San Antonio Injury Lawyer Blog

Texas Dental Malpractice claims are considered Medical Malpractice Claims and are therefore controlled by the Malpractice Reforms that have previously taken place in Texas. It is therefore important to consider whether the firm that you are considering hiring to pursue a claim of Dental Malpractice has experience in the intricacies of Texas Medical Malpractice Law.

Because Dental Malpractice is a form of Medical Malpractice it is necessary that the strict requirements of the medical malpractice laws be met. In order to pursue a case of dental malpractice it is necessary to have expert reports which set out the errors committed, the harm caused and what the standard of care for a dental practitioners would be under the same or similar circumstances. These reports must be filed before the expiration of 120 days after any lawsuit is filed. Therefore it is important the the law firm handling these types of cases have access to qualified and credentialed experts in the many fields of dentistry, in order to quickly have records reviewed and reports prepared under the strict dictates of Texas law.

Having successfully handled many Medical Malpractice and Dental Malpractice cases in San Antonio and throughout Texas, our experience enables us to investigate and pursue a claim involving Dental Malpractice quickly and efficiently.

Robert L. Rush

online at

The law firm of Rush & Gransee, L.C. would like to congratulate Robert L. Rush for being named a "Texas Super Lawyer" as published in Texas Monthly magazine and Texas Super Lawyers magazine. The Texas Super Lawyers designation is awarded to only 5% of the lawyers in the state, and the selection process includes nominations by peers in the profession, a blue ribbon panel review of the candidate, as well as independent research on the candidate.

Mr. Rush has been recognized for the last 6 years in the Scene in SA publication recognizing the Best Lawyers in San Antonio (also a recognition conferred by his peers in the profession), and this year marks his initial recognition as a statewide, Texas Super Lawyer. Mr. Rush is also a life member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum and the Multi-million Dollar Advocates Forum (2008-present), and was conferred membership in the American Board of Trial Advocates (2003-present). He has been Board Certified in Civil Trial Law by the National Board of Legal Specialty Certification since 1999.

For the past 20 years, Mr. Rush has maintained a statewide practice handling serious personal injury cases, including trucking accidents, medical malpractice cases, and cases involving defective products. Mr. Rush has also handled cases in the United States District Courts in California and Arizona, and is expanding his practice to help seriously injured victims and their families in other states as well.

Many Texans, whether living in San Antonio, or anywhere in the State, require the professional services of mental health therapists. The vast majority of mental health service providers are dedicated professionals that seek to help alleviate the mental health conditions of their patients. Unfortunately, the therapist-patient relationship can become too close, and too personal, creating circumstances where boundaries are violated.

Patients seeking help from licensed counselors, psychologists, psychiatrists, or even religious pastors and clergy, often find themselves in a vulnerable position having to open their lives to these professionals. Occasionally, counselors and therapists take advantage of patients in these vulnerable positions as engage in improper sexual relationships, or take advantage financially. Victims need to know that Texas has laws protecting patients that have been the victim of boundary violations.

Chapter 81 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides for legal causes of action against mental health service providers that have sexually exploited their patients. Although the title of the Chapter uses the word sexual exploitation, the law also provides for legal remedies if the mental health provider causes - directly or indirectly - physical, emotional, or mental injury caused by "therapeutic deception of the patient by the provider."

If you, or someone you love, has been victimized by an individual that was supposed to be helping with mental health issues, you have legal rights that can and should be enforced. In addition, the Texas Department of State Health Services actively accepts and prosecute complaints against individuals that have violated their trust with patients. If you need legal help, contact a law firm that has experience in this area of law, and has a track record of success in helping victims of mental health abuses.

San Antonio medical malpractice injury lawyers are taking more inquiries from individuals injured in surgical procedures performed with surgical robots. The surgical robots can make surgery less invasive. Surgeons can operate through small holes in the patient instead of through a large incision. The robot with up to four remote-controlled arms and a sophisticated camera allows the physician to perform a variety of surgical procedures without cutting open a patient’s abdomen.

However, the surgical robots have long learning curves and some surgeons have said that it takes at least 200 surgeries to become proficient and to reduce the risks of surgical complications. Others have suggested that it takes 250-700 cases to master the robot.

One area of concern for potential patients and an area to be investigated by Texas injury lawyers is whether the physician had sufficient training in the use of the surgical robot. Some physicians have been given as little as two days training which included operating on pig and human cadavers. Obviously, as a patient you should inquire as to your physician’s experience with the surgical robot. There are many advantages to using a surgical robot if it is controlled and operated by an experienced surgeon. However, because of the long learning curve, an invasive procedure with a surgical robot should only be done by a surgeon properly experienced in the procedure.

Many have expressed concern that the surgical robots are being installed at hospitals and surgery centers as part of a marketing strategy. One of the manufacturers of a surgical robot openly markets the device to surgical centers as a way for them to increase their revenues. The price of the machines can run from approximately 1 million dollars to over 2 million dollars. With the high upfront costs many surgeons will feel pressured to use the device to justify its cost – whether they are ready to do so or not.

In March, San Antonio medical malpractice victims were once again trumped by Texas laws that protect insurance companies and the medical industry. The Texas Supreme Court, in Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio, Ltd., LLP, et al v. Rankin, held that a law passed by the legislature imposing an absolute 10-year time limit to bring medical malpractice claims trumped the Texas Constitution and the "open courts" protections therein.

Briefly, in 1995, the victim of the malpractice underwent a surgical procedure. Apparently a surgical sponge (typically an 18" x 18" gauze pad) was left inside of the patient. She was discharged and never informed of this event. In 2006, after suffering abdominal pain, she was informed by a physician that there was a surgical sponge left inside of her - necessarily dating back to the only prior surgery in 1995. Once a sponge or other foreign object is discovered, a second surgery becomes mandatory, and there are often complications with infection, scarring and adhesions with these follow-up surgeries.

The patient sought legal counsel and attempted to seek compensation for the unnecessary surgery, medical bills and any future consequences directly related to the retained sponge. The hospital and doctors involved in the original surgery sought to have the case dismissed under the legislative mandate that, once 10 years passes the negligent conduct of a hospital, doctor or other healthcare provider cannot be complained about in court. Despite the fact that no physician ever told the victim that she was suffering because of this sponge that had been left inside of her until after 10 years had passed, the court ruled that the legislature intended to protect the healthcare industry and give protections to the insurance companies that cover these events, and that the 10-year time limit did not violate the Texas Constitution.

Clearly, time limits are put on cases for legitimate reasons. There must be some closure for events that are known to have caused damage or injury, and legal protections should be instituted within those time frames. However, the "open courts" provision of the Texas Constitution was put in place for the very instance where an individual that had no way of knowing that there rights were violated. This malpractice patient acted promptly and reasonably when the violation was discovered, but the legislative bar imposed by politicians that would rather protect the medical and insurance lobby over patients prevented her from obtaining any relief.

Medical malpractice laws contain a myriad of hurdles and pitfalls. If you or a loved one has been the victim of malpractice, seek an experienced voice to guide you. An experienced medical malpractice attorney can advise and consult with you about your rights, and how to protect those rights even under the current state of the law.

If you, or a loved one, has suffered an injury because of another persons negligent conduct, or, if a business or manufacturer has caused permanent loss or caused the wrongful death of a family member, choosing the right San Antonio personal injury attorney can be a daunting task. There are many well-qualified and proven attorneys in San Antonio; unfortunately, there are also attorneys that are not. How can you help make the best decision for you or your family? Nothing is more important that research, and here are a few things that you should consider:

1) Is the attorney experienced in the field?

Years of experience are important, but more than longevity, ask about the number of years a lawyer has been handling your particular type of case. Also, ask about trial experience and accomplishments as an attorney in that particular field.

2) Is the attorney Board Certified?

Board certification requires that an attorney have a sufficient number of years of experience. But, in addition, to become board certified a lawyer must pass written examinations, provide references from other attorneys and judges, and be able to prove their track record and experience in the courtroom.

3) Does the attorney and firm have the resources to engage in long-term litigation?

Visit the attorney's office and ask questions about similar cases handled and the costs involved. Competent and qualified law firms will have the resources to spend money to investigate all avenues involved in a case; they will have the ability to hire the most qualified experts in the United States; they will have a track record of battling large companies and corporate law firms and not backing down or being overwhelmed. Will the law firm pay all of the expenses of litigation, and only receive reimbursement and attorney fees if they case is successfully concluded? This is known as contingency representation, and the law firm should have the financial and legal resources to handle a case without asking the personal injury victim to risk money.

4) Trust your instinct.

Above all else, you must feel confident and trust in the lawyer and law firm you choose. Most serious cases are not handled and done in a month or two - rather, most serious cases involve a long-term fight. Negligent doctors and product manufacturers usually deny and fight, rather than admit and accept responsibility. Most insurance companies, even if the at fault driver admits to causing a collision, doubt and delay claims rather than objectively evaluate and promptly pay due losses. You need to feel comfortable with your choice when you hire an attorney. Make sure your questions are answered, and make sure you feel trust in the responses. Good lawyers will not be offended by questions, nor should they make you feel like you must sign a retainer contract before thinking about your decision.

No doubt you will have many other areas of inquiry when seeking to hire a lawyer. In the end, you should be thorough in your search. Fast talk and sound bites are not the basis for a good choice. Using your instincts and treating the decision with the weight it deserves will allow you to feel good about your choice.

Texan’s injured by medical errors are very often denied access to the Courts. Texas voters have allowed the Texas Legislature to cap non-economic recoveries in medical malpractice cases at a maximum of $250,000.00. Therefore, when a non-employed, retired or young Texan is killed by the negligence of a medical provider the most that can be recovered is $250,000.00 plus the cost of any medical treatment. The recovered cost of the medical treatment will then have to be turned over to whoever paid the bills such as Medicare or a private insurance company. It is often not economically feasible to pursue a medical malpractice case when the legal costs can approach and sometimes exceed $100,000.00 leaving only $150,000.00, or less, to pay attorney fees and provide for the injured person’s recovery.

The $250,000.00 cap on non-economic damages makes it economically advantageous for a medical provider to have a severely injured person die quickly from the medical error versus survive and have a lifetime of medical treatment. We are not suggesting and do not believe that any medical provider would let a patient die to avoid a large malpractice award, it is the imposition of the very low cap that makes possible the absurd results in potential recoveries.

Moreover, these caps are an arbitrary number designed to “prevent frivolous cases” from being pursued. However, frivolous cases are not deterred; rather truly injured people must suffer. A beautiful, young girl, scarred for life by a physician’s negligence, can only recover $250,000.00 notwithstanding in many cases there are scars and injuries that cannot be corrected, and will remain for life.

The Georgia Supreme Court has recently ruled that their cap of $350,000.00 for doctors and $1.05 million for hospitals is unconstitutional because it takes away the citizens right to trial by jury. Illinois also recently ruled that its cap of $500,000.00 against doctors and 1,000,000.00 against hospitals is unconstitutional. Other states have similarly reviewed these caps and determined that they violate the very core of our democracy. Nonetheless, Texas has lowered the caps in recent years, further punishing its citizens and protecting negligent healthcare providers.

Texas residents need to be vigilant when family members are undergoing surgery. Family members should watch, and question the surgeons if necessary, to make sure they understand what body part is being operated upon. ordered to install video cameras in all of its operating rooms after its fifth (5) wrong-site surgery in less than three years. The wrong-site surgeries ranged from operating on the wrong finger to operating on the wrong part of the heads of three patients.

If a surgical error caused significant injuries it is often beneficial to future patients to pursue a medical malpractice claim. Future patients at the Rhode Island hospital will be safer, now that video cameras have been installed; however, it did take many medical malpractice cases before these new safekeeping measures were implemented.

The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) reported that orthopedists often fail to disclose payments they receive from makers of hip and knee replacements when reporting on products made by the Companies from which they get payments. These payments to physicians and researchers have the potential to create conflicts of interests and may cause some physicians and researchers to under report problems with the orthopedic devices.

By under reporting adverse problems, the medical device may not be placed under sufficient scrutiny at the initial FDA approval process or in review of the product after the fact. This lack of scrutiny can cause the medical device to be over utilized, thereby injuring many more people than if the device had been properly reported without the interference of conflicts of interest created by medical device manufacturers and physicians whose interest lies in maintaining a secondary income stream from these companies. Patients can be harmed if physicians over use or over prescribe a device when payments are made directly to the doctor from the manufacturer.

The nondislosure of payments by physicians has the potential to hurt many Texans by creating financial incentives for doctors to promote possibly defective medical devices.

An elderly nursing home resident was severely beaten over the weekend in San Antonio. The nursing home resident and her attacker did not know each other and it appeared to be a random act of violence. Both the victim and the attacker were covered in blood after the assault. The attacker is in the Bexar County Jail charged with injury to the elderly.

It is unclear from the reports, as the investigation has not been completed, as to how the attacker gained access to the San Antonio nursing home facility. The senior care facility allegedly required a key code to gain entry.

Nursing homes have a duty to provide a safe place for their residents. Not all criminal acts can be prevented; however, it is obvious from the weekend attack at the senior care facility that somehow their security system was breached. Someone should investigate how this obviously disturbed person gained entry to the facility. It is possible that security cameras recorded the attacker entering into the facility. Security cameras very often only record for a very short period, such as 72 hours, before recording over the previous material. Therefore, either the police or an attorney representing the victim will need to act quickly to get a copy of the tape or hard drive prior to being erased. Nursing home abuse can take many forms; although facilities should honor and protect our senior citizens, when that trust is violated, accountability should be sought.