Brandon Dodd filed a second amended petition naming Vishal Patel, M.D., University Behavioral Health of Denton (UBH), and Saumil Mehta, M.D., as defendants. The petition alleged Dodd, an eighteen-year-old high school student, was admitted to UBH on the afternoon of May 8, 2020, “in a confused and psychotic state.” The next day at approximately 10:00 p.m., Dodd “presented to the nurse’s desk, complaining of nausea and exhibiting psychotic symptoms, then fell to the floor striking his head.” Although “neuro-checks were ordered by a nurse practitioner every two hours, they were not performed.” Dodd was ultimately “ordered to be transferred to the emergency room of a nearby hospital for dehydration, fever, starvation, and altered mental status,” but his “history of a traumatic head injury and fall were not disclosed to the transferee hospital.” Due to ensuing delays in diagnosis and treatment of Dodd’s “traumatic brain injury,” Dodd suffered “life-altering and lifelong injuries.”
Dodd alleged that Patel owed him a duty to timely diagnose his brain injury, ensure that his transfer to a hospital for treatment was “done in a timely and competent manner,” and ensure information pertinent to Dodd’s treatment was “timely communicated before and/or with” Dodd’s transfer. Dodd alleged Patel was negligent in failing to timely diagnose his brain injury and failing to ensure that Dodd was timely transferred to a hospital equipped to handle traumatic injury, ensure that accurate information was included in the transfer record, and provide a plan of care for Dodd while awaiting transfer.
Patel filed a motion to dismiss alleging that he worked a “two-week on, two-week off schedule” at UBH, all of the occurrences Dodd alleged took place “during a two-week off period” in Patel’s schedule, Patel never treated or saw Dodd, no patient-physician relationship existed between Dodd and Patel, Patel owed no duty to Dodd, and Patel’s inclusion as a party via vicarious liability or respondeat superior [was] a defect.” The trial court subsequently signed an order granting Patel’s motion to dismiss and awarding him attorney fees totaling $12,062.10. Dodd appealed.
Texas Appellate Court Opinion
In ruling on a rule 91a motion, except as required by rule 91a.7, a court may not consider evidence and must decide the motion based solely on the pleading of the cause of action, together with any pleading exhibits permitted by rule 59. While a movant may raise an affirmative defense as the basis for its argument that the non-movant’s claims have no basis in law and, therefore, should be dismissed under rule 91a, the factual inquiry that follows is restricted to reviewing the nonmovant’s pleading and any rule 59 exhibits that may be attached to and incorporated therein. In deciding whether the non-movant’s claims enjoy no basis in law, the court may not resort to evidence proffered by the movant, such as through affidavits, transcribed testimony, or documents.
The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas held in its July 16, 2024 Memorandum Opinion: “Here, we limit our review to the four corners of the live pleading, the second amended petition. See TEX.R.CIV. P. 91a.6. A de novo, four-corners review shows that all of Dodd’s causes of action have a basis in law as well as a basis in fact under the 91a standard … A review of Dodd’s second amended petition discloses no basis to conclude that no reasonable person could believe the facts pleaded. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 91a.1. Thus, it was error for the trial court to grant the motion on the ground that Dodd’s claims had no basis in fact. Further, a review of Dodd’s pleadings alone does not show that Dodd’s claims – undisputed legally cognizable causes of action – against Patel had no basis in law. Nothing within Dodd’s pleading itself triggers a clear legal bar to his claims nor negates legal entitlement; therefore, the trial court erred in granting the rule 91a motion on this basis.”
Source Dodd v. Patel. M.D., No. 05-23-00835-CV.
If you or a family member suffered serious injury or other harm that may be due to mental health malpractice in Texas or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Texas medical malpractice attorney, or a medical malpractice attorney in your state, who may investigate your mental health malpractice claim for you and represent you or your family member in a mental health malpractice case, if appropriate.
Visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find mental health malpractice lawyers in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
