See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 5 1 .0 1 4 (a )( 9 ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 7 ); T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 28. 1. 1 

### NUM BER 13-07- 559- CV



## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
VI CTOR A . PA LLA RES, M .D. A ND PA IN A ND A NES TH ESIA ASSOC IATE S, P . L . L . C . D / B /A H E AD AC H E + P AI N C E N T E R , A pp ell an ts,
v . M A GI C VA LLEY ELECTRIC COO PERA

TIVE , INC ., A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 4 04t h Dist rict C ou rt o f C amero n Co un ty , T exas . 

## O P I N I O N Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Ga rza an d Be na v ide s

Op in io n b y

J u st ic e Ga rza This ac cel er ated int er loc utor y appeal i nv olv es the charact er iz ati on of cl aims for

1 all eg ed fraud ule nt bi ll ing per tai nin g to medic al tr eatment prov ide d. Appel lan ts, Vi cto r A.M e r e tt is n o t a p a r ty t o th is a p p e a l. 2 2 Pallares , M .D

. an d Pa i n an d An es th es i a As s oc i at es , P. L. L. C

. d/ b/ a H ea da c he + P ain Cen ter ( col lec ti v ely

“ Pal lares” ), appeal the tr ial cour t’ s deni al of t hei r moti on to di smi ss w it h pr eju dic e for failu re to f ile a n e x per t repor t i n a h eal th c ar e l iab il ity cl aim in fav or

of appel lee , M ag icVal ley

Elect ri c C ooperati v e, I nc. ( “M ag icVal ley ”)

. By tw o i ss ues, Pal lares cont ends that: ( 1) the tr ial courterr ed in c oncl udi ng thatM ag ic Val ley ’s ca uses of act ion
w er e notheal th c ar e l iab il it y cl aims , see T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74. 001( a) (1 3) (V er non 200 5) ; and ( 2) the tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on i n den y ing thei r moti on to dis mis s w it h preju dic e bec ause Ma g icVal ley fail ed to fil e an ex per t re por t w it hin the sta tutor il y

req uired 120 day s for

heal th c ar e l iab il it y

cl aims , see id. § 74. 351( a) -( b) ( Ver non Su pp . 20 07 )

. W e affi r m. I. F A CT UA L A ND P ROC EDURA L B A CKGRO UND Pal lares is a ph y si ci an l ic ensed by the Stat e of

Tex as spec ial iz ing i n the treatment of chroni c p ain

. Ma gic Va lleyi s a Tex as cor por ati on. It is undi sput ed th at P all ar es p r o v i d e d m e d i c a l s e r

v i c e s t o D i a n e M e r e t t , a b e n e fi c i a r y o f M a g i cV a l l e y ’ s E R I S As e l f- 2 insured hea lth plan , for ch ronic pain

. P allares’s rend ering of med ical serv ices resulted in a $631, 850.99 bil l to M ag icVal ley

. Ma g icVal ley filed i ts or ig ina l peti ti on on Nov ember 20, 2006, ass erti ng a c ause of act ion for fraud per

tai nin g to: (1 ) false re pr esent ati ons all eg edl y made by Pal la re s t h at Me re tt had c hroni c p ain , i nduci ng M ag icVal ley to pay for unne ces sar y treatment; and (2 ) Pal lares’ s b il li ng w it h reg ar d to Me re tt’ s c hroni c p ain di ag nosi s. On Dec ember 21, 2006, P a ll a re s f il e d t h e ir

f ir s ta m e n d e d o ri gi n a l ve ri f ie d a n s we r a n d ju ry d e m a n d , d e n yin g l ia b il it y,3

challen ging Magic V alley’s capa city t o bring th e un derlyi ng suit, and characte riz ing M agic Val ley ’s cl aims as heal th c a re l iab il it y cl aims

. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74.001( a) (1 3)

. On J une 4, 2007, Pal lares filed a mot io n t o d ismis s M ag icVal ley ’s cl aims w it h pr eju dic e. In t hei r moti on, P all ar es arg ued that Ma g ic Val ley ’s cl aims shoul d be di smi ss ed
w ith prejud ice beca use th eir claims w ere he alth ca re liability claims w hich w ere imp rope rly recast as f raud claims an d tha t Magic Valley fa iled to pro v ide th e requisite e x pert rep ort and c ur ri cul um v it ae w it hin 120 day s o f f il ing su it

. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74. 351( a) -( b)

. In ad dit ion , Pal lares cont ended that Ma g ic Val ley lac ked capac it y to br ing sui t. After a hear ing on A ug ust30, 2007, the t rial c our t den ied Pal lares’ s mot ion to dism iss w ith prejud ice. Pallares filed the ir notice of app eal on Sept em ber 13 , 200 7. T his appeal ens ued. II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW Generall y , w e r ev iew

a di str ic t c our

t’ s r u lin g on a moti on to di smi ss under se cti on 74.351 for an abuse of dis creti on. See Am . Transi t io n a l Care Ctrs. of Tex. , Inc. v. Pal aci os , 46 S.W .3d 8 73, 8 77- 78 ( Tex

. 2001)

. How ev er , w hen the is sue, as in thi s c ase, inv olv es the appli cabi li ty of chapter 74 t o the pl ain ti ff ’s cl aims and re q uires an i nter pr etati on of t he sta tute, w e appl y a de nov o sta ndard of r ev iew

. Buck v. Blum , 130 S.W .3d 2 85, 2 90 (Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2004, no p et.) ; Ponc e v . El PasoHealthc ar

e Sy s., Ltd. , 55 S.W .3d 34, 36 (Tex. App. –El Pa so 20 01, pet. den ied).4 III . A N AL Y S IS 1. T he Ch aract er o f Ma gi c Val ley ’s C laim s In t hei r firs t i ss ue on appeal , Pa ll ar es arg ues that Ma g ic Val ley ’s cl aims are heal th
care l iab il it y

cl aims w it hin the pur

v iew of chapt er

74 o f the c iv il pract ic e and remedie s c ode. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74. 001( a) (1 3)

. Spec ific all y , Pa llares con tends that Ma g icVal ley

has i mprop er ly

r ecas t i ts heal th c ar e l iab il it y cl a im a s a cl aim for fraud to circum v ent the T exas Medical Liability Act. Pallares fu rther alleges tha t Magic Valley’s lac k o f capac it y

does not neg ate t he ex is tenc e of a heal th car e lia bil it y

cl aim in thi s s uit

. Conversely , Magic Valley asserts that : (1) “this Co urt lacks jurisdiction to he ar this app eal, a s the un derlyi ng claim is not a he alth ca re liab ility cla im, and t here fore[, ] this Court ha s n o j ur i s di c ti on o v er a n i nt er l oc ut or

y a pp ea l u nd er

s ec ti on 5 1. 01 4 of t he Te x as C iv il Practice and Remed ies Code ,” see id. § 51.014 (Ver non Supp. 20 07) ; ( 2) i ts cl aim is not a heal th c ar e l iab ili ty cl aim, as defined by ch apter 74 o f the c iv il pract ic e and re medies code, see id. § 74.0 01(a )(13); (3) becau se it is not a claima nt un der chapte r 74 o f the civi l pr act ic e and re medies co de, t he tr ial co urt di d noter r in concl udi ng that the Tex as Me dic al Lia bil it y Ac t di d notappl y , see id. § 74 .001( a) (2 ); and (4 ) Pal lares is j udi ci all y es topped from arg uin g thatM ag icVal ley ’s cl aims w il l re q uire ex per t testi mony

because Pal lares has alread y provi ded sw orn lay w itness te stimo ny tha t the disput e d t re a tm ent w as me dically
neces sar

y . a. Juri sdic tion As a prelim inary ma tter, we w ill add ress Magi c Valley’s cont ent ion t hat w e lack jur is dic ti on. Pal lares b roug ht t his appeal under the int er loc utor

