A Texas court of appeals dismissed a negligence case in which an Ohio bridal shop claimed a Dallas hospital failed to properly respond to an Ebola virus scare after an infected nurse visited the business to try on dresses and ultimately chased away customers.

Coming Attractions Bridal and Formal (CABF), an Akron, Ohio bridal shop, sued Texas Health Resources (THR), the owner of Dallas' Presbyterian Hospital, alleging it negligently failed to heed warnings during a 2014 Ebola incident and failed to provide its nurses with the necessary training to prevent the spread of the disease.

That year, according to the court, a patient with the Ebola virus, Thomas Duncan, was admitted to the Presbyterian Hospital. Amber Vinson, a nurse at the hospital, attended to Duncan until his death, which the first of its kind in the United States. After his death, the hospital assured Vinson and other nurses they were not at risk for Ebola and were free to intermingle with the public, the decision noted.

Vinson subsequently traveled to Ohio, where she visited CABF to select a dress for her upcoming wedding. After she returned to Dallas, she experienced symptoms and was diagnosed with Ebola. Because Vinson shopped at CABF, health authorities in Ohio mandated the store to close for cleaning. When it reopened, CABF was unable to “dispel the perceived Ebola risk and stigma” and the store closed permanently, the suit claimed. Vinson later recovered from the symptoms.

The hospital later filed a motion to dismiss the case under Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code—a tort reform measure that requires plaintiffs who bring health care liability claims to serve an expert report for each physician or health care provider they sue detailing how each defendant failed to meet a standard of care. If the plaintiff fails to file an expert report, the defendant may file a motion to dismiss the claim with prejudice. It is uncontested that CABF did not serve an expert report on THR, the court noted.

CABF argued that its case does not present a heath care liability claim, and the trial court denied THR's motion to dismiss. The hospital later appealed the decision to Dallas' Fifth Court of Appeals.

In its decision, the Fifth Court found that CABF's claims against the hospital were indeed health care liability claims.

“THR's alleged negligence is based on safety standards uniquely arising from professional duties owed as a health care provider,” wrote Justice Craig Stoddart. “We concluded CABF alleged departures from safety standards that implicate THR's duties as a health care provider.”

Stoddard also shot down CABF's argument that it is not subject to Chapter 74 because it is not a “claimant” under the law, which it contends is defined as a “natural person.”

“Because the common law definition of a person includes an entity such as CABF, we conclude CABF falls within the term claimant as defined in Chapter 74,” Stoddart wrote.

The Fifth Court's decision ultimately dismissed CABF's claims with prejudice because of the failure to file an expert report, remanding the case back to the trial court to determine the hospital's reasonable and necessary attorney fees.

Michelle Robberson, a shareholder in Dallas' Cooper & Scully who represents THR, is happy with the decision.

“We have always believed that the plaintiff's allegations asserted a heath care liability claim against THR,” Robberson said. “We are pleased the court of appeals reached the correct result based on the plain language of the statute and the cases interpreting it.''

Patrick R. Kelly, a Dallas lawyer who represents CABF in the case, said he will appeal the decision to the Texas Supreme Court.

“I respect the court but I think the opinion is off base,” said Kelly, who disagrees with the Fifth Court's finding that his client's case amounted to a health care liability claim.

“It has nothing to do with health care,” Kelly said explaining that his client's claim focused on a “negligent comment by an employer to an employee about whether they could travel or not.” 

“This is a unique case,” Kelly said of the decision. “I haven't found one case that says an entity is a claimant under” Chapter 74.