An emergency department is fast, crowded and unpredictable. That is the environment the standard of care already accounts for — it is not a reason the standard drops.
Free & confidential case review. No obligation. No fee unless we recover.
Most emergency room claims are not about one dramatic mistake. They are about a patient whose condition was changing and a response that did not keep pace with it — a triage score set too low, a result that came back after discharge, a specialist who was never called. The emergency department documents all of it, minute by minute, which is what makes these cases answerable.
A bad outcome after an ER visit does not by itself mean the care was negligent. Some conditions genuinely present ambiguously, and emergency physicians make decisions with incomplete information by design. The question a review asks is narrower: given what was in front of them, did the response fall below what a reasonably competent emergency physician would have done?
Claims against hospitals, emergency physicians, and emergency department nursing staff whose failures caused preventable harm — in Houston and throughout Texas.
Free Case ReviewHeart attack, stroke, sepsis, appendicitis, aortic dissection, ectopic pregnancy and meningitis are among the conditions most often identified late in the emergency department. What the presenting symptoms were, and what was ordered in response, is documented.
Triage decides how quickly a patient is seen. An acuity score that did not match the presentation, or a long wait after a concerning set of vital signs, is recorded with a timestamp.
Sending a patient home before they were stable, before results returned, or without the follow-up their condition called for. Return visits within a few days are often the first sign.
Tests that were not ordered, results that came back abnormal and were not acted on, or imaging that was read differently on a later review.
Some presentations call for a specialist, for admission, or for transfer to a facility able to provide a higher level of care. Whether that call was made, and when, is in the record.
The wrong drug, the wrong dose, or a medication given despite a documented allergy or interaction. The medication administration record shows what was ordered and what was actually given.
Not every unfavourable outcome in an emergency room is a claim. A Texas case generally turns on three questions, each answered by qualified medical experts reading the complete record:
This is the part of an ER claim that Texas families are most often told wrongly, in both directions. Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 74.153 imposes a heightened “willful and wanton negligence” standard for some claims arising out of emergency medical care. The key word is some. It does not apply to every emergency room case, and whether it applies to a particular set of facts is frequently the contested question in the case.
Where it applies, a claimant must show conscious indifference to the patient’s rights, safety or welfare — a higher burden than ordinary negligence.
Which standard governs is a fact-specific legal question, and getting it right early shapes the entire case. It is also why an ER claim that one firm declines may still be worth a second look — the framing of the standard is often where the disagreement is. Read our fuller explanation of Section 74.153.
Reading hospital records is what this firm does. Emergency department claims sit at the centre of that work — they turn on triage decisions, timestamps, orders and the gap between them, which is the same evidence every case here is built on.
A child arrived at the emergency department critically ill, with dangerously low oxygen levels and inadequate breathing. Providers delayed intubation and failed to properly oxygenate him as his condition deteriorated. He suffered permanent brain damage. The firm resolved the case for his family.
A man arrived at hospital with a severe, contaminated arm injury after falling through a rotten deck. The hospital failed to prevent the infection that followed. The firm tried the case and the jury returned a verdict in his favour.
Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every case depends on its own medical evidence and legal circumstances.
You were sent home and returned to an emergency department within days with the same or worse symptoms
A condition was identified later that the ER visit did not pick up
Test or imaging results came back abnormal after you had already been discharged
You waited a long time despite symptoms that were treated as urgent when you were finally seen
The discharge paperwork does not match what you remember being told
A later provider expressed concern about what happened during the ER visit
None of these establishes that anything was done wrong. Each is a reason the record is worth reading.
Emergency departments document heavily and they timestamp almost everything, which works in a patient’s favour. Read together, these records reconstruct the visit as a sequence — what was known, when it was known, and what was done about it:
Related reading: failure to treat stroke in the ER · signs of sepsis doctors must not miss · missed and delayed diagnosis cases
Not sure whether your records show anything? That is what the review is for. It is free, confidential, and carries no obligation.
No. Emergency physicians make decisions quickly and with incomplete information, and some conditions genuinely present in ways that are hard to read. A claim turns on whether the response fell below what a reasonably competent emergency physician would have done given what was actually in front of them — a question answered by qualified medical experts reading the complete record, not by the outcome alone.
It can be. Texas applies a heightened "willful and wanton negligence" standard to some claims arising out of emergency medical care. The important word is some — the standard does not reach every emergency room case, and whether it applies to a particular set of facts is frequently the contested question. Care after a patient was stabilised, care for a patient who had already been admitted, and failures by nursing or administrative staff are among the situations where the ordinary standard often still governs.
It is one of the more common reasons a record is worth reading. A return visit within a few days with the same or worse symptoms does not establish that anything was done wrong, but it does raise a specific, answerable question: what was known at the first visit, what was ordered, and what the discharge decision was based on. All of that is documented and timestamped.
The triage note and acuity score, vital signs and how they changed, physician and nursing notes, the orders placed, laboratory and imaging results with the times they were returned, the medication administration record, any consult requests and the responses to them, and the discharge paperwork. Read together they reconstruct the visit as a sequence rather than a snapshot.
You can request them directly from the hospital's medical records department, and you are entitled to a copy. If a review is opened, Thomas & Wan obtains the complete file — which is usually broader than what a patient receives on request, and often includes the nursing documentation and timestamps that matter most.
A strict statutory timeline applies in Texas, and some circumstances can change it. Because records become harder to assemble as time passes, the safest course is to have the file reviewed early rather than wait.
Nothing. The review is free and confidential, and the firm works on a contingency fee — attorney fees are paid only as a percentage of a recovery, and only if we recover compensation for you.
Tell us what happened during the emergency room visit. The review is free and confidential, and you pay no attorney fee unless we recover compensation for you. If you already have the ER records or the discharge paperwork, you can send them for review with no obligation. Time limits apply to Texas claims, so an early review helps protect your options.
Free Case Review