y appeal st atute

. Id. §5

51. 014 (a)(9) ( providing tha t a perso n ma y app eal f rom a n inte rlocuto ry order of a district
c o u rt , co u n t y co u rt a tla w, o r c o u n t yc o u rt t h a td e n ie s a ll o r p a rt o f t h e re li e f

so u gh tb y a moti on unde r sec ti on 74. 351( b) ). Se cti on 74. 351( b) of the Tex as Ci v il Pract ic e and Rem edie s Code rea ds, “[i]f , as to a def end ant p hysici an or hea lth care provider, an e x pert
re por t has not been s er

v ed w it hin the per iod spec ified by Subs ect ion ( a) [120 th da y after the d ate t he or ig ina l peti ti on w as filed] , the court, on the m oti on of the aff ect ed phy si ci an or heal th c ar e prov ide r shal l, su bje ct to S ubsec ti on ( c) , ent er a n order

that

. . . ( 2) dis mis ses the cl aim w it h resp ectto the p hy si ci an or heal th c ar e prov ide r, w it h preju dic e to the refili ng of the c lai m.” Id. § 74.351( a) -( b)

. The r ecord r eflect s t hat t he tr ial co urt den ied Pal lares’ s mo ti on to di smi ss w it h preju dic e fil ed pursuantto sec ti on 74. 351. See i d. T h e re f o re , w e hav e j ur is dic ti on ov er thi s mat ter

. See i

d. § 51 .014( a) (9 ); s e e a l s o V a l ley Baptist Med. Ct

r. v. Str adley , 210 S.W .3d 7 70, 7 72- 73 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2006, pet . den ied). b. A pp licab le L aw The charact er iz ati on of a cl aim as a heal th care l iab il it y cl aim is a t hr eshol d q uest ion in sec ti on 51. 014 i nter loc utor y appeal s. See S tr

adley , 210 S.W .3d a t 772 ; see a lso Val ley Bapti st Me d. C tr

. v. Az ua , 198 S.W .3d 810 , 813 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 200 6, no pet. ). Sect ion 74 .00 1(a)(13) of the civi l practice and reme dies code prov ides that a he alth ca re liability claim is:
a c ause of act ion ag ain st a heal th c ar e prov ide r or phy si ci an for tr eatment, lac k o f trea tment, or

othe r cl aimed depar

tur e f ro m acc epted sta ndards of m e d ic a l c a re , o r h e a lt h ca re , o r s a fe t y o r p ro fe s s io n a l o r a d m in is t ra t iveSect i on 7 4. 001( a) ( 24) of t he ci v i l pr act i ce an d r em edi es cod e p rovi de s th at “ pr of essi onal or 3 a d m i n i s tra ti v e s e rv i c e s ” a re “th o s e d u ti e s o r s e rv i c e s th a t a p h y s i c i a n o r h e a l th c a re p ro v i d e r i s re q u i re d to pr ov i de a s a condi t i on o fm ai nt ai ni ng t he p hy si ci an’ s or hea l t h car e pr ov i der ’ s l i cense, accr edi t at i on st at us, or c ert i fi c ati on to p art i c i pa t e i n s t ate or fed era l he al t h c are prog ram s . ” T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74. 001( a) ( 24) ( Ver non 2005)

. M edi cal bi l l i ng i s not i ncl uded i n t he l egi sl at ur e’ s def i ni t i on o f“ pr of essi onal or ad m i ni s t rat i ve s ervi c es . ” See i d. 6 ser v ic es[ ] di re ctl y

r ela ted to heal th c ar e, wh ich proxim ate ly results in injury 3 to or dea th o f a cl

aim ant , w hether

the cl aimant ’s cl aim or ca use of acti on sound s i n tor

t or co ntract

. T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74 .001( a) (1 3) ( emphasi s a dded)

