Rita lynn havner12/28/2023 ![]() ![]() Sareen instructed Martinez to consult with a surgeon the next day. Sareen attended to Martinez in the emergency room on May 17 and, although he diagnosed Martinez with a hernia, he did not admit Martinez to the hospital or arrange for immediate examination of Martinez by a surgeon. Silva argues her summary judgment evidence, including Martinez' medical records and the affidavits of three doctors, "clearly established more than a scintilla of evidence on the issue of causation." Sareen's alleged breach of the standard of care was a cause in fact and a foreseeable cause of Martinez' injury. Sareen's no evidence motion for summary judgment, Silva was required to bring forth some evidence that Dr. In deciding whether the summary judgment evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact, we view as true all evidence favorable to the respondents and indulge every reasonable inference and resolve all doubts in their favor. Calvert, "No Evidence" and "Insufficient Evidence" Points of Error, 38 Tex. On the other hand, we will uphold a no-evidence motion for summary judgment only if the summary judgment record shows no evidence of the challenged element, i.e., "(a) a complete absence of evidence (b) the court is barred by rules of law or of evidence from giving weight to the only evidence offered to prove (c) the evidence offered to prove is no more than a mere scintilla (d) the evidence establishes conclusively the opposite of. We will uphold a traditional summary judgment only if the movant shows there is no genuine issue of material fact and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on a ground set forth in its motion. Silva responded with the affidavits of several doctors along with Martinez' medical records. P., arguing there is no evidence of causation. Sareen filed a motion for summary judgment under Rule 166a(i), Tex. Sareen was negligent in (1) failing to properly diagnose Martinez, (2) failing to immediately admit Martinez into the hospital for further testing and evaluation, (3) failing to properly treat Martinez' hernia, and (4) failing to immediately consult with a surgeon and arrange for a surgeon to examine Martinez. Marroquin and Weeden, but continued to assert her claim against Dr. Silva eventually settled her claims against Drs. Sareen, Marroquin, and Kenneth Carl Weeden, Martinez' anesthesiologist during his hernia surgery, claiming each had been negligent. Martinez' condition only worsened, however, and he died early in the morning on May 22 after suffering a cardiac arrest. However, complications arose during surgery and Martinez was transferred to the intensive care unit. Marroquin performed surgery on Martinez to repair his umbilical hernia. Marroquin discovered an incarcerated umbilical hernia and instructed Martinez to go to the hospital for admission to surgery. Martinez did not make the follow up visit as instructed, but did see Dr. Arturo Marroquin, a surgeon, for the next day. Sareen instructed Martinez to schedule an appointment with Dr. Sareen suggested that surgery may be needed to remedy the hernia but that Martinez and his doctor would need to decide on the right treatment. Sareen attended to Martinez in the emergency room and diagnosed him with, among other things, a hernia. On May 17, 1997, Ignacio Martinez, who had a history of umbilical hernia, went to the emergency room complaining of abdominal pain. We disagree and affirm the trial court's judgment. Sareen's motion for summary judgment because she presented a material issue of fact with respect to the challenged element of her claim. Silva argues the trial court erred in granting Dr. Rita Silva appeals the summary judgment entered against her on her claim against Dr. Rita SILVA, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Ignacio Martinez,įrom the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |