Here's an analysis of the case Gregory A. Hamon, M.D. v. Sandra L. Jimenez, et al., decided by the Texas Twelfth Court of Appeals on May 14, 2025. You can read the full text of the opinion by clicking here.
This case involves a healthcare liability claim arising from the postoperative care of John A. Jimenez, Sr., who underwent elective robot-assisted laparoscopic ventral incisional hernia repair performed by Dr. Hamon. After the surgery, Jimenez experienced symptoms indicating severe infection and bowel obstruction, culminating in sepsis, acute kidney injury, and ultimately death.
Sandra Jimenez, on behalf of her late husband’s estate, sued Dr. Hamon for negligence, alleging he failed to properly assess, diagnose, treat, and timely manage Jimenez’s postoperative complications, including premature discharge while still septic. The key legal issue on appeal was whether the expert report provided by Sandra’s expert, Dr. Mauricio Pinto, a board-certified family medicine physician and hospitalist, was sufficient under Texas law to withstand Dr. Hamon’s motion to dismiss.
Dr. Hamon challenged Dr. Pinto’s qualifications to opine on the standard of care applicable to a general surgeon and on causation, arguing that a hospitalist physician is not qualified to provide expert testimony on surgical standards or causation relating to surgical care. The trial court denied Dr. Hamon’s motion to dismiss, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that denial.
The Court’s reasoning emphasized:
- The purpose of expert reports under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapter 74 is to deter frivolous claims, not to resolve disputes about the correctness or credibility of opinions at this early stage.
- An expert witness need not be in the same specialty as the defendant physician if they demonstrate sufficient knowledge, training, and experience relevant to the specific issues in the claim.
- Dr. Pinto demonstrated substantial experience managing postoperative patients with complications including sepsis, familiarity with the relevant standards of care for hospital discharge of unstable patients, and the causal relationship between delayed diagnosis/treatment and injury.
- The Court found Dr. Pinto qualified to opine on the standard of care applicable to Dr. Hamon in the context of postoperative care and discharge, and on causation.
- The Court rejected the argument that the standards for hospitalists and general surgeons differ in this context, noting it was not appropriate to assess the correctness of the opinion at this stage.
- The Court also addressed jurisdictional arguments and confirmed its authority to hear the interlocutory appeal of the denial of the motion to dismiss.
In summary, the Court upheld the trial court’s decision allowing the case to proceed, finding the expert report met the legal threshold of a good faith effort to show the plaintiff’s claims have merit, and that Dr. Pinto is qualified under the relevant Texas statutes and rules to provide the expert opinions offered.
Girards Law Firm specializes in severe injury and wrongful death cases, especially those that involve brain damage, heart damage, spinal cord injuries or severe burns in Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Contact us at www.girardslaw.com by using the chat feature for more information