BOBBY NEAGLE v. GEORGE C. NELSON, M.D. ET AL.
685 S.W.2d 11 (Tex. 1985)
Procedural History: Plaintiff Bobby Neagle underwent an appendectomy on December 9th, 1977,
at the Kleberg County Hospital located in Kingsville, Texas. After one week, the Plaintiff was
discharged and was last examined a few weeks after their discharge. In January of 1980, the
Plaintiff felt a mass in their abdomen, which prompted them to undergo exploratory surgery.
Neagle filed a lawsuit in order to sue their healthcare providers for medical malpractice due to
discovering a surgical sponge that was left in their abdomen two years after the appendectomy
had been performed.
Issue: Should George C. Nelson be held liable for negligence and medical malpractice involving
Bobby Neagle based on the two-year statute of limitations per Art. 4590i, § 10.01 and/or the
discovery rule?
Rule: Art. 4590i, § 10.01 was a part of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes in relation to medical
malpractice liability. In this statute, it states that healthcare liability claims cannot commence
unless it is filed within two years from the occurrence or from the date the medical treatment was
completed. The discovery rule provides the delay of the statute of limitations until the Plaintiff
discovers (within a reasonable amount of time) the injury.
, Application/Analysis: The Plaintiff asserts that the application of Art. 4590i, § 10.01 is being
applied in a way that violates the Open Courts provision, which means that the article restricts
their right to sue before having the opportunity to discover any wrong and bring forth a lawsuit.
The Supreme Court agrees with the fact that this does violate the Open Courts provision and
reversed and remanded the case. In this instance, the discovery rule may apply if the court can
assess whether or not the Plaintiff couldn’t discover the negligence at the time of the situation
and instead discovered it at a later time. Thus, extending the time in which the Plaintiff can bring
forth their claim.
Conclusion: Based on the application of the case, the Supreme Court sided with the Plaintiff and
reversed the judgement of the court of appeals and remanded the case to the trial court. With the
discovery rule being applicable to this particular situation, it may impact the start of the statute of
limitations for the Plaintiff and allow them to pursue their negligence claim against George C.
Nelson and the healthcare staff that participated in the performance of the surgery. This means
that the statute of limitations would start on the date of the injury being discovered rather than
the date that the medical procedure was performed or time of the alleged negligence.
685 S.W.2d 11 (Tex. 1985)
Procedural History: Plaintiff Bobby Neagle underwent an appendectomy on December 9th, 1977,
at the Kleberg County Hospital located in Kingsville, Texas. After one week, the Plaintiff was
discharged and was last examined a few weeks after their discharge. In January of 1980, the
Plaintiff felt a mass in their abdomen, which prompted them to undergo exploratory surgery.
Neagle filed a lawsuit in order to sue their healthcare providers for medical malpractice due to
discovering a surgical sponge that was left in their abdomen two years after the appendectomy
had been performed.
Issue: Should George C. Nelson be held liable for negligence and medical malpractice involving
Bobby Neagle based on the two-year statute of limitations per Art. 4590i, § 10.01 and/or the
discovery rule?
Rule: Art. 4590i, § 10.01 was a part of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes in relation to medical
malpractice liability. In this statute, it states that healthcare liability claims cannot commence
unless it is filed within two years from the occurrence or from the date the medical treatment was
completed. The discovery rule provides the delay of the statute of limitations until the Plaintiff
discovers (within a reasonable amount of time) the injury.
, Application/Analysis: The Plaintiff asserts that the application of Art. 4590i, § 10.01 is being
applied in a way that violates the Open Courts provision, which means that the article restricts
their right to sue before having the opportunity to discover any wrong and bring forth a lawsuit.
The Supreme Court agrees with the fact that this does violate the Open Courts provision and
reversed and remanded the case. In this instance, the discovery rule may apply if the court can
assess whether or not the Plaintiff couldn’t discover the negligence at the time of the situation
and instead discovered it at a later time. Thus, extending the time in which the Plaintiff can bring
forth their claim.
Conclusion: Based on the application of the case, the Supreme Court sided with the Plaintiff and
reversed the judgement of the court of appeals and remanded the case to the trial court. With the
discovery rule being applicable to this particular situation, it may impact the start of the statute of
limitations for the Plaintiff and allow them to pursue their negligence claim against George C.
Nelson and the healthcare staff that participated in the performance of the surgery. This means
that the statute of limitations would start on the date of the injury being discovered rather than
the date that the medical procedure was performed or time of the alleged negligence.
