Avery Allison developed Wernicke's encephalopathy after a bariatric procedure performed in Mexico, and sued the treating providers, including Dr. Santosh Kale, Dr. George Davis and HCA-affiliated Kingwood Medical Center. On September 28, 2020 her side served Kingwood with a notice of claim and a signed medical authorization that identified her OB/GYN as the only provider she saw in the previous five years, and did not name the bariatric surgeon, the facility or other providers connected with the injuries.¹

Allison and Christopher Emery, individually and as next friend, sued on December 21, 2020, and the defendants moved for summary judgment that limitations had run because the deficient authorization did not toll limitations for 75 days under Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 74.051(c); the trial court agreed. The Ninth Court of Appeals reversed and remanded in a memorandum opinion after the Court's decision in Hampton v. Thome, holding the authorization was not grossly deficient (2024 WL 2972772). The defendants petitioned for review in January 2025, and on June 20, 2025 the Court denied both petitions, with Justice Boyd noting his dissent; the Court later denied rehearing on September 12, 2025.¹

Two petitions for review from the Ninth Court of Appeals after summary judgment reversed; both denied June 20, 2025.

Whether an authorization that admittedly withheld known key providers in bad faith is grossly deficient under Thome and therefore fails to toll limitations under § 74.051(c).¹

HCA Health Services and Dr. Kale (Petitioners): the plaintiff consciously withheld the bariatric surgeon, facility and other providers, which under Thome is bad faith that makes the authorization no authorization, and chapter 74 does not let plaintiffs pick whom to disclose.

Allison and Emery (Respondents): the authorization was imperfect but sufficient to toll limitations and the constitutional challenges to chapter 74 favor them.¹

Not applicable⁠—the petition was denied.

None noted

Reasoning

The Court issued no opinion explaining the denial, and Justice Boyd did not write to explain his dissent.

Disposition

Petitions for review denied; Justice Boyd noted his dissent from the denial (June 20, 2025 orders).

Vote Breakdown

Justice Boyd noted his dissent from the denial of the petitions for review without a written opinion (June 20, 2025 orders).