Dr. Rivera has also filed a

n acc eler ated inter locutory appea l of the trial cour

t’s denial of 1 his moti on to dismi ss. That appe al has be en consolidate d with this m andamus proc eedingfor purposes of br iefingand ora l argument only . The interloc utory appea l has bee n decide d with an opinion which issues this same date. See E frain Rivera, M.D. v . Anita Low eree , No. 08-06- 00185-CV, -- S.W.3d -- (Te x .App.--E l Paso Aug ust 28, 2008, no pet. h.). C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS

I N RE EFRAI

N RI VERA, M.D., Relator. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 06 -0 01 84 -C V

AN ORI GI

NAL PROCEEDI

NG I N MANDA MUS

O P I N I O N In this original pr ocee ding, Re lator Efr ain Rivera, M.D . (“D r. Rivera ”) se eks a writ of mandamus fr om the trial court’ s order denying his motion to dismi ss pursuant to T EX .C IV .P R AC . &REM .C ODE ANN . § 74 .3 51 (b ) a nd fr om t he tr ia l c ourt ’s or de r gra

nti ngRe a l Pa

rt y in I nte re st Anita L ower ee ( “Ms. L ower ee” ) a 30- day extension under T EX .C IV .P R AC .&R EM .C ODE ANN . § 74.351(c)
. For

the re asons stated be low, we will g rant manda mus relief. 1

BACK GR OUND On Marc h 1, 2005, Ms. L ower ee f iled suit ag ainst Paso Del Norte Surg ery Center, Emmanu e l Riv e ra , M .D ., and Mari o Pa dil lo, M. D. a lle g ingthe de fe nd ants we re ne g lig e nt i n th e ir-2-

positioni ngof her

body duringa g y

necolog ical surg ery

proce dure on D ece mber 20, 2002, whic h resulted in per

manent neur ologic damag e in her rig ht upper e x tremity . On Marc h 30, Ms. L ower ee f

iled her f irst amended pe tition, naming Efr ain Rivera, M.D ., not Emmanuel Rivera, M.D., a s a def

endant. She a lleg ed that Dr . Efra in Rivera is a duly licensed phy sician who prac tices medicine g ener ally and par ticularly in his specialty

of ane sthesiology

and that Dr. Rivera

provided a

nesthesia se rvice s for the D ece mber 20 surg ical proc edure
. On J une 16, 2005, Ms. L ower ee se rved a n expert repor

t and cur riculum vitae of John M. H. Al le n, M. B ., B .S. , J.D ., F .R. C.S. On Au gus t 24 , 2 00 5, Dr . Ri ve ra fi le d h is “ Mo tio n to Di smi ss D e fe nd ant E fr a in R ive ra , M D Pu rs ua nt t o Ci v. Pr a c .& Re m.C od e Se c . 7 4. 35 1. ” In h is mot ion , D r. Riv e ra

argue d th at D r. Al le n’ s r e po rt did no t na me him no r d id i t im

pli c ate his conduct, thus, Ms. L ower ee did not ser ve him with a Section 74.351 expert repor t within 120 day s of filingher c laim. Dr. Rivera soug ht dismi ssal with prejudice under Sec tion 74.351(b). Dr . Ri ve ra

a lso so ug ht d ism iss a l on

the g ro un d th at D r. Al le n’ s r e po rt wa s in a de qu ate be c a

us e it failed to mee t the require ments of an e x pert re port as def ined by Section 74.351(r) (6) a

nd did not repr esent a

n objective g ood faith ef

fort to comply

with the statute. Ms. L ow e re e re sp on de d to Dr . Ri ve ra ’s mot ion , a sse rt ingthat D r. Riv e ra ha d w a ive d a ll objections to the expert repor t by failingto file and ser

ve any objections to the sufficie ncy of the repor t not later than the 21st day afte r the date it was ser

ved. Ms. L ower ee a

rgued that Dr. Allen’ s repor

t clear ly implicated the ca

re of the ane sthesiologist and that the a lleg ed defic iencies r aised by

Dr. Rivera

in his mot ion, such as fa iling to mention Dr. Rivera by name,
wer e def iciencie s to be consider ed only if objections to the re port wer e timely filed. Ms. L ower ee a lso asserted that Dr. Allen’s r eport wa s an objec tive g ood faith ef fort under-3-

