### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00396- CV

Academ y of O riental Me dicine, L.L .C., Quian zi Wu and Xiaotian Sh en, Appellan ts
v. Eve Andra, Appellee

F ROM THE DIST RICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 261ST JUDICIAL DIST RICT NO. GN 400522, HONORABLE DARLENE BYRNE, JUDG E PRESIDING

O P I N I O N Appellants, Ac ademy

o f O r ie nta l M e d ic in e , L
. L
. C. a n d D r s . Q u ia nzi W u and Xiaotian Sh en, are de fenda

nts in a medical ne g lige nce suit broug ht by their for mer patient, appellee Eve An dr a . App e lle e fi le d a

n “ e xpe rt re po rt ” fr om h e r f

a mil y pr a c tit ion e r, Dr . H olm e , th a t pu rp or ts t o state the standard of car e for an acupunc turist tre ating asthma by topical application o f a m u stard paste. Appe llants in two iss ues appe al the district c ourt’s denial of their motion to strike Holme’s repor t, arguing that he is not qualified to testify reg arding traditional Chinese medicine and that the repor t is insufficient as a matter of law. Be cause we do not have jurisdiction to hear an interloc utory
a pp e a l of the de nia l of

the re lie f s ou g ht, we do no t re a c h the me ri ts of a pp e lla nts ’ i ssu e s a

nd dis mis s this appeal for

lack of jurisdiction.2 DI SCU SSIO N Where, a s here , there is not a final and a ppeala ble orde r, the Court only has jurisdiction to hear interloc utory appea ls as authorized by

statute. Se e Sta ry

v . D e Bo rd , 967 S.W .2d 35 2, 35 2- 53 (T e x. 19 88 ); Majeski v . Estate of Majeski , 163 S.W. 3d 10 2, 10 5 (T e x. Ap p. —A us tin 2005, no pet.). We construe statutes to determine a nd eff ectuate t he legislature ’s intent. Texas De p’t

o f T r a n s p . v . Ne e d

ham , 8 2 S
. W
. 3 d 314, 318 (Tex. 2002). Ordinar ily we be g in with the statute’s plain an d comm on meaningbut give define d terms their statutorily -def ined meaning s. Id . The meaningof a term that is not specifica lly define d is determined pr imarily by how that term is used throug hout the act a s a whole a nd should be int erpr eted consistently in ever y part of a n act. Id
. We consider disputed pr ovisions in contex t, not in is olation. Go nz ale z v . Ti pp it , 2 0 0 5 T e x . A p p . LE X IS 4 4 6 3 , a t* 5 ( T e x. A p p . — A u s t i nJun e 1 0 , 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t
. h .) ; see F i tzgerald v. Advanc ed Spine Fixation Sys ., 996 S. W
. 2 d 8 6 4, 866 (Tex. 1999). Moreove r, we rea d ever y word, phra se, and expression in a statute as if it we re d el iberately chosen a nd presume the words excluded fr om the statute are done so purposef ully
. Se e Ga ble

s Re alt yLtd . P 'shi p v . Trav is C

e nt. Ap prais al D ist
. , 81 S.W .3d 869, 873 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, pet. denied).

Th e c ivi l pr a c tic e and rem e die s c od e pr ov ide s f or int e rl oc uto ry

a pp e a ls o f c e rt a in order s re gardingexpert repor ts in health car e liability

claims. See Tex. Ci v. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 51.014(a )(9) -(10) (West Supp. 2004-05) (a uthorizi ng cer

tain interlocutory

appea ls from
se c tio n 7 4. 35 1 o rd e rs ); 74 .3 51 (We st 2 00 5) (r e qu ir e me nts of e xpe rt re po rt s in

he a lthc are lia

bil ity
c la ims ). Spe c if

ic a lly , s e c tio n 51. 01 4( a )( 9) a llo ws int e rl oc uto ry a pp e a l of an o rd e r t

hat “ de nie s a ll or par t of the relief s oug ht by a mot ion under Sec tion 74.351(b), except that an a ppeal may

not be“In a health car e liability claim, a claimant shall, not later than the 120th day afte r the date the 1 c la im w a s f

ile d, se rv e on

e a c h p art y . . . o ne or

mor e e xpe rt

re po rt s . . . .” Te x. Civ . Pr a c . & Re m. Code Ann. § 74.351(a ) (West 2005). Section (c) permits a trial court to g rant a 30-day extension to cure a defic iency wher e an expert 2 repor t has not been served within 120 day s beca use elements of the re port are found def icient. Id
. § 74.351(c)
. 3 ta k e n f r o m an o r d e r g r an ti n g an e xte n s io n u n d e r Se c ti o n 7 4
. 3 51.” Id
. § 51.014(a) (9). Sec tion 51.014(a) (10) a llows interlocutory appea l of an orde r that “g rants re lief soug ht by a motion under Section 74.351(l).” Id . § 51.014(a) (10). B eca use sec tion 51.014's a

uthorizi ng of interlocutor y appea ls is a narr ow exception to the g ener al rule that only final judg ments and orde rs ar e appe alable, we must strictly

construe it. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jack son , 53 S.W .3d 352, 355 (Tex. 2001); Bex ar Metro. W

