Here’s an analysis of Rogers MD v Bagley et al from the Texas 13th Court of Appeals May 2025. The court's opinion is available for download by clicking here.

Case Background

  • Parties:

    • Plaintiff/Appellee: David Saxon Bagley, individually and as the representative of his son, Jeremiah Ray Bagley’s estate 
    • Defendants/Appellants: Ramona Rogers, M.D., several Rio Grande State Center (RGSC) employees (psychiatric nurse assistants, supervisors, and another physician), all sued after Jeremiah’s death while in state mental health custody

  • Facts:

    • Jeremiah, diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, was involuntarily committed to RGSC after an arrest.
    • He got into altercations with other patients, leading staff to assign him one-to-one supervision.
    • After he struck his monitor, five nurse assistants restrained him and gave him sedative/antipsychotic injections.
    • He calmed down, but soon after, he became agitated, went into cardiac arrest, and died.
    • Autopsy: Multiple injuries (fractured vertebrae, cracked ribs, lacerated spleen, contusions), cause of death listed as "excited delirium due to psychosis with restraint-associated blunt force trauma."

  • The Lawsuit:

    • Bagley sued under federal law (42 U.S.C. § 1983), alleging excessive force, deliberate indifference in training/supervision, and deliberate indifference to medical needs.
    • Texas’s Medical Liability Act (TMLA) requires a plaintiff to provide an expert medical report to proceed with a health care liability claim (HCLC).

  • Defendants’ Position:

    • Said Bagley’s claims were health care liability claims and didn’t meet TMLA’s expert report requirements.
    • Objected to Bagley’s expert reports, saying:
      • Some experts (like the behavioral analyst and OIG investigator) weren’t physicians, so they couldn’t opine on medical causation.
      • The psychiatrist’s (Dr. Calvert) report didn’t show she was qualified to opine on the physical causation of death.
      • Reports lacked details on what the standard of care was, how it was breached, and how that breach caused death.

  • Plaintiff’s Position:

    • Argued that § 74.351 (expert report requirement) didn’t apply, since his claims were for excessive force under federal law — not just typical medical negligence.

What Happened in the Courts

  • Trial Court: Denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss; said the claims could proceed.
  • First Appeal: The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court, holding that federal law preempted the TMLA requirements.
  • Texas Supreme Court: Reversed. Held that the TMLA expert report requirement is a procedural rule and not preempted by federal law, so it applies to claims even if they’re framed under federal law.

This Appeal’s Holding

  • Key Issues: Did Bagley’s expert reports meet the TMLA’s requirements?

  • Court’s Reasoning:

    • Causation:
      • Only a qualified physician can opine on medical causation.
      • The behavioral analyst and OIG investigator were unqualified.
      • The psychiatrist’s report (Dr. Calvert) showed experience in mental health but not in the physical mechanics of restraint or trauma; her CV/report didn’t establish she was qualified to opine on those issues.
      • The autopsy report didn’t link conduct to causation.
      • Result: Reports were deficient on causation.
    • Standard of Care/Breach:
      • Reports didn’t adequately identify the specific standard of care, how it was breached, or what each defendant should have done differently.
      • Dr. Calvert’s report, while from a psychiatrist, didn’t show she was qualified to opine on the proper physical restraint of psychiatric patients or the training/supervision of staff.
      • Similar problems for the supervisors and nurse assistants — the experts lacked specific qualifications, and their reports were conclusory.
      • Result: Reports were deficient on the standard of care and breach.

  • Conclusion:

    • The trial court should have granted the motion to dismiss, but the law allows the plaintiff a 30-day extension to try to fix the expert reports.
    • The case is sent back to the trial court to decide whether Bagley can cure the deficiencies within that time.

Bottom Line

  • The expert reports were not good enough under Texas medical liability law (not enough detail on qualifications, causation, or breach).
  • The case isn’t over — Bagley gets a chance to fix the reports.
  • The key legal point: Even claims framed under federal law for excessive force in a healthcare setting must meet Texas’s medical liability procedural expert requirements.

Girards Law Firm specializes in cases involving Severe Injury or Wrongful Death in Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas. Please use the Chat feature at www.girardslaw.com to submit your information if you would like to consider allowing us to assist you in such a case.  

Post A Comment