. “P lai nti ffs c annot
use a rtf ul plea ding to avoid the . . . [Cha pte r 74 ] requireme nts w hen t he e ssence of the suit is a health care liability

claim.” Garlan d Cm ty. Hosp. v. Rose , 1 5 6 S

. W

. 3 d 5 4 1 , 5 4 3 (T e x. 2004) ; see Dive rsicare Gen. Partne r, Inc. v. Rubio , 185 S.W .3d 842 , 851 (Tex. 2005 ). How ev er , c our

ts must be eq ual ly

ca re ful not to extend chapt er 74' s reach bey ond i ts sta ted bounds

. Theroux v. Vick , 163 S.W .3d 111, 113 (Tex . App.–San Anton io 2005, pet. deni ed) (ci ti n g Zunig a v. Health care Sa n Ant onio , Inc. , 94 S.W .3d 7 78, 78 1 ( T ex . Ap p.–San Ant onio 200 2, no pet. )). Not every action taken by a hea lth care prov ider or every injury
sus tai ned by

a pa ti ent i s a heal th c ar e l iab il it y cl aim. Id. To est abl is h a h eal th c ar e l iab il it y cl aim, the actor

omiss ion complai ned of m ustbe
an ins epar abl e par

t of the rendi ti on of medi cal se rv ic es. Rubio , 185 S.W .3d a t 848 ; Rose , 156 S.W .3 d at 54 4 ; Ther oux , 163 S.W .3d at 113 . A cause o f action is g ene rally
cons ide re d to be a heal th c ar e l iab il it y cl aim if it is bas ed on a depar tur e from an ac cept ed sta ndard of medic al care, he alt h c ar e, or safety of the pati ent, w hether

the act ion so unds in tor t or co ntract

. Rubio , 185 S.W .3d a t 848 ; see T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74.001( a) (1 3)

. I n d e t e rm in in g wh e t h e r a p a rt ic u la r c a s e p re s e n t s a h e a lt h c a r e l i a b il it y cl a im , we7

loo k n ot onl y to the ple adi ng s but als o to the under ly ing nature of t he al leg ati ons. Rose , 156 S. W .3d a t 543 ; Ther oux , 163 S.W .3d a t 113

. In do ing so , w e ar e not bound b y ei ther par ty ’s ch ar act er iz ati on of the cl aims

. Ther oux , 163 S.W

. 3 d a t 114 . Furtherm ore, in
cons ide ri ng w hether a cl aim is a heal th care li abi li ty cl aim, the cour t mayco nsi der

w hether prov ing the cl aim w oul d r eq uire s peci ali z ed k now led g e of a medi cal ex per t. Rose , 156 S.W .3d a t 544 ; Rubio , 185 S.W .3d at 848; cf. Haddock v. Ar nspi ger , 793 S.W .2d 9 48, 9 51 (Tex . 199 0) ( hol din g thatex per t t est imony

i s n ot ne eded t o est abl is h br each of a medic al duty w her e the depar

tur e i s c lea rl y

w it hin th e c ommon kno w led g e of la y men, s uch as leaving a spo nge in a pat ient a f ter surgery ). c. Disc ussi on In ou r ini ti al inq uir

y as to w hether

M ag ic Vall ey ’s cl aims sh oul d be cat eg or iz ed as hea lth care liability claims, we must dete rmine w het her Pa llares is considered a hea lth care prov ide r or

phy si ci an. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74. 001( a) (1 3)

. Sect ion 74.001( a) (1 2) (A ) of the c iv il pract ic e and re medies co de define s a health care prov ide r as “any person, pa rtnership , prof ession al associa tion, corporat ion, f acility , or institutio n, du ly li cens ed, c erti fied, re g is tered, o r char ter ed by the Stat e of Tex as to prov ide heal th c ar e . . . .” Id. § 74.0 01(a )(12)(A). The record supp orts a f inding t hat Pallares is a hea lth care prov ide r; mor eov er , t he par ti es do notdi sput e thi s c har act er iz ati on. Next, w e mu st det ermin e w het her the u nde rly ing claim p ertain ed to treatm ent , lack of tre atment, or

othe r cl aimed depar

tur e from ac cept ed sta n d a rd s o f medica l care, or heal th c ar e, or

sa fetyor

professi onal or

admi nis tr ati v e s er

v ic es direct ly

r ela ted t o heal th
care. Id. § 74 .001( a) (1 3)

