Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Dewayne Funderburk filed a medical malpractice suit against Rory Lewis Dec. 22, 2003. Lewis filed a motion to dismiss June 28, 2004, two months after the 120-day statutory deadline for Funderburk to file an expert report. Oct. 1, the trial court denied Lewis’ motion to dismiss and granted Funderburk’s motion for a 30-day extension to file a report. The trial court signed its order Oct. 29, the same day Funderburk served an expert report on Lewis. Nov. 12, Lewis filed a second motion to dismiss, claiming the Oct. 29 report was inadequate, and an objection to the report based on the same ground. Lewis also asked for reconsideration of the trial court’s first ruling denying dismissal. Feb. 4, the court held a motion on Lewis’ motions, and March 28 denied them. Lewis filed a notice of appeal April 12. HOLDING:Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The court explains that Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code �74.351 is the part of the medical malpractice statute that deals with expert reports. The court also cites �51.014, which deals with interlocutory appeals. These two establish that a defendant in a medical malpractice suit may bring an interlocutory appeal if the trial court denies a motion to dismiss and/or a request for attorneys’ fees under �74.351(b). The court adds that, while it is not entirely clear where the line is between a denial of a motion to dismiss under �74.351(b) and a granting of an extension under �74.351(c), a defendant is expressly prohibited by �51.014(a)(9) from brining an appeal from an order granting such an extension. The flip side of this equation is that, while a med-mal plaintiff may bring an interlocutory appeal if the court grants a defendant’s challenge to the adequacy of an expert report under �74.351(l), a defendant has no right of interlocutory appeal under �51.014(a)(10) if the court denies the defendant’s challenge to the adequacy of an expert report under �74.351(l). The court then finds that Lewis’ notice of appeal was due within 20 days of the trial court’s Oct. 29 order denying Lewis’ first motion to dismiss, that is, Nov. 18. Lewis did not file his notice of appeal, though, until April 12, 2005. His motion for reconsideration did not alter this timeline. Consequently, his notice was late and this court does not have jurisdiction to hear his appeal. OPINION:Reyna, J., delivered the court’s opinion. DISSENT:Gray, C.J. “This is a medical malpractice case. The precedent established by this case is that if a trial court grants a plaintiff a 30 day extension to serve a medical expert report, there can be no interlocutory appeal if the trial court subsequently determines the extended report is compliant, no matter how defective the extended report may be. . . . I dissent.”

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.