Liability

Under Texas law, physicians treating COVID-19 patients in a volunteer capacity have potential defenses against lawsuits that might arise from that care.

Without the cap, what is tort reform, exactly? Texas physicians hope they won’t have to answer that question. But a couple that won a 2019 negligence lawsuit is taking aim at the centerpiece of the state’s 2003 medical liability reforms: the $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages.

Many Texas physicians have stepped up to care for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes retired physicians and others who have volunteered their services in areas where they are needed most. If you’d like to volunteer but are concerned about your potential liability, check out TMA's recent white paper.

As physicians and other health care workers risk their health, stretch themselves thin, and deal with uncertain availability of resources to fight COVID-19, the Texas Medical Association is asking Gov. Greg Abbott to restrict litigation stemming from the pandemic.

Texas Medical Liability Trust (TMLT), the largest medical liability insurance provider in Texas, has announced several changes to help members care for COVID-19 patients and to offer relief from financial hardships related to the pandemic. 

An appeals court ruled correctly when it reversed a nearly $2 million judgment against a Cypress neurosurgeon, the Texas Medical Association is telling the Texas Supreme Court in a friend-of-the-court brief.

Thanks to the Texas Supreme Court's decision in Perkins v. Skapek, physicians employed by a government institution still can perform clinical duties at a non-government facility without giving up immunity from lawsuits.

Physicians' liability insurance premiums have continued to drop since the passage of Proposition 12 and our landmark 2003 health care liability reforms. All major physician liability carriers in Texas have cut their rates by more than 30 percent. Texas physicians have seen their liability rates cut, on average, 46 percent. Cumulative liability cost savings since January 2004: $1.9 billion.

The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of a Lubbock physician entangled in a question of whether Texas or New Mexico law should apply in a liability case involving care that was provided in Texas but for a New Mexico patient. 

The passage of House Bill 270 by the New Mexico Legislature allows Texas physicians to obtain a signed agreement from New Mexico patients stating that should they wish to file a lawsuit they will do so in Texas court. To assist physicians in taking advantage of the law's protections, TAPA has developed two forms, one for emergency treatment and one for voluntary treatment. 

Last month, TMA signed on to the Texas Alliance for Patient Access' (TAPA's) friend-of-the-court brief to support the application of the willful and wanton standard in a lawsuit involving emergency obstetrical care. TMA, TAPA, and other signatories contend emergency care provisions apply to medical care provided in an obstetrical unit without the pregnant patient first having been evaluated in a hospital's emergency department.

A doctor sued for negligence for a procedure he performed in Texas will have to defend himself under the law of … New Mexico? Right now, that's the situation in which Eldo Frezza, MD, finds himself. The bariatric surgeon faces several similar suits filed not in Texas, where he performed surgery on the patients, but in New Mexico, where the plaintiffs live.