NO. 07-06 -045 4-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL C MA Y31, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ ST ANT ON CLARK PACKA RD, M.D., APPEL LANT V. MA UR IC E R OBER T MI LLER , J R. , AP PELLEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 69 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF MO OR E CO UNT Y; TH NO . 04- 81; H ON ORABLE RO N EN NS , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ.

MEMORA NDUM OPINION ON REHEA RING
Rem aining convinced th at our origi nal dispo sition is correct, w e overrule Appe llee’s mo tion for rehea ring, bu t w ithdra w o ur o rig inal opin ion and judgmen t, an d sub stitute this opin ion in lieu th ereo f

w ith ad dition al com me nts.Unless o the rw ise not ed, all statuto ry referen ces he rein are to th e T exas Ci v il 1 Pract ic e & Remedi es Cod e Anno tated ( Ver non 200 5 & Supp. 2006)

. 2 Appel lan t, Stant on Cl ar k Pack ard, M. D. , br ing s thi s appeal from an order deny ing a motion to dismi ss f il ed purs uant to § 74.351 of the Tex as Ci v il Pract ic es and R emedie s Code

. Section 74.3 51(a ) man dat es tha t, in a hea lth care liability claim, the claim antshall

1
ser v e eac h par

ty or the par ty ’s att or ney

w it h an ex per

t repor t, w it h c ur ri cul um v it ae attac hed, not l ater

than the 1 2 0 d a y after t he dat e the cl aim is fil ed. Sect ion 74.3 51( b) th prov ide s that if that repor t has not been ser

v ed w it hin the re q uis it e per iod of ti me, th e tr ial court sha ll dismiss the claim. In this case Appe llee, M aurice Rob ert Mill er, Jr., w as un able to serve the expert repo rt until the 130 day af ter the date of

f iling beca use h e w as un able th to ob tai n s er

v ic e of proces s u nti l that date. The i ss ue present ed by thi s a ppeal i s w hether the t ri al cour

t er re d in deny ing Dr. Packard’s m oti on to di smi ss bas ed upon the failu re to ser v e the ex per

t repor t w it hin the sta tutor

y 120 day

per iod , w hen D r. Pac kard w as not ser v ed w it h s er

v ic e of proces s duri ng that peri od. Fi ndi ng er ro r, w e rev erse and remand for f urthe r proceed ings.
Back ground Facts
In A ug ust2002, M il ler

w ent t o the emerg ency room at the Moore County H ospi tal compl ain ing of mid and upp er ch estpai n. Three day s l ater he w as admit ted t o the hos pit al for treatment of a my ocardia l infar cti on. On N ov ember 8, 2004, Mi ll er

fil ed s uitco ntendi ng tha t his hea rt w as da ma ged by the failure of Dr. Packa rd to prop erly diagnose his heartMi ll er fil ed s uiton N ov ember 8, 2004, und e r the v ersi on of § 74. 351 t hat w as 2 eff ect iv e for cl aims fil ed on or afte r Septe mber 1, 20 03. See Ac t of Ju ne 2, 2003, 78th Leg ., R. S., ch. 204, §§ 1 0.01, 10.0 9 , 2 3 .0 2( a) , ( d) , 200 3 Tex . G en. L aw s 8 47, 8 64, 8 75, 884, 898- 99. The T e xas L e gisl ature amended § 74 .351 in 2005; how ev er , t he 2005 chan ges apply “ only to a cause of action t hata ccrues on or a f ter the ef fective date of

this Act

. An ac ti on th at ac cr ued before the effect iv e dat e of thi s A ct is g ov er ned bythe law app licable to the act ion imm edia tely before the ef fective date of

this Act, an d the law

is cont inu ed i n effectfor t hat p ur pose. ” Ac t of M ay 18, 2005, 79th Leg ., ch. 635, § 2, 2005 T ex. Gen. La w s 1590 . Becau se the 200 3 v ersion of § 74.3 51 a pplies to this case, a ll re ferenc es to § 74.351 herein are to the 2 003 v ersi on. Lehm ann v

. Har -C on C or

p., 39 S. W . 3d 19 1, 19 5 (Te x . 200 1). 3 3 cond ition. M iller w as una ble to ef fectu ate forma l serv ice of proce ss on Dr. Packa rd until Ma rc h 18, 2005, the 130 day after the or ig ina l date of fil ing su it

. The ex per t repor t w as th 2 attac hed t o the peti ti on w hen i t w as ser v ed.
Base d on the fact tha t Mill er did not serv e his expert repo rt on Dr

. Packa rd with in 120 days aft er the d ate of f iling his claim, Dr. Packa rd mo v ed to dismiss Miller’ s hea lth care li abi li ty cl aim pursuantto § 74. 351( b)

