Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,400+ case briefs...

Miller v. HCA, Inc.

Supreme Court of Texas
118 S.W.3d 758 (2003)


Karla Miller (plaintiff) was admitted to the Woman’s Hospital of Texas (defendant) in premature labor. Physicians discovered that Karla had an infection, which posed a danger to her health if the fetus was not delivered soon. the doctors informed Karla and her husband, Mark, (plaintiffs) about the risks of inducing delivery of a fetus of 23-weeks gestation. The physicians told the Millers that the infant had little chance of being born alive and, if the baby survived, she would suffer severe and permanent physical and mental impairments. Millers decided that they did not want any heroic measures performed on the delivered infant, including resuscitation. Thereafter, the hospital administrators and physicians had a meeting to discuss the Millers’ situation and agreed that a neonatologist should be in the delivery room to decide whether to resuscitate the infant. Anna Summerfield, director of the neonatal intensive care unit, informed Mark that the hospital had a policy of requiring resuscitation of any baby born weighing over 500 grams. Summerfield asked Mark to sign a consent form allowing resuscitation to be performed but he refused. That evening, Karla’s condition worsened and physicians induced labor resulting in the birth of a baby girl, Sydney, weighing 615 grams. Life-saving treatment was administered to the baby by Dr. Otero, the attending neonatologist. Shortly after birth, Sydney, Karla’s baby, suffered a brain hemorrhage resulting in severe mental and physical impairments. The Millers sued Woman’s Hospital and its parent corporation, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) (defendant) alleging battery and negligence. After a trial, a jury found that the HCA had acted without parental consent and awarded the Millers $29.4 million in actual damages for medical expenses, $17.5 million in prejudgment interest, and $13.5 million in exemplary damages. HCA appealed the trial court’s judgment and the court of appeals reversed. The Millers appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Enoch, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 496,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 496,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,400 briefs, keyed to 985 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial