Here’s an analysis of the Texas Supreme Court case Liebman v. Waldroup (June 2025). You can read the full opinion by clicking here.

 

Case Overview

  • Court: Supreme Court of Texas 
  • Date: June 6, 2025 
  • Parties: Maurice N. Leibman, M.D. (Petitioner) vs. Cleveratta Waldroup & James Waldroup, on behalf of their minor daughter, R.W. (Respondents)

Facts

A young child (R.W.) was attacked by a dog (Kingston) in a Texas restaurant. The dog’s owner, Jennifer Romano, had a series of letters from her doctor (Dr. Leibman), stating her “service animals” helped with her anxiety disorder. The Waldroups sued Romano, several other defendants, and Dr. Leibman. Their claim against Dr. Leibman wasn’t that his diagnosis or medical opinion about Romano’s anxiety was wrong, but that he negligently wrote letters enabling Romano to present Kingston as a service animal without verifying the dog’s training or temperament.

Was the Waldroups’ negligence claim against Dr. Leibman a “health care liability claim” (HCLC) under the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA), requiring a medical-expert report?

Majority Opinion (Justice Busby)

1. Standing:
The court found the Waldroups had standing to sue Dr. Leibman. Even though the link between the doctor’s letters and the dog bite was “tenuous,” at the pleading stage, their allegations reasonably traced the injury to Dr. Leibman's letters.

2. Is This a Health Care Liability Claim (HCLC)?

  • The TMLA requires an expert medical report for HCLCs—claims involving a physician’s departure from accepted standards of medical care.
  • The court said the Waldroups’ claim wasn’t about medical care—there was no complaint about the diagnosis or treatment of Romano’s anxiety, or about the use of service animals generally.
  • Instead, the claim was about Dr. Leibman’s representation (via the letter) that Kingston was a trained service animal, without verifying this.
  • The training and temperament of a dog, the court said, is a matter for veterinarians and dog trainers, not physicians.
  • No expert medical testimony was needed to prove whether Dr. Leibman acted negligently in this context.

3. Result:
The court held this was not a health care liability claim. Therefore, the Waldroups were not required to serve an expert medical report. The court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions and allowed the Waldroups’ case against Dr. Leibman to proceed.

Dissent (Justice Huddle, joined by three others)

Key Points:

  • The dissent argued the court was allowing “artful pleading” to get around the TMLA.
  • They emphasized that the letters were part of Dr. Leibman’s medical care to his patient (Romano).
  • Under prior Texas cases, if the facts could support an HCLC, the claim should be treated as such, even if plaintiffs try to recast it as ordinary negligence.
  • The dissent would have held that because Dr. Leibman’s statements about the dog’s status were part of his treatment of Romano’s anxiety, the claim was an HCLC and should be dismissed for lack of a timely expert report.

Significance & Takeaways

  • Boundary Set: The Supreme Court drew a line between medical care (diagnosing/treating a patient) and acts that, though performed by a doctor, are not medical in nature (e.g., making statements about a dog’s training).
  • Expert Report Not Required: Plaintiffs can bring negligence claims against doctors for non-medical acts, even if those acts relate to their patients, without needing to provide a medical expert report.
  • Dissent’s Warning: There’s a risk plaintiffs could try to avoid the TMLA by creatively pleading their cases.

Why This Matters

If you’re involved in Texas litigation against a doctor, this case clarifies: 

  • Not every claim against a physician is an HCLC.
  • The context and nature of the alleged wrongdoing matter—if it’s not about medical care, the TMLA and its procedural hurdles (like expert reports) might not apply.
  • But there’s a split in the court, and future cases could test or narrow this boundary.

Girards Law Firm specializes in severe injury and wrongful death cases, especially those that involve birth injuries, 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.

Post A Comment