. In i ts li v e pl eadi ng before the t ri al cour t, Ma g icVal ley

note d theSee, e. g. , C hr ist us Heal t h v. Beal , 240 S. W

. 3d 2 82, 292
- 93 ( T ex. App. –H ou s t on [ 1st D i st

. ] 200 7, 4 n o p e t. ) ( h o ld in g th a t a p l a i n t i f f ’ s c la im s a b o u t a n u n s a f e b e d d o n o t c o n s tit u te a h e a lth c a r e lia b ility c la im b e c a u s e th e a c t c o m p l a i n e d o f d i d n o t d i re c tl y re l a te to th e p l a i n ti ff ’ s tre a tm e n t fo r h i s d ru g a d d i c ti o n ); Vall ey Bapt ist M ed. C t r. v. St r

adl ey , 210 S. W

. 3d 7 70, 775
- 76 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i 200 6, pet

. den i ed) ( hol di ng th a t c l a i m s a g a i n s t a w e l l n e s s fa c i l i ty fo r i n ju rie s s u s ta i n e d w h e n th e p l a i n ti fff e l l o ffa tre a d m i l l w e re n o t h e a l th car e l i abi l i t y cl ai m s ev en t hough her doct or had r ecom m ended t he exer ci se and f aci l i t y t o her , and st at i ng t hat “in m o s t s i tu a ti o n s a d o c to r’s r e c o m m e n d a ti o n o f re g u l a r e x e rc i s e is n o m o re r e l a te d to th e r e n d i ti o n o f h e a l th c are t ha n t he au t om ob i l e ri de on e m ak es for a do c t or’ s ap po i ntm en t ”)

. 8 fo llo wing: Ms . M er ett w as diag nosed w it h chro nicand sev er e pai n and the d efendant under took a c ourse of tre at[ment ] w hic h has resul ted i n c ost s i n the amount of $631,850. 99, w hic h w er e unnec ess ar y and ina ppropr iat e. The emplo y ee re cei v ed no si g nific ant reli ef, other th[ a]n t empor ar

y , and has r esul ted i n the charg es w hic h are i n c ontent ion herein

. 4.3 The defendants’ [Pa ll ar es’ s] re pr esent ati on th at M s. Me re tt, Pl ain ti ff ’s [M ag icVal ley ’s ] empl oy ee and ins ur ed, had had chroni c p ain w as false, and at t he time t he repr esent ati on w as made, t he defendant Pal lares knew i t t o be false. The defenda nt Pall ar es m a d e the fa ls e r

epr esent ati on with the i ntent of ind uci ng the plai

nti ff to pay for such unnec ess ar y t re atm ent. Pallares’ [s] pu rpose in m akingthe fa lse represe nta tion was eith er to secu re a l ar ger fee fr omthe pla int

if f t han would oth er

wis e have been char

ged, or to use the e m

ployee as a hum an gui nea pig on whic h to exper im ent with t

he new dr ugs/ tr eatm ent, or

both

. (Emp hasis ad ded ). Sect ion 74.0 01( a) (1 0) prov ide s that “h eal th care” is “a ny actor treatment per

formed
or furni shed, or

thatsh oul d hav e been per formed or furni shed, by any heal th c ar e prov ide r for , t o , o r o n b e h a l f o f a p a t i e n t d u r i n g t h e p a t i e n t ’ s me d i c a l c a r e , t r e a t ment, or conf inem ent .” Id. § 74 .001( a) (1 0)

. Ma g ic Val ley cl ear ly as ser ts that Pal lares’ s t re atment
wa s m e d ic a ll y u n n e c e s s a ry a n d wa s d o n e wit h t h e p u rp o s e t o e xt o rt a la rg e r f e e , a s sh o wn by M ag icVal ley ’s cl aim for fraud ule n t bil li ng . Ma g icVal ley co ntends thati ts cl aim for fraudul ent b il li ng does not re lat e di re ctl y to act s p er

formed or

furni shed by

Pal lares dur ing the medi cal ca re , t re atment, or co nfinement of Merett. W e ag re e. 49

