Affirmed and Opinion Filed September 6, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-23-00209-CV

DARREN SCHUHMACHER, M.D., Appellant

V.

GLENN BROYLES, Appellee

On Appeal from the 95th District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-10104

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Reichek, and Breedlove

Opinion by Justice Breedlove

The trial court denied appellant Darren Schuhmacher, M.D.’s motion to 

dismiss appellee Glenn Broyles’s health care liability claim and overruled 

Schuhmacher’s objections to Broyles’s expert report. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

CODE ANN. § 74.351. Concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we 

affirm.
–2–

BACKGROUND

On August 27, 2020, Broyles underwent a lumbar spinal epidural steroid 

injection from Eric Jenkins, M.D.1 Broyles alleges that he immediately began having 

signs and symptoms indicating a dural tear and leak of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). 

Dr. Jenkins performed a blood patch procedure on September 1, 2020, but the 

procedure did not relieve Broyles’s pain.

Dr. Schumacher then performed another blood patch procedure on September 

9, 2020, that was successful in stopping the CSF leak. Broyles, however, alleges that 

“other problems persisted and worsened.” Broyles contends that subsequent MRIs 

showed that blood had been injected into his spinal canal “at the time of the blood 

patch procedures.”

Broyles sued Dr. Schuhmacher and others for negligence. In support of his 

claim, he proffered a report by Lon J. Lutz, M.D., who opined that “blood had been 

injected into [Broyles’s] spinal canal by Dr. Jenkins and Dr. Schuhmacher” during 

the blood patch procedures, proximately causing nerve injury.

Dr. Lutz stated the standard of care for epidural blood patch procedures:

In performing either an epidural steroid injection or an epidural blood 

patch, the standard of care applicable to Drs. Jenkins and Schuhmacher 

required that they be familiar with spinal anatomy; that they utilize 

techniques and technology available to them to identify the epidural 

space where the injections of medication and then autologous blood 

would occur; that they inject medication and blood only into that space; 

 

1 Dr. Jenkins and Pain Management Physicians of Dallas, PLLC d/b/a Dallas Pain Consultants are 

defendants in the underlying case but are not parties to this appeal.
–3–

and that they neither injure Mr. Broyles’ dura nor inject fluids under the 

dura into the spinal canal.

Dr. Lutz explained that “[d]uring the blood patch procedure performed on 

September 1, 2020, Dr. Jenkins injected the blood patch directly into Mr. Broyles’ 

spinal canal—not into the epidural space, but subdural. This was a grave error and 

caused Mr. Broyles immediate and severe nerve injury.”

Dr. Lutz then discussed the blood patch procedure by Dr. Schuhmacher on 

September 9 and Broyles’s eventual diagnosis:

Dr. Schuhmacher[’s] . . . attempt . . . was successful in stopping Mr. 

Broyles’ cerebrospinal fluid leak and his related headaches, but his 

other problems persisted and worsened. [A subsequent] . . . MRI of 

[Broyles’s] lumbar spine . . . showed that blood had been injected into 

his spinal canal by Dr. Jenkins and Dr. Schuhmacher.

Mr. Broyles was eventually diagnosed with a condition known as 

“cauda equina syndrome.” Cauda equina syndrome is caused by the 

compression of a collection of nerve roots called the cauda equina. 

Nerves send and receive electrical signals all across your body. The 

collection of nerve roots, shaped like a horse’s tail, is located at the 

bottom of the human spinal cord. Compression of these nerves causes 

damage to the nerves because they cannot receive the oxygen and 

nutrients necessary for their survival. The greater the compression and 

the longer it lasts, the more damage can be expected. In this case, the 

injection of blood into Mr. Broyle[s’] spinal canal caused the nerve 

compression which in turn resulted in his nerve injury. 

Nerves in the cauda equina allow movement and sensation in a person’s 

legs and urinary bladder. Compressed cauda equina nerves can cause 

pain, weakness, urinary incontinence and other symptoms. 

Mr. Broyles suffered permanent injury to these nerves and as a result 

has permanent pain and disability.

A “proximate cause” of this lifetime of pain, embarrassment, and 

disability was the negligence of Dr. Jenkins in puncturing Mr. 

Broyle[s’] dura during the epidural steroid injection of August 27th, 
–4–

2020, and the subsequent negligence of Dr. Jenkins and Dr. 

Schuhmacher in injecting blood into Mr. Broyles’ spinal canal during 

the blood patch procedures of September 1 and 9, 2020.

Dr. Schuhmacher filed objections to Dr. Lutz’s report and a motion to dismiss 

Broyles’s claims against him, alleging that “Dr. Lutz’s report is insufficient under 

Chapter 74, as it fails to adequately inform Dr. Schuhmacher of the complaints 

against him and does not provide sufficient information for the Court to determine 

whether Plaintiff’s alleged claims against Dr. Schuhmacher have merit.” He argued 

that the report was deficient because it contained only “conclusory and inadequate 

opinions” regarding the standard of care, any breach of the standard of care, and 

causation.

