id., at 20:13-19).

At 10:13 a.m., Dr. Haynes diagnosed viral syndrome. Nurse Blain had recorded that at 9:58 a.m., T's heart rate had decreased to 105-110. Dr. Haynes believed that the earlier elevated heart rate had been caused by an albuterol inhaler treatment or slight dehydration from vomiting. (Id., at 93:20-94:22). The emergency room staff had given T. a "fluid challenge by mouth to make sure that he was no longer vomiting." (Id., at 23:21-24:9). Dr. Haynes believed that the improved heart rate was due to the IV fluids T. received in the emergency room. Dr. Haynes and the emergency room nurses believed that the child was stable during the entire time he was in the emergency room on February 12, 2006. Dr. Haynes testified that he made the decision to discharge, knowing that he had not seen the results of the white blood cell differential test, because he had examined T. and interviewed the family, found the child "clinically stable," with an improved heart rate, no respiratory distress, "no longer hurting anywhere other than the place where his IV was," and "the family wanted to go home." (Id., at 23:17-24:14). Based on all that information "and on the lab information [he] had available to [him] at that time, [Dr. Haynes] felt [T.] was stable for discharge." (Id., at 24:17-19). Because Dr. Haynes believed the child to be "stable for discharge," (id. at 20:3-10), he was released from the hospital at approximately 10:15 a.m. The form Dr. Haynes completed to show the differential diagnosis1 based on the child's symptoms indicated diabetes, diabetic ketoacidosis, gastroenteritis, and "UTI," or urinary tract infection. (Docket Entry No. 95, Ex. A, at MHSE-0010). Dr. Haynes testified in his deposition that the circle on the form around "UTI" was a mistake; he had meant to circle "URI," or upper respiratory infection. (Docket Entry No. 95, Ex. N, Deposition of Philip Haynes, M.D., at 111:3-12). According to Dr. Haynes, the child's symptoms were not consistent with a urinary tract infection. (Id., at 111:8-9). Dr. Haynes believed that T. had a virus that was mostly affecting the upper respiratory system but could have also been affecting the gastrointestinal system. (Id., at 111:16-24). Dr. Haynes told the Guzmans that their son's condition should begin to improve within 24 hours but to return to the emergency room if he was not better.

Dr. Haynes did not see the white blood cell differential test results before discharging "T." As a result, Dr. Haynes did not know that the band count was extremely high, indicating a bacterial infection. Dr. Haynes testified in his deposition that if he had seen the band count, he would have reevaluated the child, told the family members about the abnormal lab values, admitted the child to the hospital, ordered a blood culture, and spoken with his primary care physician about possibly giving the child antibiotics. (I...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Thornhill v. Jackson Parish Hosp., CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-01867
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Louisiana
    • May 4, 2016
    ...outweigh the increased risks to the individual...and the transfer is an appropriate transfer...’ " Guzman v. Mem'l. Hosp. Sys. , 637 F.Supp.2d 464, 478–79 (S.D.Tex.2009) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(c)(1), aff'd , 409 Fed.Appx. 769 (5th Cir.2011) ). An appropriate transfer is one which is ef......
  • Cervantes v. Tenet Hosps. Ltd., EP-18-CV-00110-KC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Texas
    • March 26, 2019
    ...the emergency room generally defines which procedures are within a hospital's capabilities." Guzman v. Mem'l Hermann Hosp. Sys. , 637 F.Supp.2d 464, 481 (S.D. Tex. 2009), aff'd , 409 F. App'x 769 (5th Cir. 2011).2. Screening claim The present controversy centers exclusively on EMTALA's scre......
  • Tenet Hospitals Ltd. v. Boada, No. 08-07-00329-CV.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • January 27, 2010
    ...and treat the patient for those conditions the physician perceives the patient to have.'" Guzman v. Memorial Hermann Hospital System, 637 F.Supp.2d 464, 483 (S.D.Tx.2009), citing Bryant v. Adventist Health System/West, 289 F.3d 1162, 1166 n. 3 (9th Cir.2002) and Hunt v. Lincoln Cty. Memoria......
  • Cheatwood v. Mwanza, No. 2:19-CV-02088
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Arkansas
    • December 3, 2020
    ...facility outweigh the increased risks to the individual and the transfer is an appropriate transfer.Guzman v. Mem'l Hermann Hosp. Sys., 637 F.Supp.2d 464, 478-79 (S.D. Tex. 2009) (internal citations and alterations omitted). The transfer requirements under EMTALA do not have to be satisfied......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Thornhill v. Jackson Parish Hosp., CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-01867
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Louisiana
    • May 4, 2016
    ...outweigh the increased risks to the individual...and the transfer is an appropriate transfer...’ " Guzman v. Mem'l. Hosp. Sys. , 637 F.Supp.2d 464, 478–79 (S.D.Tex.2009) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(c)(1), aff'd , 409 Fed.Appx. 769 (5th Cir.2011) ). An appropriate transfer is one which is ef......
  • Cervantes v. Tenet Hosps. Ltd., EP-18-CV-00110-KC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Texas
    • March 26, 2019
    ...the emergency room generally defines which procedures are within a hospital's capabilities." Guzman v. Mem'l Hermann Hosp. Sys. , 637 F.Supp.2d 464, 481 (S.D. Tex. 2009), aff'd , 409 F. App'x 769 (5th Cir. 2011).2. Screening claim The present controversy centers exclusively on EMTALA's scre......
  • Tenet Hospitals Ltd. v. Boada, No. 08-07-00329-CV.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • January 27, 2010
    ...and treat the patient for those conditions the physician perceives the patient to have.'" Guzman v. Memorial Hermann Hospital System, 637 F.Supp.2d 464, 483 (S.D.Tx.2009), citing Bryant v. Adventist Health System/West, 289 F.3d 1162, 1166 n. 3 (9th Cir.2002) and Hunt v. Lincoln Cty. Memoria......
  • Spear Mktg., Inc. v. Bancorpsouth Bank, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-3583-B
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Northern District of Texas
    • June 11, 2014
    .... . . and input the data . . . on a daily basis into VaultWorks." (Def.'s App. 918.) 6. See Guzman v. Mem'l Hermann Hosp. Sys., 637 F. Supp. 2d 464, 476 (S.D. Tex. 2009) ("[An expert] witness need not have observed or participated in the gathering of the data underlying his opinion. Rather,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT