Texas Supreme Court Rules on Health Care Liability in Premises Case 

Reg Reinoso

Author

Premises liability cases can have significant stakes, especially when they intersect with health care settings. When someone is injured on a property, the question of who is responsible often turns on the property owner’s duty to maintain a safe environment. But what happens when the injury occurs in a health care facility like an assisted living center? 

In such cases, the legal landscape becomes more complex, as health care providers may argue that the injury is tied to the care they provide, not just the condition of the premises. This raises critical questions about what legal standards apply and whether claims should be treated as standard premises liability cases or health care liability claims, which require additional steps like expert reports.

In Collin Creek Assisted Living Center, Inc. d/b/a DaySpring Assisted Living Community v. Christine Faber, the Texas Supreme Court examined this very issue. The court considered whether a claim involving a fatal fall at an assisted living facility, originally framed as a premises liability case, should instead be classified under the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA) as a health care liability claim. The decision in this case sheds light on how the courts may handle the intersection of premises liability and health care, particularly when facilities argue that the injuries are related to the care provided to residents.

The case involved a resident of DaySpring Assisted Living Community, who suffered a fatal fall after a walker she was seated on tipped over when a wheel caught in a crack in the sidewalk. Smith’s surviving daughter Faber sued the facility, initially alleging both negligence and premises liability. After failing to file the expert report required by the TMLA, Faber amended her claim to focus solely on premises liability related to the cracked sidewalk.

DaySpring moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the claim should still be classified as a health care liability claim under the TMLA because the incident involved safety standards connected to the facility’s provision of health care. The trial court agreed, dismissing the claim, but the en banc Texas Court of Appeals reversed, finding no substantive connection between the sidewalk maintenance issue and health care services.

The Texas Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of DaySpring, holding that Faber’s premises liability claim did qualify as a health care liability claim. The Court applied the factors from the earlier decision in Ross v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hospital, concluding that the incident involved the facility’s broader duty to provide care and safety to its residents, thus necessitating an expert report. As Faber failed to provide the required expert report, the Court dismissed the claim and remanded the case for the determination of attorney’s fees in favor of DaySpring.

This decision underscores how premises liability claims at health care facilities may intersect with health care liability standards, especially when the safety of residents is involved in the context of health care services.

This information is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for legal advice.