Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Diversicare General Partner, Inc. v. Rubio

Texas Supreme Court

Decided October 14, 2005No. 02-0849Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partChief Justice Jefferson

I join in the Court’s holding that Rubio’s allegations based on the incidents of sexual assault constitute a “claimed departure from accepted standards of safety,” and are therefore barred by the MLIIA’s two-year statute of limitations. At 847. I do not, however, agree with the Court’s conclusion that Rubio has presented a cause of action for departures from accepted standards of health care. The principal allegation in Rubio’s complaint — that Diversicare failed to protect her from a known sexual predator — raises a premises liability claim which falls under the statute’s “safety” component.

I

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1999
  2. St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital v. AgborTexas Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Timberwalk Apartments, Partners, Inc. v. CainTexas Supreme Court · 1998
  4. RepublicBank Dallas, N.A. v. Interkal, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1985
  5. Simmons v. ArnimTexas Supreme Court · 1920

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API