Olivares v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co. LP, No. 05-22-00057-CV, 2023 WL 2494533 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 14, 2023, no pet. h.) (mem. op.)
Successfully reversed trial court’s order granting a plea to the jurisdiction in suit to recover personal injury damages against Chevron, holding that Chevron was not entitled to the worker’s compensation exclusive remedy defense because the injured worker, who was an employee of a subsidiary company, was not a deemed employee under Chevron’s OCIP policy.
Read Opinion

Envision Radiology Tex. LP v. Trader, No. 05-20-00529-CV, 2022 WL 2826896 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 20, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.)
Successfully convinced court of appeals to dismiss medical provider’s interlocutory appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where trial court granted the statutorily-provided 30-day extension to cure alleged deficiencies in the plaintiff’s Ch. 74 expert report.
Read Opinion

E.D. v. Tex. Health Care, P.L.L.C., 644 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. 2022)
Finding that expert report satisfied Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and reversing court of appeals’ opinion to the contrary, confirming that Chapter 74’s “‘fair summary’ benchmark is not an evidentiary standard.”
Read Opinion

Bluebird Med. Enterprises, LLC v. Willis, 651 S.W.3d 486 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2022, no pet.)
Assuming, without deciding, that a motor vehicle collision involving an ambulance presented a health care liability claim, the court of appeals found that the plaintiffs’ preliminary expert reports satisfied the health care liability act when a paramedic outlined how the standard of care and breach caused the crash while a forensic pathologist linked the breach to the deceased plaintiff’s injury and death. In so holding, the court of appeals rejected the ambulance company defendant’s argument that a physician was required opine on the cause of the collision, observing that under Chapter 74 a physician need only opine on the cause of the injury, harm, or damages claimed.
Read Opinion

In re Eagleridge Operating, LLC, 642 S.W.3d 518 (Tex. 2022)
Successfully defeated mandamus petition related to trial court’s striking of responsible third party.
Read Opinion

More Significant Victories ⤏

Dana Levy wins medical malpractice expert report appeal in the Amarillo Court of Appeals!
Congratulations to Dana Levy and trial counsel, Scott Hendler and Grayson McDaniel, who successfully defended a challenge to their nursing administrator and forensic pathology expert reports. In this nursing-home negligence case in which a resident died of hypothermia during Winter Storm Uri, the defendants objected that licensed nursing home administrators and a forensic pathologist were unqualified to provide preliminary expert reports under Chapter 74 because the administrators were not medical providers who treat patients, and the pathologist had never treated seniors.

Back-to-Back Wins in the Texas Supreme Court!
On May 6, 2022, Dana Levy successfully reversed a court of appeals’ opinion that the plaintiff’s expert report failed to satisfy Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The following week, Kirk Pittard successfully reversed a court of appeals’ opinion dismissing an appeal on jurisdiction grounds.

Dana Levy defends responsible third party ruling in the Texas Supreme Court!
DP&S’s Houston partner, Dana Levy, was in the Texas Supreme Court again on a case involving responsible third party practice. Dana argued in defense of the trial court’s order, and a Dallas Court of Appeals opinion letting that order stand, which struck a responsible third party designation by the owner of a gas facility of the former minority-interest owner and contract-operator.

Dana Levy wins in the El Paso Court of Appeals!
Congratulations to Dana Levy who convinced the El Paso Court of Appeals to reverse a summary judgment granted in favor of an oil well services company and against our injured client. The court found fact issues as to the company’s liability for a collision caused by one of its workers, who was returning to remote well site after purchasing necessary supplies. Specifically, the court found that the existence of an employment relationship and whether the worker was acting in the course and scope of his employment were questions that needed to be answered by a jury.

Dana Levy wins in the Dallas Court of Appeals!
Congratulations to Dana Levy who successfully convinced the Dallas Court of Appeals to reinstate a medical malpractice case that had been dismissed. On appeal, Dana convinced the court that a cardiologist with hospital administration experience was qualified to opine as to a hospital’s policies and procedures for providing cardiac care.

More News Stories ⤏