In this memorandum opinion, the COA held that Tien was required to file an expert report, despite his claim that no report was required because his claim cetnered on disclosure of the risks of a surgical procedure.
Tien filed suit against Dr. Alappatt, claiming that Dr. Alapapatt should have disclosed the risks of a pan-retinal photocoagulation (PRP) on his eyes. Tien filed an expert report. Dr. Alappatt moved to dismiss because the report was insufficient. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case with prejudice.
On appeal, Tien did not argue that the report was sufficient; instead, he claimed that he did not need to file a report because of the nature of his claims. He said that because the Texas Medical Board required certain disclosures that were not made, no expert report was required. The COA referred to Supreme Court authority that has held that an action alleging a physician's failure to inform a patient fully of the risks of surgery is a negligence claim governed by the procedural requirements of the Medical Liability Act. Because he failed to file a sufficient expert report, the trial court properly dismissed Tien's claim.
See the opinion at Tien v. Alappatt.
No comments:
Post a Comment