Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of December 28, 2009

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

Foster v. Richardson,   No. 02-09-00216-CV    (Dec. 31, 2009)   (Livingston, J., joined by Walker, J.; Cayce, C.J., not participating).

Held:    The expert report served by Appellee under chapter 74 of the civil practice and remedies code is sufficient to connect Appellant’s alleged breach of his standard of care to Appellee’s prolonged pain and suffering caused by Appellant’s alleged misdiagnosis of Appellee’s ankle fracture. However, the report is not sufficient to causally connect the alleged misdiagnosis to Appellee’s ankle surgeries that occurred after the alleged misdiagnosis because the report does not explain how the delay caused by the misdiagnosis contributed to the need for the surgeries. The report and a curriculum vitae provide sufficient facts to show the reporting doctor’s qualifications, and the report is not deficient merely because portions of it collectively refer to two doctors regarding their treatment of Appellee’s injuries. The case is remanded to the trial court for it to consider granting Appellee a thirty-day extension to cure the report’s partial deficiency regarding causation.

Hollingsworth v. Hackler,   No. 02-08-00401-CV    (Dec. 31, 2009)   (Cayce, C.J., joined by Livingston and Walker, JJ.).

Held:    Before school officials may discipline a child with a disability, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C.A. §§ 1400–1487, (the IDEA) requires that a group of persons including the child’s parents meet and determine whether the child’s behavior was a “manifestation” of the child’s disability. If it was not, school officials may discipline the child in the same manner as they would a child without disabilities. Failure to involve the parents of a disabled child in such a disciplinary decision does not, therefore, constitute a violation of rights established by the IDEA, and school officials enjoy qualified immunity from IDEA claims brought under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «