Skip to main content

Janie Sanchez and Kenneth Adams, Spouse v. Lowry Schaub, M.D., and Kevin Crawford, M.D.

Tex. App.—7th Dist.February 2, 2006No. 07-04-00057-CV
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the doctors, finding that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the patient's informed consent was valid for the stellate ganglion block procedure performed while she was under general anesthesia, despite signed consent forms.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** Janie Sanchez was a patient who underwent a medical procedure called a stellate ganglion block while under general anesthesia, performed by doctors Lowry Schaub and Kevin Crawford. Although Sanchez had signed consent forms, she later sued the doctors claiming she did not truly understand what she was agreeing to when she consented to the procedure. The doctors argued that her signed consent forms were sufficient and asked the trial court to dismiss the case without a trial. **What the Court Decided** The appellate court ruled in favor of Sanchez, overturning the trial court's decision to dismiss the case. The court found that despite the signed consent forms, there were genuine questions about whether Sanchez truly gave informed consent for the procedure. The court determined these questions needed to be resolved at trial rather than dismissed outright. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case demonstrates that signed documents don't automatically protect employers or service providers from liability. Workers should understand that consent forms and waivers may not be ironclad, especially if they can show they didn't fully understand what they were signing or weren't given adequate information to make an informed decision.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

More Rulings in This Case

Other orders and opinions in Janie Sanchez and Kenneth Adams, Spouse v. Lowry Schaub, M.D., and Kevin Crawford, M.D. from the same court.

Similar Rulings

Janie Sanchez and Kenneth Adams, Spouse v. Lowry Schaub, M.D., and Kevin Crawford, M.D.
Tex. App.—7th Dist.Feb 2006
Remanded
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.