# Edinburg Hospital Authority v. Treviño

> Texas Supreme Court · April 18, 1997 · 941 S.W.2d 76

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9682152

## Case

- **Full name:** EDINBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY D/B/A Edinburg General Hospital, Petitioner, v. Shirley TREVIÑO and Oscar Treviño, Respondents
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 18, 1997
- **Citations:** 941 S.W.2d 76; 1997 WL 47912
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Abbott
- **Judges:** Spector, Phillips, Hecht, Cornyn, Enoch, Owen, Baker, Gonzalez, Abbott, Spector'S, Court'S
- **Cited by:** 150 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9682152

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that mother could recover mental anguish damages arising from loss of fetus when doctor’s negligence during delivery resulted in stillborn baby
- holding municipal hospital authority created by city ordinance pursuant to Chapter 262 is a "unit of local government,” separate from municipality and subject to lower liability cap than municipality under Texas Tort Claims Act
- declining, based on “policy concerns” to allow NIED claims based upon medical negligence because “[a] bystander may not be able to distinguish between medical treatment that helps the patient and conduct that is harmful”
- holding that “Texas’[s] bystander cause of action precludes bystander recovery in medical malpractice cases”
- holding that ATexas=[s] bystander cause of action precludes bystander recovery in medical malpractice cases@

## Opinion text

ABBOTT, Justice,
concurring.
I join Parts I, III, and IV of the Court’s opinion. I also join Justice Hecht’s concurring opinion holding that the Edinburg Hospital Authority is a unit of local government subject to the liability limits imposed by section 101.023(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. I do not join Part II of the Court’s opinion. Instead, for the reasons articulated in Part I of Justice Gonzalez’s dissenting opinion in this case and in Justice Kilgarlin’s dissent in Witty v. American Gen. Capital Distribs., Inc., 727 S.W.2d 503, 506 (Tex.1987), I would be inclined to overrule Witty and allow recovery for the wrongful death of a fetus. However, the Trevifios have not made any argument to this Court that Witty should be overruled. Accordingly, based on the arguments presented to us by the parties, I concur in the Court’s judgment as to Part II.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9682152. Public record. Not legal advice.