The San Antonio Court of Appeals has upheld a Webb County trial court’s summary judgment in favor of oil and gas producers in a personal injury suit stemming from the death of an employee.
Enrique Orta, III, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Enrique Orta, H. Ramona E. Moreno and Sabrina Orta v. SN Operating, LLC and Patco Wireline Services, LLC (No. 04-21-00062-CV; March 6, 2024) arose from the death from heat stroke of an oilfield worker employed by Patco. Orta began exhibiting signs of heat exhaustion about halfway through his second day on the job. He took a break and then resumed working, only to fall while walking down a flight of stairs. Two co-workers assisted him to his truck, where he sat with the A/C running and drinking fluids. A high-level Patco employee checked on him, and he reported that he was alright. While being driven home that evening by his co-worker, Orta became ill. Suspecting heat exhaustion, his co-worker asked him if he wanted to go to the hospital, which he declined. The co-worker called Patco, who advised him to take Orta to the hospital. In the event, Orta continued to decline medical help. At some point during the night, Orta tried to get out of bed, fell, and hit his head. He was transported by EMS to the hospital but never regained consciousness. Plaintiffs sued Patco and SN, an independent contractor on the site, alleging negligence. Defendants filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Plaintiffs appealed.
In an opinion by Justice Valenzuela, the court of appeals affirmed. The issue before the court was whether Plaintiffs raised a genuine issue of material fact as to proximate cause. They argued that they were not required to present medical expert testimony because heat stroke is a condition within the common knowledge and experience of laypersons. Defendants argued to the contrary and that Plaintiffs’ failure to present any competent evidence of causation doomed their claims. The court agreed with Defendants that “appellants have not shown that the symptoms and effects of heat stroke are within the common knowledge and experience of laypersons (citations omitted). It is not within the common knowledge and experience of laypersons to know the symptoms and severity of heat stroke, or why one similarly situated person may experience a heat stroke and another may not” (citations omitted). Plaintiffs asserted further that the testimony of their workplace safety engineer was sufficient to raise a fact issue as to causation, but the court held that “he does not have any knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in medicine to be sufficiently qualified to render a medical opinion on the causes, symptoms, and probable severity of heat stroke” (citations omitted).
