Dave was extremely professional but more importantly I was treated as a person not a case. He always returned calls and emails in a very timely manner. I would definitely recommend Dave to help with legal needs! -Jennifer S.

As someone who never had a lawyer, David made everything as simple as possible. He is very easy to communicate with and provides all the answers and support you will ever need. If I ever need a lawyer again, David will be my first choice to contact. -Andrew

I was falsely accused of something and had an order filed against me. Ben represented me during court and successfully had the order dismissed. He also went above and beyond to make sure it would not show up on my record. – Brittany.

Home » Blog » Health Care Liability Act

Health Care Liability Act

Share

Case: Donna Cooper, Et Al. v. Dr. Mason Wesley Mandy, Et Al.

Issue: Does the Health Care Liability Act apply to claims of intentional misrepresentation or medical battery?

Facts: Patient filed a lawsuit alleging that Provider intentionally misrepresented that the treating doctor was board certified and also committed medical battery. Provider moved to dismiss on the theory that the Health Care Liability Act applied and that Patient failed to comply with pre-suit notice requirements. The trial court denied the motion.

Intermediate Decision: The intermediate court upheld the denial of Provider’s motion to dismiss. The court held that the Health Care Liability Act did not apply to the intentional misrepresentation claim “because the alleged misrepresentations were inducements made prior to the existence of a patient-physician relationship.” The court also held the Act did not apply to the  medical battery claim “because a physician’s misrepresentation of a material fact, if proven, may vitiate consent, and, without consent, the very act of touching Mrs. Cooper may constitute an unlawful and offensive act that is not related to the provision of health care services.”

Review Granted: April 7, 2021.

Prediction: Ben thinks the Supreme Court will agree the Act does not apply to the intentional misrepresentation claim, but will reverse with respect to the medical battery claim, which ultimately is related to the provision of health care services regardless of consent.