After a hearing, the trial court denied Dr. Schuhmacher’s motion to dismiss 

Broyles’s claim. In one issue, Dr. Schuhmacher contends the trial court abused its 

discretion by denying his objections to Dr. Lutz’s expert report because the report 

fails to set forth (1) how Dr. Schuhmacher breached the standard of care and (2) how 

the alleged breach caused injury to Broyles.

APPLICABLE LAW AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code requires claimants 

in health care liability cases to serve an expert report on each defendant. TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE § 74.351. The report must fairly summarize “the expert’s 

opinions as of the date of the report regarding applicable standards of care, the 

manner in which the care rendered by the physician or health care provider failed to 
–5–

meet the standards, and the causal relationship between that failure and the injury, 

harm, or damages claimed.” Id. § 74.351(r)(6). The purpose of this requirement “is 

to weed out frivolous malpractice claims in the early stages of litigation, not to 

dispose of potentially meritorious claims.” Abshire v. Christus Health Se. Tex., 563 

S.W.3d 219, 223 (Tex. 2018).

“Importantly, the trial court need only find that the report constitutes a ‘good 

faith effort’ to comply with the statutory requirements.” Id. (citing TEX. CIV. PRAC.

& REM. CODE § 74.351(l)). “[A]n expert report demonstrates a ‘good faith effort’ 

when it ‘(1) inform[s] the defendant of the specific conduct called into question and 

(2) provid[es] a basis for the trial court to conclude the claims have merit.’” Id.

(quoting Baty v. Futrell, 543 S.W.3d 689, 693–94 (Tex. 2018)). A report “need not 

marshal all the claimant’s proof,” but “a report that merely states the expert’s 

conclusions about the standard of care, breach, and causation” is insufficient. Id. The 

“court’s job at this stage of the litigation is not to weigh the report’s credibility; that 

is, the court’s disagreement with the expert’s opinion does not render the expert 

report conclusory.” Id. at 226.

In addition, “the expert report must make a good-faith effort to explain, 

factually, how proximate cause is going to be proven,” although the report need not 

use the words “proximate cause,” “foreseeability,” or “cause in fact.” Columbia

Valley Healthcare Sys., L.P. v. Zamarripa, 526 S.W.3d 453, 460 (Tex. 2017). “[T]he 

expert must explain the basis of his statements to link his conclusions to the facts.” 
–6–

Id. (internal quotation omitted). “[C]ourts must view the report in its entirety, rather 

than isolating specific portions or sections, to determine whether it includes” the 

required information. Baty, 543 S.W.3d at 694.

To establish a causal relationship between the injury and the defendant’s 

negligent act or omission, the expert report must show the defendant’s conduct was 

a substantial factor in bringing about the harm, and, absent this act or omission, the 

harm would not have occurred. Aramada v. Yates, No. 05-20-004960-CV, 2021 WL 

5563763, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 29, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.). Causation is 

generally established through evidence of a “reasonable medical probability” that 

the injury was caused by the negligence of the defendant, meaning that it is more 

likely than not that the ultimate harm or condition resulted from such negligence. 

See id. “An expert may show causation by explaining a chain of events that begins 

with a defendant doctor’s negligence and ends in injury to the plaintiff.” Id. (internal

quotation omitted). The report must explain “to a reasonable degree, how and why 

the breach [of the standard of care] caused the injury based on the facts presented.” 

Jelinek v. Casas, 328 S.W.3d 529, 539–40 (Tex. 2010); Quinones v. Pin, 298 S.W.3d 

806, 814 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (to satisfy Chapter 74’s causation 

requirement, “the expert report must include a fair summary of the expert’s opinion 

regarding the causal relationship between the breach of the standard of care and the 

injury, harm, or damages claimed”). “We determine whether a causation opinion is 
–7–

sufficient by considering it in the context of the entire report.” Aramada, 2021 WL 

5563763, at *2 (internal quotation omitted).

DISCUSSION

Dr. Schuhmacher contends that “[n]owhere in Dr. Lutz’s report does he set 

forth any facts which demonstrate Dr. Schuhmacher injected blood into Plaintiff’s 

spinal canal.” He relies on Dr. Lutz’s statement that the September 9, 2020, 

procedure by Dr. Schumacher “was successful in stopping Mr. Broyles’ 

cerebrospinal fluid leak and his related headaches.” He argues that “[t]here is no 

proof the blood found in Plaintiff’s spinal canal was placed there by Dr. 

