UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES IN THE COURTS OF APPEALS
UTMB at Galveston v. Simmons (pdf)(Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 15, 2009)(Boyce) (HCLC, denial of motion to dismiss affirmed in interlocutory appeal) In this interlocutory appeal, appellant University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Texas (“UTMB”) challenges the trial court’s order denying its motion to dismiss the health care liability claim of appellee Marvin Simmons. In its sole issue, UTMB contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying its motion to dismiss because Simmons failed to attach his expert’s curriculum vitae to the expert report pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 74.351. We affirm. The trial court acted within its discretion in concluding that the expert report contained sufficient information to determine whether the expert was qualified and, thus, satisfied the curriculum vitae requirement. See Johnson, 286 S.W.3d at 564; Garret, 232 S.W.3d at 177-78. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying UTMB’s motion to dismiss Simmons’s suit for failure to serve a separate curriculum vitae. AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Bill Boyce Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Anderson and Boyce 14-09-00246-CV University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Texas v. Marvin Simmons Appeal from 122nd District Court of Galveston County Trial Court Judge: John A. Ellisor JR.
BCM v. Camberg (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 29, 2008)(Guzman) (Rule 11, wrongful death, jury verdict) AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Guzman Before Justices Brock Yates, Fowler and Guzman 14-06-00500-CV Baylor College of Medicine v. Roy A. Camberg, Adminstrator of the Estate of Ana Julia Ortiz, Deceased, and Texas Department of Family and Protective Services as Next Friend of Ana Delia Meija Ortiz, Enid Valentina Meija Ortiz, and Rigoberto Mejia Ortiz, Minors Appeal from Probate Court No 1 of Harris County (Judge Russell Austin)
Looper v. HCCS (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 29, 2007)(Hedges) (public employment, breach of contract, defamation, IIED, WBA) AFFIRMED: Opinion by Chief Justice Hedges Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Hudson and Frost 14-07-00040-CV Stan H. Looper and Cynthia M. Scott v. Houston Community College System, Bruce Leslie, Diana Castillo, and Reynaldo Garay Appeal from 152nd District Court of Harris County (Hon. Ken P. Wise)
Prairie View A&M Univ. v. Dickens , 243 S.W.3d 732 (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 30, 2007)(Frost) (jurisdiction, individual capacity claims, official capacity claims, sovereign immunity) AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED & REMANDED IN PART: Opinion by Justice Frost Before Justices Anderson, Fowler and Frost 14-06-00966-CV Prairie View A&M University, Doris Price, Individually and as Vice President of Prairie View A&M and George Wright, Individually and as President of Prairie View A&M University v. Brian Dickens Appeal from 164th District Court of Harris County (Hon. Martha Hill Jamison)
Slade v. TSU (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 30, 2007)(Nuchia) (sovereign immunity to breach of contract suit) AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Nuchia Before Justices Nuchia, Keyes and Higley 01-06-00990-CV Priscilla D. Slade v. Texas Southern University Board of Regents Appeal from 61st District Court of Harris County (Hon. John Donovan)
Young., M.D. and Baylor College of Medicine v. Silva Villegas (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 3, 2007) (Frost)(HCLC, interlocutory appeal, ILA, immunity claim, doctors v. entity defendant, supported medical school, who may take interlocutory appeal?, effect of nonsuit on standing) This court lacks appellate jurisdiction over Baylor’s appeal from the trial court’s order because Baylor had been nonsuited before the trial court signed the order and because in that order the trial court did not rule on any motion filed by Baylor. This court does not have appellate jurisdiction over Dr. Young’s appeal from the denial of her plea to the jurisdiction because she is not a governmental unit. Based on section 312.007 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, this court has appellate jurisdiction to review the trial court’s denial of the Summary Judgment Motions as to Dr. Young, but because Dr. Young did not prove as a matter of law that she is entitled to the protections of section 312.006, the trial court properly denied these motions as to her. Accordingly, we dismiss Baylor’s appeal in its entirety and dismiss Dr. Young’s appeal of the trial court’s denial of the Pleas to the Jurisdiction. We affirm the trial court’s order denying the Summary Judgment Motions as to Dr. Young.