Here's a story that merges our upcoming look at the Texas Judiciary - including the consequence of an elected judiciary - with our past look at Article 3 of the Texas Constitution. It also continues our ongoing look at cases that involved interpretations of the Texas Constitution - which is apparently not as clearly written as we might suppose.
The question posed is the extent of the protections that doctors and hospitals have as a result of the passage of tort reform - which was added to the Texas Constitution in 2003.
- Click here for the story.
The question posed is the extent of the protections that doctors and hospitals have as a result of the passage of tort reform - which was added to the Texas Constitution in 2003.
- Click here for the story.
Eleven years after a man's unexplained death in a Katy hospital sparked a lawsuit involving allegations of malpractice, deception and theft of a human heart, the bizarre case has made its way to the Texas Supreme Court, which will answer a simple yet macabre legal question: Does an autopsy fall under the definition of health care?
If the high court says yes, critics say it would be the latest decision by conservative justices broadening a landmark state law that makes it tougher to sue doctors and hospitals for alleged wrongdoing. Supporters of the legal challenge — brought on an appeal by Christus Health, then owner of the Christus St. Catherine Hospital in Katy — say Texas voters approved sweeping tort reforms in 2003 to limit lawsuits against health care providers, and that autopsies on dead patients are a valid part of the medical care hospitals provide.
The case traces back to the morning of Jan. 22, 2004, when Linda Carswell's husband, Jerry, admitted with kidney stones, was found dead in his hospital bed. Carswell wondered if his death was due to a narcotic the hospital had administered. Carswell has said she asked for an independent autopsy, but her husband's autopsy was performed by a separate hospital under the same ownership as Christus St. Catherine Hospital — a fact she said she did not know at the time. That autopsy, which was inconclusive, did not include a toxicology test, which Carswell said could have shed light on whether the narcotic had killed her husband.
Further complicating matters, the examiner who performed the autopsy also allegedly removed the dead man’s heart without Carswell’s consent. The hospital fought not to release the organ, saying it could be important evidence that would show Carswell's husband died of a heart attack.
After an appeals court ordered the hospital to release the heart to Carswell, a separate forensic biologist said it contained no human DNA — either because of the way it was preserved, or because there was a “real possibility that the heart submitted was not human,” according to court documents.
A jury sided with Carswell, who says she was misled by Christus Health about the autopsy’s independence and scope, and awarded her a rare $2 million fraud judgment against the health care provider. Christus Health appealed the case and is still fighting it, although it sold Christus St. Catherine Hospital to Houston Methodist in 2014.
A spokeswoman for Christus Health declined to comment for this article. But in court briefings, lawyers representing Christus Health asked the Texas Supreme Court to weigh in on whether Carswell's case should have fallen under the Texas Medical Liability Act. That law, the health care provider argues, defines the nebulous term “health care” broadly enough to include autopsies — which would render Carswell's suit moot because she did not meet the legal requirements to sue.
For background:
- Section 66 of Article 3 of the Texas Constitution.
- Analysis of Amendment No. 12 - the Tort Reform Amendment.
- The Texas Medical Liability Act.
- Wikipedia: Medical Malpractice in the United States.
- Wikipedia: Tort Reform.
