Regent Care of San Antonio, L.P. v. Detrick
| Decision Date | 08 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 19-0117,19-0117 |
| Citation | 610 S.W.3d 830 |
| Parties | REGENT CARE OF SAN ANTONIO, L.P., Petitioner, v. Robert H. DETRICK and Carolyn Dart Detrick, Respondents |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Andrew J. Mytelka, Angela Olalde, John A. Buckley Jr., Galveston, Dennis J. Drouillard, D. Ann Comerio, San Antonio, for Petitioner.
Robert B. Gilbreath, Dallas, Thomas G. Kemmy, San Antonio, Daniel Kemmy, for Respondents.
Tom F. Nye, Mike A. Hatchell, Austin, Megan Ann Kemp, for Amicus Curiae Colombia Valley Healthcare System, IP d/b/a Valley Regional Medical Center.
R. Brent Cooper, Diana L. Faust, Dallas, for Amicus Curiae Texas Alliance for Patient Access.
This medical malpractice case presents two issues concerning the formation of a trial court's judgment as to damages. Robert Detrick and his wife sued a skilled nursing facility, claiming its nurses negligently failed to notify his doctors of a change in his condition. Detrick alleged that this failure led to a delay in diagnosing a compression of his spinal cord
, resulting in his paralysis. Detrick also sued other defendants but settled with them before trial. A jury found for Detrick, holding the nursing facility 55% responsible for his injuries and awarding damages.
In this Court, the nursing facility challenges the trial court's application of a settlement credit and damages cap, as well as its finding that a certain amount of Detrick's medical expenses should be paid periodically. We hold that the trial court properly applied the settlement credit to reduce the claimant's recovery while separately applying the damages cap to reduce the defendant's liability. We also hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to order periodic payment of a larger amount of Detrick's medical expenses. We do not reach two other issues because they present no reversible error and discussing them would not add to the jurisprudence of the State. We therefore affirm.
On November 26, Professor Robert Detrick was admitted to Regent Care Center of San Antonio, a skilled nursing facility, to receive short-term treatment for a rash prior to undergoing hip replacement surgery. He introduced evidence that he began experiencing incontinence after his admission, but nurses at Regent Care failed to notify his treating physicians—Drs. Nora Cubillos and Rohan Coutinho—of this change in his condition. Detrick grew progressively weaker and on December 9, when he could no longer feel or move his legs, he was transferred to the hospital. An MRI revealed a tumor in Detrick's spinal canal that had compressed his spinal cord. His paralysis proved to be permanent.
Evidence at trial showed that if Detrick had surgery even a few days earlier, he could have recovered and been able to walk. If the spinal cord is being compressed, surgery will alleviate the pressure, but more damage is possible the longer the compression lasts. Drs. Cubillos and Coutinho both testified that they would have ordered an MRI earlier had they been notified of Detrick's new-onset incontinence.
Detrick and his wife (collectively, Detrick) sued Regent Care as well as Drs. Cubillos and Coutinho and their medical practices.1 Detrick settled with all defendants other than Regent Care for a total of $1,850,000. Regent Care elected a dollar-for-dollar settlement credit. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 33.012(c). Following trial, the jury found that Regent Care and each of the settling defendants were negligent and proximately caused Detrick's injury, and it apportioned 55% responsibility for the injury to Regent Care. The jury awarded economic damages of $3 million for future medical expenses, $390,000 for past medical expenses, and $245,000 for loss of household services. It also awarded $10,250,000 in noneconomic damages.
In applying the dollar-for-dollar settlement credit, the trial court calculated the percentages of economic versus noneconomic damages awarded by the jury and allocated the credit using those percentages, subtracting 27% of the credit from the economic damages and 73% from the noneconomic damages. The court then further reduced the noneconomic damages to $250,000 as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA), leaving a total judgment of $3,399,371. See id. § 74.301(b). Regent Care requested that the entire award of damages for future medical care be paid in periodic payments, but the trial court ordered that $256,358 be paid over a 24-month period. See id. § 74.503(a).
Regent Care appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of expert testimony, the trial court's application of the settlement credit, and the amount of the trial court's award of periodic payments. 567 S.W.3d 752, 757 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2018). The court of appeals reversed the award of damages to Detrick's wife for loss of household services (not at issue here) but otherwise affirmed the trial court's judgment. Id. at 771. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings with regard to causation, past and future medical expenses, and allocation of responsibility. Id. at 761, 765, 768. The court also held that Regent Care failed to show the trial court abused its discretion in admitting Detrick's expert's testimony over objections that it was conclusory and speculative. Id. at 764–65. As to damages, the court of appeals held that the trial court correctly applied the settlement credit and TMLA cap on noneconomic damages, and that its determination of the amount of future medical damages to be paid periodically was not an abuse of discretion. Id. at 770–71.