. T h e t ria l co u rtdeni ed D r. Pac kard’s moti on to dis mis s, and t his appeal ens ued.
In te rlo cut or y A pp eal As a general rule, a party is not allowed to ap pea l an interlo c u t o ry o rd e r unless spec ific all y

auth or iz ed by

st atute

. Se cti on 51. 014( a) (9 ) prov ide s t hat a person mayappeal

3 an int erlocut oryorder tha t den ies all or part of the relief

sought by a m o t io n un der § 74. 351 (b). Becau se Dr. Packard’s m otion w as f iled p u rs u antto tha t statu te, h e isSect ion 74 .35 1(a). 4 Sect ion 74 .35 1(c). 5 See Estate of Regis

ex rel. McWashi

ngton v. Ha rr

is C o. Hosp. D is t., 208 S. W .3d 6 64, 6 7 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4 D is t.] 2006, no p et.) ; Val ley Bapt is t Med. C tr

. v . Azua, 198 th S.W .3d 810 , 815 (Tex.App .–Corp us Christi 2006 , no pe t.). 4 aut horized to bring this appe al notw ithsta ndin g the fact th at th e orde r in q uest ion is in t e rl o c u t o ry. Sect io n 74.351
Mi ll er ’s cl aim ag ain st Dr . Pa ck ard i s a heal th c are l iab il ity cl aim g ov er ned by

ch apter 74 of the Code

. Sect ion 74.35 1(a) provides tha t a claima nt i n a hea lth care liability claim shal l, not lat er

than the 120 day

after the date the c lai m w as filed , ser v e on eac h par

ty or th the party’s atto rney one or mo re expert reports, w ith a curriculum v itae a ttach ed. This dea dline for serv ing the repo rt may be exte n d e d byw ritten agreem entof the pa rties; 4 how ev er , t here w as no s uch ag re ement in thi s cas e. Fur ther more, in sit uati ons w here a re por t has been filed but the e lement s o f that repor t hav e been found to be defici ent, the court m ay grantone 30-da y extension to the claima nt i n orde r to cure the def iciency. This 5 exception to the g ene ral rule is likew ise notapp licable to the fa cts of this case beca use it appl ies onl y

i n thos e si tuati ons w here an ini ti al re por t has been ti mely

se rv ed, b ut ha s b een found to be defic ien t i n some mater ial fashi on. O ther than the tw o s tatut or

y ex cept ion s 6Tex . Ci v . Prac. & R em. C ode An n. § 74.351( a) ( c) ; See als o Sober on v. Rob ins on, 7 No. 09- 06- 0067- CV , 200 6 W L 17816 23 ( Tex .App. –BeaumontJu ne 29, 2006, pet. den ied)(not designat ed for pub lication); McWashin gton, 208 S. W .3d a t 68; Thoy akul athu v. Br ennan, 192 S. W .3d 8 49, 8 53 ( Tex .App. –Tex arka n a , 2006, no pet.) ; Garcia v. Marichalar, 185 S.W .3d 70, 74 (Tex.App .–S an An ton io 200 5, no pet. ). A m. T ra nsition al Care Ctrs. of Tex., Inc. v. Palacios, 46 S.W .3d 873 , 875 (T e x. 8 200 1). In r

e Bas s, 1 1 3 S. W .3 d 7 3 5 , 7 3 8 (T e x. 20 0 3 ); quo ti n g W alk er v. Packer

, 827 9 S.W .2d 833 , 839 (Tex.199 2) (orig inal proce edin g)

. 5 set forth ab ove, the trial court ha s no autho rity to extend the de adline for f iling an e x pert re por t. 7
St and ard o f Rev iew
The tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng on a moti on to di smi ss pursuantto § 74. 351( b) i s rev iew ed under an a buse of dis creti on s tandard. A tr ial co urt ab uses i ts dis creti on i f it act s i n an 8
unreason abl e and ar bit ra ry m anner such that the e x er ci se of that d is creti on amount s t o a “c lea r and preju dic ial er ro r of law .” 9
A nal ysis
Mi ll er arg ues that the t ri al cour t’ s d eni al of Dr . Pa ck ard ’s moti on to di smi ss w as based u p o n a n i mpli ed eq uit abl e extens ion of the t ime to fil e the ex per t repor t. M il ler cont ends that the e q uit abl e extens ion w as based upon a c onst ru cti on of R ule 21a of the Tex as Rul es o f

C ivil Pr ocedu re w hic h al low s t he tr ial co urt t o “ extend the t ime for ta ki ng the a cti on req uired .

