Shah v. Moss’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 85 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “first show a cognizable, common-law claim that article 4590i’s limitations provision restricts. Then, the litigant must show the restriction is unreasonable or arbitrary when balanced against the statute’s purpose and basis. The limitations provision in article 4590i section 10.01 does not violate the open courts guarantee if the plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to discover the alleged wrong and bring suit before the limitations period expired.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Walters v. Cleveland Regional Medical Center · Charles G. Hooks, III v. Samson Lone Star, Limited Partnership, N/K/A Samson Lone Star Llc

2. “Notwithstanding any other law ..., no health care liability claim may be commenced unless the action is filed within two years from the occurrence of the breach or tort or from the date the medical or health care treatment that is the subject of the claim or the hospitalization for which the claim is made is completed....”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Letosha Gale M.D. and Zoe Life Wellness Center, P.A. v. Hector Lucio · Thompson v. Pate

3. “... [E]ven if we take as true Moss’s assertion that he could not have sued within the two-year limitations period because he did not discover Dr. Shah’s negligence until his last office visit in July 1995, the open courts provision does not save Moss’s claims. A plaintiff may not obtain relief under the open courts provision if he does not use due diligence and sue within a reasonable time after learning about the alleged wrong. Here, the summary-judgment evidence shows Moss knew about his alleged injury, the second detached retina resulting in Moss’s loss of sight, at least seventeen months before he brought suit. Moss offers no explanation, other than Dr. Shah’s alleged fraudulent concealment, about why he delayed in bringing suit. And, we have already rejected Moss’s fraudulent-concealment claim. Accordingly, we conclude that, as a matter of law, Moss did not file suit within a reasonable time after discovery his injury. Moss did not raise a fact issue establishing that he did not have a reasonable opportunity to discover the alleged wrong and bring suit within the limitations period or that he sued within a reasonable time after discovering the alleged wrong. Thus, the open courts provision does not apply to save Moss’s time-barred negligence claims.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Yancy v. United Surgical Partners International, Inc.