Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): attention deficit disorder. I see these patients for their regular medical problems and provide their primary medical care. [Emphasis added.] Dr. Rushing’s report and curriculum vitae show that he was (a) actively and currently practicing medicine at the time it was written, (b) has actually treated and was currently treating patients being prescribed Adderall specifically for ADD, and (c) is board certified in internal medicine. Thus, he meets the requirements set forth in section 74.401(a) and (c) for being qualified to render an opinion as to the standard of care applicable to the treatment of a person diagnosed with ADD and being prescribed Adderall. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 74.401(a), (c); Terry A. Leonard, P.A., 293 S.W.3d at 677; cf. Barber, 303 S.W.3d at 795-96 (<HOLDING>). Appellants contend that because Dr. Rushing 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a written report drafted by a person who is not properly qualified as an expert may not be considered as summary judgment evidence (B) holding expert report requirement fulfilled in claim against nurse by providing expert report of nurse as to standard of care and expert report of medical doctor as to causation (C) holding that standard of care need not be listed separately in report when same standard applies to each health care provider (D) holding that anesthesiologist who had participated in numerous similar surgeries and had observed proper padding and positioning technique as part of surgical team was qualified to provide expert report as to standard of care applicable to general surgeon (E) holding anesthesiologist qualified to opine on conduct of surgeon in health care liability claim because anesthesiologists report tied his education training and experience to the specific alleged breach  the positioning and padding of a patient during surgery not the conduct of the actual operating techniques
Output (English): holding that a written report drafted by a person who is not properly qualified as an expert may not be considered as summary judgment evidence