The Court also had to determine whether Randol Mill’s actions resulted in healthcare liability claims. Miller argued that her claims were in the nature of products-liability claims and thus excluded from the Act. But notwithstanding Miller’s use of the “manufacturing” label in her petition, Miller did not sue Randol Mill as retailers or manufacturers of a defective product. Her claims clearly alleged that Randol Mill and its pharmacists departed from accepted healthcare standards. The Court would not allow Miller to recast her healthcare liability claims as breach-of-warranty and products-liability claims to avoid the Act. Thus, the Court reversed and remanded the case.
2. Genie Indus., Inc. v. Matak, 462 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2015).