# Oramas v. Utmb Health at Galveston

Supreme Court of Texas, No. 25-0917

**Oramas v. Utmb Health at Galveston, No. 25-0917, is before the Supreme Court of Texas. Key issue: The Court denied review of the dismissal of a pro se widow's health care liability claim for missing the Medical Liability Act's 120-day expert-report deadline, but Justice Young (joined by Justices Devine and Busby) urged the Legislature to weigh access to justice, noting she served an expert report only about two months late.**

Practice areas: medical liability, civil procedure

## Key issues

- The Court denied review of the dismissal of a pro se widow's health care liability claim for missing the Medical Liability Act's 120-day expert-report deadline, but Justice Young (joined by Justices Devine and Busby) urged the Legislature to weigh access to justice, noting she served an expert report only about two months late.
- He identified why lawyers likely declined the case (state-hospital immunity, a COVID-19 gross-negligence standard, and a $250,000 damages cap) and hoped the Legislature would prefer merits decisions for good-faith litigants.

## Factual History
Patricia Oramas, pro se, alleged her husband Henry died in UTMB Galveston's care after being left unattended, found disconnected from his oxygen in a pool of blood, and given a drug dangerous to patients with kidney problems he was known to have; he had been hospitalized for COVID-19 (Young, J., concurring, PDF pp. 1-2, 4).

## Procedural History
She missed the 120-day deadline to serve an expert report and CV under Section 74.351; she says she learned of the requirement only when the hospital moved to dismiss, and served a report nineteen days after the motion, about two months late. The trial court granted dismissal with prejudice and the First Court of Appeals affirmed (2025 WL 2446013), rejecting any suggestion the case was frivolous; the Court denied review May 15, 2026 (Young, J., concurring, PDF pp. 2, 5).

## Issues Presented
Whether the statutory dismissal could be excused; the Court denied review, and the concurrence addresses access to justice for pro se plaintiffs (Young, J., concurring, PDF pp. 1-7).

## Legal Arguments
The hospital invoked the deadline; the lower courts held they had no choice but to dismiss. Justice Young notes the hospital's lawyer met with Oramas after the deadline to agree on a scheduling order with a later expert deadline, only to move to dismiss weeks later (Young, J., concurring, PDF p. 5).

## Stated Reasons the Court Should Take the Case
Not applicable—the petition was denied.

## Practice Area Tags
medical-liability, civil-procedure

## Procedural Posture/Vehicle
Petition for review from the First Court of Appeals, denied, with a concurring opinion (Young, J., concurring, PDF p. 1).

## Amicus Involvement
None noted

## Court's Reasoning
Courts must enforce clear statutory requirements absent a constitutional impediment, but the Legislature may reconsider where a good-faith plaintiff scrambling to comply forfeits a merits hearing; Oramas's ability to find an expert quickly suggests the claim had some merit, and her problem reflects lack of access to capable counsel in an economically unattractive, complex regime (Young, J., concurring, PDF pp. 3-7).

## Disposition
Petition for review denied.

## Vote Breakdown
Justice Young concurred in the denial, joined by Justices Devine and Busby (Young, J., concurring, PDF p. 1).

---
Source: The SCOTX Report, https://scotxreport.com/cases/25-0917. AI-generated summary of the Court's opinion, orders and the parties' briefs, with pin cites to the page of each document; verify against the Court's own documents at search.txcourts.gov.