An Ohio-based bridal shop that says it went out of business because a local hospital chain was negligent in handling a 2014 Ebola incident plans to seek a review by the state’s highest civil court.

The decision comes after a North Texas appellate court issued an opinion last week dismissing a lawsuit from Coming Attractions Bridal & Formal of Akron. The court said the dress shop failed to provide the expert testimony needed to support claims filed two years ago against Texas Health Resources.

Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital at 8200 Walnut Hill Lane in Dallas, photographed on Tuesday, August 2, 2016. (Louis DeLuca/The Dallas Morning News) (Louis DeLuca / Staff Photographer)

Texas Health is the Arlington-based organization that operates Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas, the facility that treated Thomas Eric Duncan.

Duncan made headlines four years ago when he became the first patient in the United States diagnosed with the deadly Ebola virus.

The bridal shop filed suit in October 2016, seeking $1 million and alleging that its business was destroyed when the hospital failed to prevent Ebola from spreading and allowed a nurse exposed to the virus to travel out of state.

The nurse, Amber Vinson, visited the bridal store in Ohio after caring for Duncan at Presbyterian. But when she returned to Texas, she was diagnosed with Ebola, a virus that spreads to people through direct contact with bodily fluids.

Amid national panic over the rare disease, health officials in Ohio ordered the small bridal shop to close temporarily for a thorough cleaning. But the dress shop, which had been in business for two decades, permanently closed in January 2015. The owners argued that after reopening, they were not able to “dispel the perceived Ebola risk and stigma.”

The case shows the challenge of proving a cause and effect relationship in an incident complicated by public panic. And the case is unique in that it raises questions about what is an appropriate health care liability claim — and who can file one.

When people think about a medical malpractice claim, intuitively they think of an injured person. “Not a company. They're not human,” said Loren Jacobson, an assistant professor at the University of North Texas at Dallas College of Law, when asked about the case.

But Texas courts have broadly defined what a health care liability claim is, and the concerns of a corporation may be similar to those of a patient when it comes to proving policies led to harm. So both may be interpreted similarly under state law, Jacobson said.

The bridal shop case went to the appellate court last summer, after Texas Health appealed a decision from a Dallas County trial court. The trial court agreed with the bridal shop, that the case did not constitute a typical health care liability claim and therefore no expert report was required.

The expert report provides an assessment from an independent professional about whether the health care provider failed to offer the best care to a patient, and aims to prove that the failure to do so caused damages.

Read the Texas Appeals Court opinion here:

In its opinion posted May 16, the appeals court judges overturned the trial court decision. It said that under the Texas Medical Liability Act a person can be either a human being or an entity (such as a corporation).

Texas Health’s attorney, Cory Sutker said in a statement that the hospital chain is “pleased the Court of Appeals reached the correct result.”

But the bridal shop is not backing down.

“It's not over as far as we’re concerned,” said Patrick Kelly, the Dallas-based attorney for the bridal shop who plans to ask the Texas Supreme Court to review the case.

A continued loss of business forced the bridal shop to shut down, said the original lawsuit that accused Texas Health of negligence. Kelly told The Dallas Morning News the company averaged a gross revenue of $450,000 annually, but had to liquidate inventory and sell the building at a discount "because no one wanted to buy it."

The shop's attorneys have until June to ask the Texas Supreme Court to consider taking the case. They also may seek to have the appeals court rehear the case.

Twitter: @sabriyarice