Abstract
Many, including the plaintiff's bar and some members of the judiciary, do not look kindly on the special treatment health care providers are accorded under current Texas law. The strict damage caps, expert report requirements, and statute of limitations provisions of Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code are the most frequent targets of displeasure. While some publicly trumpet the need for legislative change, others seek redress through judicial activism. Some have openly invited judicial activism by fling federal and state lawsuits seeking declaration that the damages caps contained in Chapter 74 are unconstitutional (1). Others are more subtle in their approach. Thier “indirect” efforts involve attempts to circumvent these provisions through assertions that the activity or conduct at issue is not health care and/or does not involve health care–related activities, thereby avoiding these statutory restrictions. In this issue we examine the arguments and success of the latter indirect approach.
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call