Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:A month after undergoing exploratory surgery for an ectopic pregnancy, Lizalde Marichalar went to the emergency room with abdominal pain. Later surgery revealed a 10-inch sponge that had been left behind in the earlier surgery. Marichalar sued the hospital, a nurse and several doctors, including Dr. Luis Richard Garcia. Pursuant to Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code �74.351, acting within 120 days of her suit, Marichalar filed an expert report on each defendant. The report she filed against Garcia, however, did not mention him at all. Garcia moved to dismiss Marichalar’s claims against him, because she did not serve him with an expert report within 120 days of filing. The trial court denied the motion, and Garcia appealed. While the appeal was pending before the San Antonio Court of Appeals, the trial court dissolved its earlier order, and granted another motion allowing Marichalar time to cure the report’s deficiencies. This court issued an opinion stating that the trial court had no authority to grant an extension and that by dissolving the prior order, the trial court had interfered with the relief Garcia sought. The court now hears the merits of the case. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. Confirming that the expert report does not even mention Garcia, much less the standard of care applicable to him or how he breached it, the court rejects Marichalar’s attempt to bolster the report by citing arguments her attorney made at the hearing. The report, however, stands on its own, and trial counsel’s argument to fill in the missing pieces of the report should not have been considered by the trial court. Thus, examining only the four corners of the report Marichalar submitted, the court notes that, even though there is only one incident at issue, Marichalar has sued multiple defendants and each defendant must be addressed individually. “Neither report filed by Marichalar discusses how the care rendered by Dr. Garcia failed to meet the applicable standard of care or how Dr. Garcia’s failure caused Marichalar to suffer injury, harm, or damages. Indeed, neither report mentions Dr. Garcia at all. As such, neither report informed Dr. Garcia of the specific conduct he allegedly performed that Marichalar had called into question. We, therefore, hold that the expert reports filed by Marichalar did not constitute a good-faith effort to comply with the statutory requirements.” The court then addresses Marichalar’s argument that, even if her report was deficient, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur made the report unnecessary. The court points out that �74.201 restricts the use of res ipsa loquitur in health care liability claims. The doctrine is an evidentiary rule, while filing an expert report is a threshold requirement for filing a lawsuit. Alternatively, the court continues, if the doctrine is an exception to the report requirement, Marichalar still must prove causation, which Marichalar has not done. OPINION:Angelini, J.; Stone, Angelini and Speedlin, JJ.

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.