Section 74.351( l), and in the a lternative, she reque sted a 30-da y extension t o cure any defic iencies. The trial court he ard D r. Rivera ’s motion on September 23, 2005 and took it under advisement. Dr . Rivera f iled a supplementa l brief on De cembe r 27. On June 14 , 2 00 6, the tr ia l c ourt e nte re d a n o rd e r d e nyingDr . Ri ve ra ’s mot ion to d ism iss under Sec tion 74.351(b). That same day , the trial cour t entere d a sepa

rate order g ranting Ms. L ower ee’ s reque st for a 30- day extension under Section 74.351(c) . In that second or der, the trial court f

ound that Ms. L ower ee’ s expert report wa s timely filed as to Dr . Rivera. The trial court a lso found that the expert repor t was an obje ctive g ood faith ef fort, but that it had defic iencies a s to Dr. Rivera. Conseque ntly , the trial cour t gr anted Ms. L ower ee the 30-day extension t o cure any

defic iencies in he r expert re port. Dr. Rivera now bring s this original pr oc e e din gin m and amus . DI SCU SSIO N Mandamus is an e x traordina ry reme dy available only

in limi ted circ umstances whe re the trial court violates a

duty imposed by

law or c lear ly

abuses its discre tion and when ther e is no other a dequate reme dy

of law. CSR Ltd. v. Li nk, 9 25 S.W. 2d 59 1, 59 6 ( Te x. 19 96 ); W alker v

. Pack er , 827 S.W .2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992)(orig . proce eding ). With respect to re solution of fac tual issues or matters within the trial c ourt’s discre tion, we may not substit ute our judg ment for that of the trial cour

t. W alker , 827 S.W .2d at 839-40. The relator must show that the trial court c ould rea sonably

have r eac hed only

one dec ision. Id . at 840. We will not dis turb the trial court’s de cision unless it is s hown to be ar bitrary and unre asonable
. W

alker , 827 S.W .2d at 840. Wit h respe ct to the re solution of lega l issues, our revie w is much less defe rential. Id . A trial court ha s no discretion in deter mining what the law is or in applying the law to the fa cts. Id
.-4-

Thus, a cle ar f

ailure by the trial cour

t to analy ze or apply

the law c orre ctly

will constitut e an abuse of discretion. Id
. Clear Abuse of Discretion In I ssues Four

throug h Eig ht, Dr. Rivera contends the tria l court abuse d its discretion by g rantingMs. L ower ee a

30-day extension under T EX .C IV .P R AC .&R EM .C ODE ANN . § 74.351(c) beca use: (1) Ms. L ower ee did not ser ve a Sec tion 74.351 ex pert re port and c urriculum vitae upon him or his attorney

within 120 day s of filingher c laim which implicated his conduc t; (2) the only repor t served w ithin the 120-day deadline w as Dr. A llen’s re port, which did not imp lic ate his c on du c t; a

nd (3 ) D r. Al le n’ s r e po rt , w ith in i ts f our c or ne rs , d id n ot n ame him , d id not impli cate his conduct, did not state the applica ble standar d of ca

re a s to his actions or inactions, did not alleg e that he br eac hed a sta ndard of car e, and did not alleg e that his ac tions or inactions ca

used any harm, injury , or dama g e to Ms. L ower ee. D r. Rivera also argues the trial court a bused its discretion in findingthat Dr. Allen’ s repor t was an obje ctive g ood faith ef fort as to h im a nd in f ind ingthat D r. Al le n’ s r e po rt wa s “ tim e ly

fi le d a s to De fe nd ant R ive ra .” We m us t ag ree with Relator that the trial c ourt abused its discre tion in gra nting the 30- day

extension for the re asons stated he rein. Inte rp re tin gthe statut e a c c or din gto i ts p la in m e anin g , Se c tio n 5 1. 01 4( a )( 9) e xpre ssl y provides a r ight to appe al an inter locutory order that denies a

motion to di smiss brought under Section 74.351(b). T EX .C IV .P R AC .&R EM .C ODE ANN . § 51.014(a) (9)( Ver non 2008). Howe ver, a Section 74.351(b) motion for dismissal with prejudice is subjec t to the applicability of Subsection (c) . T EX .C IV .P R AC .&R EM .C ODE ANN . § 74.351(b)( Ver non Supp. 2008). Under Section 74.351(c) , the trial cour t may g rant one 30-day

extension t o the claimant to cur e any-5-

defic iency

in a timely -ser

ved expert re port. SeeT EX .C IV .P R AC .&R EM .C ODE ANN . § 74.351(c) ; Thoyakulathu v. Brennan , 192 S.W .3d 849, 853 (Tex.App.--Te x arka na 2006, no pet.) (Subsection (c) extension i s available only when timely -ser

ved expert re port is found defic ient, not when the repor t is not served by

the dea dline). Section 51.014 (9) of the Te x as Civil P rac tice and Remedies Code e x pressly prohibits a party

from appe aling“an or der grantingan extension under Section 74.351.” SeeT EX .C IV .P R AC .&R EM .C ODE ANN . § 51.014(a) (9). Thus, the question is: whether “ an orde r g rantingan extension under Section 74.351” includes a tria l court orde r which de nies a motion to dismi ss an expert repor t when the de fenda

nt fails to timely

object as r equire d by

Section 74.351(a) . We conclude that it does not. An extension under Section 74.351 is only allowed in two cir cumstance s: (1) by written agree ment of the a ffe cted pa

