Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Heart Hospital of Austin and Jan N. Ogletree MD appeal from the trial court’s denial of their motions to dismiss the medical malpractice suit brought by the appellees, Nancy Kay Matthews and Luann Matthews. On Oct. 4, 2004, appellees filed suit, alleging that appellants were negligent in their medical treatment of appellees’ father, John Matthews. Appellees’ expert reports were due on Feb. 1, 2005, 120 days later. On Jan. 31, appellees provided appellants with three expert reports by radiologist Dr. Richard Karsh, professor of nursing Alexanderia Burwell, and two nurse consultants on behalf of Summit Medical-Legal Investigations (SMLI). Appellants moved to have appellees’ claims dismissed, arguing that the reports were deficient to such a degree that they should not be considered expert reports at all. Ogletree filed his objections and motion to dismiss on February 22, and the hospital filed its motion to dismiss on March 7. Appellees responded to appellants’ motions to dismiss, asserting that they had made a good faith effort to comply with the statute. They argued that the hospital had waived its objections by filing its motion outside of the 21-day window provided by Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code �74.351 and requested a 30-day extension of time to correct any deficiencies and to submit a report by a urologist. The trial court denied both motions to dismiss. The court found that the hospital had waived its objections to the expert reports by filing its motion to dismiss more than 21 days after the reports were served. The court found that the reports were deficient as to Ogletree but granted appellees a 30-day extension of time to cure the deficiencies. Appellants separately filed notices of interlocutory appeal. HOLDING:Affirmed. The appellees filed several reports attempting to satisfy �74.351. Ogletree objected to those reports and also moved for dismissal under �74.351(b). The trial court agreed that the reports were deficient as to Ogletree, but exercised its discretion to grant appellees an extension of time to file satisfactory reports under �74.351(c) and denied Ogletree’s motion to dismiss. Because the trial court’s denial of Ogletree’s motion also granted an extension under �74.351(c), an interlocutory appeal may not be brought from the court’s order. The court decides that it lacks jurisdiction over Ogletree’s appeal. The hospital contends that because the reports by Burwell and SMLI addressed the standard of care and the hospital’s alleged breaches of that standard, it had no basis on which to object to those reports. Instead, the hospital asserts that it waited for the urologist’s report that appellees stated would “hopefully” be provided within a week, expecting that the new report would address the element of causation, but when no such report was filed, it moved to dismiss. The hospital argues that it was not required to object to the absence of the report within 21 days of the initial reports and that because appellees failed to produce a timely report addressing causation, the trial court was required to grant the hospital’s motion to dismiss. The court disagrees. By waiting until March 7 to move for dismissal on the basis that the January 31 reports were deficient, the Hospital waived its objections to any deficiencies in the reports. It does not matter that the hospital waited to see whether the promised report would address causation. The reports as filed on January 31 did not address causation, and the hospital eventually moved for dismissal on that basis. Therefore, the hospital waived any objection to an element missing from the package of reports. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the hospital’s motion to dismiss for insufficient expert reports, the court concludes. OPINION:Puryear, J.; Law, C.J., Patterson and Puryear, J.J.

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.