. . or g ra nt s uch other

rel ief as i t dee ms j ust .” Thi s p ro v is ion6

spec i fi c al l y pe rta i ns to a pa rty ’ s r i g ht to s ee k r ed r es s from th e c on s eq ue nc es of w hat is commonl y

referred to as the “mai lbo x r ule ” and has no appl ic ati on to the facts of thi s c ase. Fur ther more, bec ause the L eg is lat ure has prov ide d the ex cl usi v e means by w hic h a t ri al cour t may g ra nt an extens ion of ti me to file an ex per t report, R ule 21a does not g iv e the tr ial co urt aut hor ity

to enter an o rd er

extendi ng the ti me to file an ex per t repor t.
Mill er next arg ues th at th e trial court ha d the discretion to ref use to dismiss the suit becau se the fai lure to ti mely se rv e the ex per

t repor t w as due to D r. P a ck a rd ’s fail ure to make h ims elf readi ly

amenabl e to ser

v ic e of proces s, and t hat b y “ av oid ing ” ser

v ic e of proces s, a heal th c are prov ide r mig ht prev ent an other w is e- enti tl ed cl aimant from maki ng a l eg it imat e heal th c ar e l iab il ity clai m. W hil e the equi ti es of thi s arg ument are apparent t o this Court, it is not wi thin th e province of this Court, or the trial court, to ad optan “equitab le extens ion ” to t he c lea r re q uirements of § 74. 351.
Fi nal ly , bec ause Dr . Pa ck a rd w ait ed al most eig hteen months to file his moti on to dism iss, Mil ler opine s thatDr

. P ackard shou ld be equita bly esto ppe d f rom a sserting his ri g ht to file a moti on to dis mis s pursuant to § 74.351. The Leg is lat ure di d noti ncl ude an explicit dea dline for the f iling of a mo tion to dism iss. Mill er’s equitable a rg um ent s are mo re appropr iat ely

di re cte d to the reason abl eness of any att or ney ’s fees w hic h D r. Pac kard may claim to be en titled to und er the p rov isions of § 74.3 51(b ).See f ootnote No. 7. 10 See T ur ner v. Cro ss, 83 T ex . 218, 18 S.W . 578, 579 (1 892) ( hol din g , “ It is the duty 11 of a cour t t o g iv e to lan g uag e us ed i n a sta tute the mean ing w it h w hic h i t w as used by the legislature if

this can be ascerta ined ; . . . and if, so app ly ing them , the legi slation in w hich the y are foun d see ms to be ha rsh, or n ot to em brace a nd giv e reme dies for a cts for w hich re medies oug ht t o be g iv en, the cour ts,

. . . are notauth or iz ed to pl ace on th em a forc ed const ruction for the p urpo se of m itigating a seem ing ha rdship,

. . . . It is the du ty of a court to ad mini ste r the l aw

as i t i s w ri tten, and not to make the law ; and how ev er harsh a stat ute ma y seem to be, o r w hat ever may seem to be its om ission, cou rts canno t, on such consi de rat i on s , by c on s tr uc ti on s us ta i n i ts op erat i on , or ma k e i t ap pl y to c as es w hich it does not a ppl y , w it hout ass uming functi ons that per tai n s ole ly to the leg is lat iv e depar tment of the governmen t.”) 7 As sta ted a bov e, t he Leg is lat ure has prov ide d tw o s peci fic e x cept ion s t o the mandator

y di smi ss al prov is ion s o f § 74.351( b)

. To eng ra ft a n e xce pti on bas ed upon 10 App ellant ’s arg um ent s w ould am oun t to blatan t legisl ating f rom th e be nch. The Legislature has spok en and the s eeming ly harshnes s o f this prov is ion does not chang e the cl ear lan g uag e of the sta tute. 11
Conclusion
Bec ause the t ria l co u rt d id n o t hav e the auth or ity to extend the t ime to fil e the re q uired ex per

t repor t, itfail ed to foll ow

clear prece denti al author ity

in the i nter pretati on and app lication o f

§ 74.3 51(b ). Accordingly , it a buse d its d iscretion in de nying Dr. Packa rd’s mo tion to dismiss. W e susta in Dr. Packard’s issue an d reverse th e orde r of t he trial cou rt deny ing the moti on to di smi ss . This ca use is re manded to t he tr ial co urt w it h i nst ru cti ons to en ter an o rd er of dis mis sal of Mi ll er ’s cl aims ag ain st Dr . Pa ck ard, w it h preju dic e, an d for8

suc h furt her

proceed ing s a nd orders a s the part ies may sh ow thems elv es jus tl y

enti tl ed to re cei v e i n ac cordance w it h thi s o pin ion

.

Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice