X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The court addresses a trial court’s dismissal of health care liability claims due to the plaintiffs’ failure to file an adequate expert report as required by �13.01 of the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act. Joan Susan Hansen individually and as sole distributee of the estate of Allen Wayne Hansen, deceased, and as next friend of their minor children, together with Sara Ann Hansen, and Ina Hansen challenge the trial court’s dismissal of their claims against Alicia Starr, M.D., John C. Pestaner, M.D., and Mitchell Magee, M.D. HOLDINGAffirmed. Nothing in Dr. John S. MacGregor’s report shows that he is qualified on the basis of training or experience to render an expert opinion in the area of radiology. The Hansens attempted to cure this defect in the report with a later affidavit in which MacGregor states he routinely examines and assesses CT scans, MRIs and other radiological studies as part of his medical practice. As the Hansens concede, however, the determination of whether an expert report constitutes a good-faith effort to comply with the statutory requirements is limited to an examination of the report alone. American Transitional Care Ctrs. of Tex. Inc. v. Palacios, 46 S.W.3d 873, 878 (Tex. 2001). Whether MacGregor was actually qualified to testify as an expert on the evaluation of CT scans of the heart is not pertinent to the issue of the adequacy of his expert report in this case. Similarly, MacGregor’s supplemental affidavit has no bearing upon whether his initial report demonstrates his qualifications as an expert. An expert report must show within the document itself that the purported expert is qualified to testify about the particular subject matter on which the opinion is offered. Because MacGregor’s report does not show that he is qualified as an expert in the area of radiology, the trial court could have concluded the report did not represent a good-faith effort to comply with the statutory requirements for an expert report. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting Starr and Pestaner’s motion challenging the expert report. In addition to showing the expert’s qualifications, it is critical that an expert report show the standard of care applicable to the defendant health care provider and how the defendant breached that standard. The report must provide specific information about what the defendant should have done differently. A report that merely states the expert’s conclusions about the standard of care and how it was breached is not a “good faith effort” to fulfill the requirements of �13.01. Magee challenged MacGregor’s expert report contending, among other things, that the report failed to set forth the standard of care applicable to him and how he breached it. The portions of the report relating to Magee state that he looked at all the findings and test results and concluded “the etiology was unclear.” MacGregor opines that Magee “fell below accepted standards of care in his treatment of Mr. Hansen in that he failed to properly integrate the symptoms and test findings, and thereby failed to diagnose Mr. Hansen’s acute Type A aortic dissection.” It was within the trial court’s discretion to conclude that MacGregor’s report did not constitute a good faith effort to comply with the statutory requirements. The report gives no specific information about what Magee should have done differently or what a reasonably prudent doctor would have done under the same or similar circumstances. MacGregor’s report does not suggest that Magee failed to follow procedures or that he failed to examine Hansen properly during his consultation. Instead, the report shows that Magee looked at all the relevant information when he evaluated Hansen and simply came to a different conclusion about Hansen’s condition than MacGregor did. Based on the nature of the statements made in MacGregor’s report, the trial court could conclude that MacGregor’s report did not sufficiently put Magee on notice of what specific conduct he committed that breached a standard of care applicable to him. As an alternative to arguing that its report complied with the requirements of �13.01, the Hansens contend the trial court erred in refusing to grant it a 30-day grace period within which to file an amended report under �13.01(g). The Hansens concede they did not request a grace period until they filed their motion for new trial. Section 13.01(g) specifically states that, to be considered timely, a motion for relief under that section must be filed before any hearing on the motion to dismiss. Because the Hansens did not request a grace period until they filed their motion for new trial, the request was untimely and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying it. Even if the request had been made timely, the Hansens were not entitled to a grace period under �13.01(g) because they failed to show that their failure to file an adequate expert report was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference. The sole reason offered by the Hansens to support their entitlement to a grace period was that their attorney mistakenly believed MacGregor’s expert report complied with the statutory requirements. The Texas Supreme Court recently held that a claimant’s purportedly mistaken belief that its expert report complies with the statute does not negate a finding of intentional or conscious indifference and will not entitle the claimant to a 30-day grace period under �13.01(g). OPINION:Morris, J.; Morris, Wright and Moseley, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.