Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Daris White appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of her medical malpractice claim against Baptist St. Anthony’s Hospital (BSA) and denial of her request for a 30-day extension of time to submit an adequate expert’s report. HOLDING:White argues that the trial court was duped by BSA’s representation that the court had not memorialized its ruling upon the motion when it actually had done so. And, because the trial court had actually ruled upon the motion, BSA’s sole avenue for relief, according to White, was either to perfect an interlocutory appeal or petition for a writ of mandamus. Both contentions are founded upon the notion that the trial court lacked the authority to reconsider its previous interlocutory decision. A trial court has plenary jurisdiction to reconsider its interlocutory rulings, and retains that ability until a final judgment or order is entered in the cause and the decree becomes final. Given this, the trial court had the authority to reconsider whether to grant BSA’s motion to dismiss. Regarding the allegation that the trial court tested the validity of her expert’s report against “case law and standards that had not existed at the time the report was approved,” that contention is insufficiently briefed and waived. The record shows that White had filed a written response to BSA’s motion for reconsideration and therein sought the grace period in question. Subsequently, the trial court convened a hearing on Oct. 8, 2004, to consider BSA’s motion. White contends that the trial court erred by refusing to afford her 30 days to correct the deficiency or otherwise hold a hearing on her motion requesting such relief. The court reviews the record and concludes that White’s application for the grace period was indeed considered at a hearing on BSA’s motion for reconsideration. As to the contention that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the 30-day grace period, the court notes that the burden lies with the party soliciting same to illustrate that the deficiencies within the initial report were neither intentional nor the result of conscious indifference. No such evidence was presented at the hearing, however. The sum and substance of appellant’s reasons for believing herself entitled to the grace period involve the trial court’s subsequent realization that White’s expert report did not satisfy the requirements of law. That the trial court was initially mistaken about the sufficiency of the report has little bearing on whether White established her entitlement to the grace period, however. This is so because the pertinent circumstances are those which existed at the time the report was filed. The failure alluded to in former Texas Revised Civil Statutes Article 4590i �13.01(g) pertained to the failure to file a sufficient report within 180 days of suit. Logically, the focus must lie not upon what may have occurred after the report was filed but upon the reasons and mindset of the plaintiff at the time it was filed. The only reason the court knows of for White tendering the report at issue presumably was her belief that it satisfied the applicable statutory requirements. Such a mistaken belief is not enough to satisfy the requirements of �13.01(g). OPINION:Quinn, CJ; Quinn, CJ, Reavis, J., and Boyd, SJ.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* 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 © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.