Ma g icVal ley ’s damag es w er e mer ely tang enti al to t he treatment Pal lares prov ide d to M er ett; i n fact, Ma g ic Val ley ’s cl aims di re ctl y r ela te t o Pal lares’ s a ll eg ed fraud ule nt bi ll ing p ra ctic es. See S hannon v. Law-Y one , 95 0 S. W .2 d 42 9, 4 34 , 43 7- 38 ( Tex

. Ap p.– Fort W orth 1 9 9 7 , n o pet. ) (c oncl udi ng thatpl ain ti ff pati ent may

br ing a fra ud c ause of acti on, as oppos ed to a he alt h c ar e l iabili ty clai m, r eg ardin g al leg ati ons of f als e record c re ati on and mis re pr esent ati ons by a doct or to the pati ent, his frie nds, and his family i n an attempt to len gthen th e pa tient ’s stayat a psychiatric hospita l to increase censu s and rev enu e). In c onst ru ing the heal th car e lia bil it y statut e, w e do not b eli ev e tha t t he l eg is lat ur e i ntended to ex pand heal th care li abi li ty to per iph er al cl aims not d irect ly r ela ted t o heal th c ar e. See id. § 74 .001( a) (2 ), ( a) (1 3) ; see als o St ra dle y , 210 S.W .3d at 77 5 ( noti ng thatbas ed on a g ra mmatic all y

co rrectr eadi ng of the s tatut e, a safety cl aim under

ch apte r 7 4 ca n be cat eg or iz ed as a heal th care l iab il it y cl aim “o nly

w hen i t i s a g ain st a heal th c ar e prov ide r o r p h ys ic ia n fo r a c la im e d d e p a rt u re f ro m a c c e p t e d s t a n d a rd s o f sa fe t y dir

ect ly r ela ted to hea lth care ” ) ( e mp h a s i s a dded) ; T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 311.011 (a ) (V er non 200 5) (“ W ords and phrases sh all be read i n c ontext and co nst ru ed ac cordin g to th e r u les of g ra mmar and c ommon usa g e” ); id. § 312 .00 6(a) (Vernon 199 8) (“The Rev ised Sta tute s are th e l a w o f t h i s s t a t e a n d s h a l l b e l i b e r a l l y c o n s t r u e d t o a c h i e v e t h e i r p u r p o s e a n d to prom ote justice.”). Third, t he record does not cont ain ev ide nce that Pal lares’ s t re atment of Merett proximate ly

resulted “in i njury to or de ath o f a c la im a n t .” See i

d. § 74 .001( a) (1 3)

. A claima nt, a s def ined in the T exas Medical Liability Act, is “a perso n, includin g a de cede nt’s esta te, se eking or w ho h as sou ght recovery of dam ages in a hea lth care l iability claim. AllT h e re c o rd d o e s n o t c o n ta i n e v i d e n c e o f a n y s u b ro g a ti o n r i g h ts th a t M a g i c V a l l e y m a y h a v e h a d w i th 5 re s p e c t t o M e re tt. 10 persons cl aimi ng to hav e s ust ain ed damag es as the resul t of the bodi ly i nju ry or deat h of a single person are consid ered a single cl aim ant .” Id. § 74.001( a) (2 ). Ma g icVal ley i s n ot
a c lai mant w it hin the Tex as Me dic al Lia bil it y Ac t bec ause itdi d notunderg o treatment by P a l l a re s. See id. § 74. 001( a) (2 ). I t merely mai ntai ns a s elf- ins ur ed heal th pl an for it s employ ees, w hic h i s a dmini ste re d bya thi rd -p arty admi nis tr ator