In this Court, Regent Care asserts that the trial court should have applied the settlement credit after determining the capped noneconomic damages. Regent Care also challenges the trial court's order that $256,358 be paid periodically, asserting that this amount is entirely unsupported by the evidence. Finally, Regent Care challenges the sufficiency of the evidence of causation and the admission of expert testimony regarding past medical damages.
We first address Regent Care's issue concerning whether the trial court properly applied the statutory settlement credit and damages cap in its judgment. Statutory construction involves questions of law that we review de novo. Cadena Comercial USA Corp. v. Tex. Alcoholic Beverage Comm'n , 518 S.W.3d 318, 325 (Tex. 2017).
Chapter 33 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code instructs trial courts how to determine a claimant's recovery as well as a defendant's liability in cases involving findings of proportionate responsibility, including cases in which some parties have settled. A claimant's recovery and a defendant's liability are distinct concepts, and each must be calculated and applied separately. Roberts v. Williamson , 111 S.W.3d 113, 123 (Tex. 2003). That principle is the key to understanding the correct resolution of this issue.
One section of Chapter 33, which Regent Care elected to apply here, addresses how settlements of health care liability claims affect a claimant's recovery:
[I]f the claimant in a health care liability claim ... has settled with one or more persons, the court shall ... reduce the amount of damages to be recovered by the claimant with respect to a cause of action by an amount equal to ... the sum of the dollar amounts of all settlements.
CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 33.012(c)(1). Chapter 33 also generally limits a defendant's liability for damages based on the jury's finding of that defendant's proportionate responsibility for the harm, but this limit does not apply here because the jury found Regent Care more than 50% responsible. Id. § 33.013(b)(1). Other statutes outside Chapter 33 also limit a defendant's liability for damages. As relevant here, the TMLA provides that when judgment is rendered against a single health care institution, "the limit of civil liability for noneconomic damages of the [defendant] shall be limited to an amount not to exceed $250,000 for each claimant." Id. § 74.301(a).
In forming its judgment, the trial court applied these statutes as follows. The jury awarded $3,635,000 in economic damages and $10,250,000 in noneconomic damages. The trial court calculated that prejudgment interest on past damages was $51,375, so the total amount of the verdict plus prejudgment interest was $13,936,375. Turning to the settlement credit under section 33.012(c), the trial court applied the $1.85 million credit first to prejudgment interest as required by Battaglia v. Alexander , 177 S.W.3d 893, 908 (Tex. 2005). The court applied the remaining credit of $1,798,625 by determining what percentage of the jury's damage awards were for economic damages (27%) versus noneconomic damages (73%) and allocating the credit using those percentages.2 Using this method, the court reduced the claimant's economic damages by $485,629 (27% of $1,798,625) and noneconomic damages by $1,312,996 (73% of $1,798,625). This reduction left Detrick a recovery of $3,149,371 in economic damages and $8,937,004 in noneconomic damages. The court then capped Regent Care's liability for noneconomic damages at $250,000 as required by section 74.301. The court therefore rendered judgment that Detrick recover from Regent Care $3,149,371 in economic damages and $250,000 in noneconomic damages.
Regent Care contends the trial court erred because the applicable statutes required it to apply the $1.85 million settlement credit after capping the noneconomic damages. Regent Care's position is that under section 33.012, the amount received in settlement must reduce the "damages to be recovered," not the damages awarded by the jury. Here, it contends, the noneconomic damages to be recovered by Detrick were $250,000. Therefore, the settlement credit should have been applied to that amount,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Amazon.com, Inc. v. McMillan
...in section 82.001(3) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code —a question of law that we consider de novo. Regent Care of San Antonio, L.P. v. Detrick , 610 S.W.3d 830, 834 (Tex. 2020). We have not previously addressed whether an e-commerce platform that handles many of the tasks involved in......
-
Prado v. Lonestar Resources, Inc.
...& REM. CODE § 33.001 ; Regent Care Ctr. of San Antonio, L.P. v. Detrick , 567 S.W.3d 752, 768 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2018), aff'd , 610 S.W.3d 830 (Tex. 2020).Considering all the evidence together—in a light most favorable to the Prados and drawing all reasonable inferences in their favor—w......
-
Virlar v. Puente
...id.Two days after we issued our opinion on remittitur, the supreme court issued its opinion in Regent Care of San Antonio, L.P. v. Detrick , No. 19-0117, 610 S.W.3d 830, 835–39 (Tex. May 8, 2020), which discussed the issue of periodic payments of future medical expenses. On May 20, 2020, Pu......
-
Elec. Reliability Council of Tex., Inc. v. CPS Energy
...App.—Austin 1989, writ denied). Statutory construction presents a question of law we review de novo. Regent Care of San Antonio, L.P. v. Detrick , 610 S.W.3d 830, 834 (Tex. 2020). "[O]ur primary objective is to give effect to the Legislature's intent," looking first to the statute's plain l......