rties; or (2) by

the trial cour

t when ele ments of the re port are found def icient. See T EX .C IV .P R AC .&R EM .C ODE ANN . § 74.351(a) & ( c). H oweve r, def iciencie s in a repor

t can only be ra ised when a

defe ndant phy sician or he alth car e provide r whose c onduct is impli cate d files and se rves objec tions not l ater than the 21st day

afte r ser vice. See T EX .C IV .P R AC .&R EM . C ODE ANN . § 74.351(a) . I f the de fenda nt fails to object, then all objec tions are wa ived. Id
. Acc ording ly , Section 74.351 g ives the trial cour t no discretion to sua sponte deter mine that a re port is deficie nt and then g rant a 30-day extension t o cure . Since the def endant wa ived his objections to the deficie ncies in the re port, the trial cour t was not authorized to g rant a n order to cure the re port’s def

iciencie s. Thus, when the tria l court g rante d a 30-da y extension after

un tim e ly objections wer e filed by

the def endant, the c ourt’s orde r wa s not a proper orderUnder these c ircumstance s, since the tria l court’s orde r g rantinga 30-da y extension after 2 an un tim e ly

objection is an impermissible “orde r g rantingan extension under 74.351,” Sec tion 51 .0 14 (a )( 9) wo uld

no t e xclu de an inte rl oc uto ry a pp e a l. -6- “g rantingan extension under Section 74.351.” Be cause Section 74.351(c) does not allow the 2 tr ia l c ourt to gra nt a 30 -d ay e xten sio n to c ur e de fi c ie nc ie s whe n a de fe nd ant f

a ils to t ime ly

ob je c t, we f ind a clea r abuse of discre tion by

the trial cour

t in gr antingMs. L ower ee a 30-day extension pursuant to Section 74.351(c ). Adequate Re medy At Law Next, R elator doe s not have a n adequate re medy

at law. This Court has jurisdiction thr ou g h inte rl oc uto ry

a pp e a l r e g ard ingmatte rs c on c e rn ingme dic a l ma lpr a c tic e e xpe rt re po rt s in two way s: First, this Court has jurisdiction i f the trial c ourt denies a ll or part of the relief soug ht by a motion under Sec tion 74.351(b); and sec ondly , we have jurisdiction when the tr ial court g rants re lief soug ht by

motion under Section 74.351( l). T EX .C IV .P R AC .&R EM .C ODE ANN . § 5 1. 01 4( a )( 9) & (1 0) . B a se d o n th e pa rt ic ula r f a c ts o f t his c a se , th is C ourt

la c ks jur isd ic tio n to revie w the trial c ourt’s er roneous grantingof a 30- day extension, t here fore , Relator does not have an ade quate r emedy

at law. Th e fa c ts o f t

his c a se e nti tle Re lator

to m and amus re lie f b e c a us e , a s p re vio us ly articulated, the trial c ourt did not have the a uthority to issue its separate order g rantinga 30-da

y extension. However, w e note, this Court is not st atingthat all order s issued by the trial cour

t which g rant a

30-day extension are re viewable throug h mandamus. Se e In rePa dil la , 242 S.W .3d 549, 552 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2007, orig . proce eding )(Relator has ade quate r emedy at law of se e kin gdis mis sa l w ithpr e jud ic e fo llo wi ngthe tr ia l c ourt ’s awa rd of 30 -d ay e xten sio n) ; In re Paso Del Norte Surgery Ce nter , --- S.W .3d --- -, No. 08-06- 00260-CV (Te x .App.--E l Paso,-7-

August 28, 2008, orig. pr ocee ding) (Relator f ailed to show cle ar a

buse of discr etion in trial court’s a war d in gr anting30-day

extension and Relator had a n adequate re medy

at law) . Rather,
we a re me rely stating that based on the pa rticular f acts of this ca se, i.e . clea

r abuse of discre tion by the trial cour

t for author izi nga 30-da

y extension t o cure defic iencies in the e x pert re port when de fe nd ant w a ive d o bje c tio ns to s uf fi c ie nc y of the e xpe rt

re po rt , th e Re lator

is e nti tle d to mandamus re lief. The trial c ourt clea

rly abused its discre tion in gra nting a 30-day extension t o cure defic iencies in plaintiff’ s expert report, since the def endant ha s waived a ll objections to the sufficie ncy

of the re port. Fur

ther, de fenda

nt does not have a

n adequate re medy

at law. There fore , we grant Relator ’s re quest for ma ndamus relief

and ente r judg ment vacating the tr ial court’s or der that gr anted plaintiff’ s a 30-da y extension t o cure the def iciencie s in the repor

t. August 28, 2008 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice Be fore Chew, C.J ., McClure, J., and Ba raja s, C.J . (Ret.) B ara ja s, C.J. ( Re t.) (S itt ingby As signme nt)