Professional Negligence Law Reporter

A Texas appellate court held that dismissal of a malpractice claim based on the insufficiency of the plaintiff’s expert report was proper.

Casey Wright Vo received treatment from psychiatrist Vaidynath Iyer, who prescribed Prozac to treat Vo’s chronic depression and anxiety for a five-year period. Vo later died of Prozac poisoning. Her husband sued Iyer and his practice, under a respondeat superior theory, for wrongful death and medical malpractice. The plaintiff served an expert report from a podiatrist, who opined that Iyer had failed to monitor Vo’s levels and warn of potential drug interactions, among other things. The defense objected to the expert report, challenging the expert’s qualifications and moving to dismiss. The trial court sustained the objections to the expert report “in all things” and granted the defendants’ motion.

Affirming, the appellate court found that when a trial court issues an adverse ruling without specifying the grounds, it is inferred that the court had considered all the asserted grounds supporting dismissal. Here, the court said, the trial court did not issue findings of fact or conclusions of law but instead stated that the defendants’ objections were sustained “in all things.” Thus, because the plaintiff was required to challenge each independent ground asserted by the defense in its legal conclusion but failed to do so, the court said that it must accept the validity of the defendants’ grounds for dismissal and affirm the trial court’s finding.

Citation: Vo v. Iyer, 2020 WL 3698032 (Tex. App. July 7, 2020).