. Mo re ov er , M ag icVal ley doe s not f it w ithin th e de f inition of a cla ima nt as provided in the T exas Med ical L iability Act beca use th e record does no t dem onst rate th at an y person directly

sustain ed b odily injury or dea th proximat ely cause d by the hea lth care trea tm ent provi ded byPallares. 5 Pallares argues t h a t t h e S a n Anto nio Cou rt of Appe als’ holdin g in Ins titute for W om en’ s Health, P.L. L.C . v

. Im ad , N o. 04 -0 5- 00555- CV , 2006 T ex . App. LE X IS 1 182, at **3-8 ( T ex. App .–S an Anton io Feb. 15, 200 6, no pet. ), suppo rts their conte ntion thatMagi c Val le y ca nnot esc ape t he req uirements of chapt er 74 b y br ing ing a he alt h c ar e l iab il it y cl aim in a prohi bit ed c apaci ty

. W e, ho w ev er , find Im ad to be factua ll y

di sti ng uis habl e from the p re sentca se. In Im ad , an embry olo g is t des troy ed ni ne embr y os w hen he acc ide ntal ly dropped a tray cont aining ten emb ry os. I d. at *2. The remaini ng embr y o w as impl anted and l ead t o the b ir th of a heal thy son for th e Imads

. Id. The I mads, how ev er , broug ht s uitag ain st the In sti tute for W omen’s H eal th, PLLC , a ferti li ty cl ini c, based upon theor ies of neg li g ence, bai lment , and w ro ng ful deat h, arguin g that th ey co uld by pass the heal th c ar e l iab il it y statu te be cause they w ere “seekin g red re s s f o r de struction of a non -person . . . .” Id. at **2 , 6- 7.11

The San A ntoni o C our t of Appeals h e ld that c hapter 74 o f the c iv il pract ic e and
reme dies co d e app lied, an d the refore, th e Im ads’ f ailure to p rov ide expert repo rts w ithin the s tatut or

y per iod nec ess it ated a di smi ss al of thei r cl aims

. Id. at **7 -1 0. The cour t bas ed it s h old ing on t he fact that the I mads w ere c la im ants w ho th emsel v es re cei v ed th e treat me nt an d f iled suit on the ir own beh alf , not on the be half of the de stroyed em bry os, and t hat t he Imads ’s cl aims w er e der iv ed from t he neg li g ence of the fert il it y clini c in the tr eatment of Mrs. Imad. Id. at *7. The c our t al so noted that the I mads’ pl eadi ng s s oug ht damag es for th eir

ow n mental ang uis h, l oss of companionshi p and soc iet y , and medi cal bil ls bec ause of the des tr uct ion of the e mbry os. Id. U nl i k e th e Im ads, Magi cV al l ey h as a s s er

te d th rou g ho utt hi s c as e th ati ts c l ai ms perta in to the f raud ulen t billing practice s of Pallares, not on the acco unt of any negli gence or breach of the s tandard of care by Pal lares in the t re atment of Merett. F urther more, the
re cord demons tr ates thatPal lares did not prov ide treatment to M ag icVal ley i tse lf and that Magic Valley’s da ma ges a re o nly indirectly relate d to trea tm ent provi ded byPallares; th is is unl ik e the cl aims made i n Im ad w hic h we re d irectly

related to the emb ry ologist’s neg li g ence in dest ro y ing ni ne embr y os that w er e s uppos ed to be i mplant ed i n M rs . I mad. I n fa c t , t h e c h a r a c t e r

o f M a g i cV a l l e y ’ s u n d e r l y i n g c l a i ms mo s tr e s e mb l e th a to f t h e p l a i n t i ff in Shannon , w ho al leg ed, a mong othe r thi ng s, that his doc tors “ created false reco rd s a s a bas is f o r len g theni ng pati ents ’ sta y s t o i ncrease cens us and rev enue, and t hat t hey mis re present ed v er bal ly to Shannon, his frien ds, and his famil y and in medic al notes that he w as sui ci dal , dan g erous to h is f amil y , or a presentdang er