Schuhmacher. In fact, Dr. Lutz’s report acknowledges that Dr. Schuhmacher’s blood 

patch injection on 9/09/20 was successful in stopping Plaintiff’s CSF leak and 

headaches, which plainly indicates Dr. Schuhmacher properly injected blood in the 

epidural space.” Dr. Schuhmacher contends Dr. Lutz’s report “arguably sets forth a 

standard of care for the blood patch procedure” but fails to explain how Dr. 

Schuhmacher failed to comply with the applicable standard of care. Dr. 

Schuhmacher also contends the report “is completely void of any explanation of how 

and why the alleged breach caused injury.” 

Citing Jelinek, Dr. Schuhmacher argues that “Dr. Lutz provides no 

explanation or proof that Dr. Schuhmacher injected blood into Mr. Broyles’s spinal 

canal during the 9/9/20 blood patch.” He argues that an expert must “explain, to a 

reasonable degree, how and why the breach caused the injury based on the facts 
–8–

presented.” See Jelinek, 328 S.W.3d at 536. In Jelenik, the report’s only discussion 

of causation consisted of a statement that the physician’s breach of the standard of 

care in “reasonable medical probability, resulted in a prolonged hospital course and 

increased pain and suffering being experienced by Mrs. Casas.” Id. at 539 (“Aside 

from repeating essentially the same phrase twice more, the report says nothing more 

regarding causation.”). Because the report lacked “any explanation linking the 

expert’s conclusion to the relevant facts,” it was “conclusory on causation.” Id. at 

540.

Dr. Lutz’s report does not suffer from similar deficiencies. Within the four 

corners of his report, Dr. Lutz explains the standard of care required for the blood 

patch procedure, requiring the physician to identify the epidural space where the 

injections would occur, to inject medication and blood only into that space, and to 

“neither injure Mr. Broyles’ dura nor inject fluids under the dura into the spinal 

canal.” Dr. Lutz then explains how Dr. Jenkins and Dr. Schuhmacher deviated from 

the standard of care by injecting blood into Broyles’s spinal canal, initially causing 

a leak of cerebrospinal fluid and later, nerve compression and permanent nerve 

injury. Dr. Lutz relies on an MRI, performed after Dr. Schuhmacher’s procedure, 

“which showed that blood had been injected into [Broyles’s] spinal canal by Dr. 

Jenkins and Dr. Schuhmacher.” See Baty, 543 S.W.3d at 695 (expert opinion that 

defendant breached standard of care by “sticking [the optic nerve] with the 

retrobulbar needle” was not conclusory and met Chapter 74’s standards).
–9–

Dr. Schuhmacher argues there is no proof that he injured Broyles’s dura or 

injected fluids under the dura into the spinal canal because “according to Dr. Lutz, 

there was already blood in the spinal canal placed there by Dr. Jenkins” in an earlier 

procedure. He also complains that there is “no detailed factual explanation linking 

Dr. Schuhmacher’s actions to Plaintiff’s injury.” But “[a]n expert report need not 

marshal all the plaintiff’s proof necessary to establish causation at trial” or 

“anticipate and rebut all possible defensive theories that may ultimately be presented 

to the trial court.” Fortner v. Hosp. of the Sw., LLP, 399 S.W.3d 373, 383 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.). “[T]he fact a plaintiff may not prove causation at trial 

does not mean an expert report was inadequate.” Id.; see also Avalon Residential 

Care Homes, Inc. v. Jones, No. 05-17-01321-CV, 2018 WL 2926381, at *3 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas June 7, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.) (that co-defendants “may have owed 

and breached the same duty” to the plaintiff did not render expert’s opinion about 

appellant deficient).

We conclude that Dr. Lutz’s report represents a good faith effort to provide 

his opinions about the applicable standard of care, the manner in which the care 

failed to meet that standard, and the causal relationship between the failure and the 

claimed injury. See Fortner, 399 S.W.3d at 383–84. Dr. Lutz’s report contains 

sufficient information to inform Dr. Schuhmacher of the specific conduct that 

Broyles has called into question and to provide a basis for the trial court to conclude 
–10–

that the claims have merit. See id. Accordingly, we decide Dr. Schuhmacher’s issue 

against him.

CONCLUSION

The trial court’s February 16, 2023, order denying Dr. Schumacher’s 

objections and motion to dismiss is affirmed.

230209f.p05

/Maricela Breedlove/

MARICELA BREEDLOVE

JUSTICE
–11–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

DARREN SCHUHMACHER, M.D., 

Appellant

No. 05-23-00209-CV V.

GLENN BROYLES, Appellee

On Appeal from the 95th District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-10104.

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Breedlove. Justices Partida-Kipness 

and Reichek participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s February 

16, 2023, order denying appellant Darren Schuhmacher, M.D.’s objections and 

motion to dismiss is AFFIRMED.

It is ORDERED that appellee Glenn Broyles recover his costs of this appeal 

from appellant Darren Schuhmacher, M.D.

Judgment entered this 6

th day of September, 2023.