to hims elf or

othe rs .” Se e Shannon , 950 S.W .2d a t 434 -3 8.12

W e ag re e tha t M ag icVal ley does not hav e capac it y to br ing su itunder

ch apter 74 g iv en th at M ag icVal ley i s n ot a cl aimant

. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74. 001 (a)(2); see als o Aus ti n N ur si ng C tr . v . Lov ato , 171 S.W .3d 8 45, 8 48- 49 ( Tex . 200 5) (holdin g tha t for a p laintif f t o have capa city , it m ust have the le gal au tho rity t o act). Magic Val ley ’s under ly ing cl aims di re ctl y per tai n to Pal lares’ s all eg ed fraud ule nt bi ll ing pract ic es a n d o n l y i n d i r e c t l y

r e fe r e n c e t h e t r e a t m e n tp ro v i d e d t o M e r e t tt o e s t a b l i s h t h e f r a u d

. W e are loat h to extend the pro v isions of chap ter 74 to periphe ral claims tha t do no t directly rela t e t o treat me nt provided b y a hea lth care provider, and w e do not be liev e tha t Magic Val ley ’s cl aims ar e a c ircumv enti on of the Tex as Me dic al Lia bil it y Ac t. 2. The Effect of M edic al Ex pert Testimony In an y ev ent, Pal lares arg ues that medic al ex per t tes ti mony w oul d be neces sar y for Ma gi cV a l l e yt o e s t a b li s h t h a tP a ll a re s p ro vid e d u n n e c e s s a ry t re a t m e n ta n d , u lt im a t e ly,
ov er bil led M ag icVal ley

. See Rose , 156 S.W .3d a t 544 ; Rubio , 185 S .W .3 d at 848. Pal lares further

arg ues that becau se medic al ex per t t est imony

is needed and because a layperson is not likely

to clarif y the issue s at trial, Magi c Valley’s claims m ust ne cessarily be cat eg or iz ed as heal th c ar e l iab il it y cl aims

. See Rose , 156 S.W .3d a t 544 ; Rubio , 185 S.W .3d a t 848

. Ma g ic Val ley co ncede s t hat medi cal ex per t t est imony

may be n eeded t o esta blish its claim; ho w ever, Magic Va lley co nte nds tha t the p ossibility tha t me dical expert tes ti mony

w il l be us ed to prov e its clai ms i s n ot en oug h to est abl is h a h eal th c ar e l iab il it y cl aim. See, e.g., Yam ada v. Fr ien d , No. 2- 07- 177- CV , 200 8 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 1 680, at * 10 (Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth F eb. 2 8, 20 08, n o pet . h. ) (mem. op.) ( “The fact th at ex per t medi cal testim ony may be n eed ed at som e poin t in a case doe s n ot pe rforce creat e a he alth ca reW e n e e d n o t a d d r e s s P a lla r e s ’s is s u e p e r ta in in g to th e a lle g e d f a ilu r e o fM a g ic V a lle y to tim e ly 6 pro vi de an ex pe rt rep ort be c au s e we ha ve co nc l ud ed t ha t M ag i c V al l ey ’ s un de rl y i ng cl ai m s are n ot he al t h c are l i a b i l i ty c l a i m s . See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 4 7 .1 ; see a lso T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74. 351( a)
- ( b) ( Ver non S u p p . 2 0 0 7 ). 13 li abi li ty cl aim” ). W e ag re e. Ev en if medic al ex per

t testi mony

is needed, itis c lea r to us , for the reason s d etai led abov e, t hat M ag icVal ley ’s cl aims do n ot c onst it ute h eal th c ar e l ia bil it y cl aims i nv oki ng chapt er 74 o f the c iv il pract ic e and re medies co de. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74 .00 1(a)(13). Accordin gly , w e overrule Pallares’s f irst issue on ap pea l. V. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s o rd er deny ing Pal lares’ s mot ion to dis mis s a nd remand the cause to the trial court for f urthe r proceed ings. 6

DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Opinio n de liv ered and f iled this the 8 th da y

of Ma y , 200 8.