ater Dist. v. City of Bulverde , 1 56 S.W. 3d 79 , 8 5 ( Te x. Ap p. —A us tin 20 05 , n o p e t. h.). Appellants ar g ue that the or der the y appea l from was a

denial of al l o r part of the
r e li e f s o u g h t b y

a mo ti o nu n d e r

s e c ti o n7 4
. 3 5 1 ( b ) an d

th at w e th e r e f

ore have juri s d ic ti o n . We dis a g re e . Se c tio n 7 4. 35 1( b) re a ds a s f oll ow s:
I f, as to a de fenda

nt phy sician or health ca

re pr ovider, a

n expert repor

t has not been serve d within the period spec ified by Subsection (a) , the cour t, on the motion of the 1 aff ecte d phy sician or he alth car e provide r, shall, subject to Subsec tion (c), enter an 2 or de r t hat: (1) awa rds to the af

fect ed p h y s ician or he alth car e provide r re asonable attorney ’s fee s and costs of c ourt incurr ed by the phy sician or he alth car e provide r; and (2 ) dis mis se s th e c la im w ithre sp e c t to the ph y sic ian o r h e a lthc are pr ov ide r, wi th pr e jud ic e to t

he re fi lin g of

the c la im.An

e xpe rt re po rt is 3
a wr itten report by an ex pert that provide s a fa ir summary of the e x pert’s opinions as of the date of

the re port reg arding applicable standards of car e, the manne r in which the c are rende red by

the phy sician or he alth car e provide r fa iled to meet the standa rds, and the causa l relationship betwee n that failure and the injury , harm, or da mag es cla imed. Tex. Ci v. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(r) (6). B e c a us e a pp e lle e fi le d he r su it on F e br ua ry 19 th, the 12 0- da

y tim e pe ri od

did no t e xpir e un til 4 J une 1 8 t h
. T h e trial c ourt set the hea ring for a ppellants’ objec tions to t he expert re port afte r the deadline ha d run, at which time it could deter mine exactly

what docume nts constituted her expert repor t. The cour

t dated its ruling the same da y , J une 24th. 4 Tex. Ci v. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(b).

Appellan t s ’ motion requeste d that the re port be stricke n beca use Holme wa s not qualified to opine a s to the standard of car e and be cause the re port was not a d eq u ate as an expert repor t in that it failed to comply with th e s t atut ory

require ments of an e x pert re port in section 74.351(r) (6). Appellants requested that the t rial court strike t he report but did not request the r elief

3 outlined in section 74.351(b), dismiss al wit h prejudice and attorney ’s fe es. I t also did not assert that
no e xpe rt re po rt ha d b e e n ti me ly

fi le d b ecause , a s th e de a dli ne ha d n ot r un a t th e tim e a

pp e lla nts filed the motion, appellee might still ti mely file a r ep o rt o r re p orts that would satisfy the
re qu ir e me nts of

an e xpe rt re po rt : “ Th e iss ue of

tim e lin e ss i s n ot ad dr e sse d in th is o bje c tio n s inc e it is unclear if Dr. Holme’ s letter is intended to be the repor t. This issue will ripen when the de adline expires in J une.” See id. § 74.351(I ) (ex pert report requirements may be satisfied by one or se ries 4 of re ports from one or

more e x perts addr essing differ ent issues).It

is tr ue tha

t a r e po r t c an b e de e me d n ot ti mel y f ile d und e r su

bs e c tio n ( a ) i f t

he r e po r t is 5 d e f ic ie n t b u t s e r v e d b e f

o r e th e 1 2 0

- d ay d e a d li n e. See T ex. C iv. P r ac. & Rem. C ode Ann. § 74. 351(c) (addr essi n g cir cumstance wher e r epor t “ has not bee n ser ved within the per iod specifie d by S ubsection (a ) bec ause elements of the r epor t ar e found de ficient” ); see ge nerally In re Woman’

s Hosp. of Tex. , Inc. , 141 S
. W. 3d 144 (T ex. 2004) (Ow en, J
. , co n cur r ing and dis se nti ng ) ( dis c us sin g v ar iou s c a se s in wh ic h, un de r fo r me r and c ur r e nt e xp e r t r e po r t st a tut e s, t ri a l c o u rt s w e re re qu i re d t o d i s m i s s h e a l t h c a re l i a b i l i t y c l a i m s b e c a

u s e e x p e rt

re p o rt s w e re defic ient). There fore , if the re port had been held defic ient or st ricke n and, at the expiration of 120 day s after the claim wa s filed, no suffic ient expert repor ts had bee n filed, appe llants would have be en entitled to move for a

nd rec eive the r elief unde r sec tio n 74.351(b). How ever , appellants ne ver mov e d f or su c h r e lie f; the ir mot ion c ha lle ng ing the a de qu a c y of the e xpe rt re po rt did no t als o r e qu e st dismiss al or fe es and c osts for lack of a timely repor t a s any such reque st w ould ha ve bee n premature befor e the r

unning of the time period. 5 Appellants’ motion, there fore , is more acc urate ly char acte rized as a motion for r elief under section 74.351(l). Under that section, “[a] court shall gr ant a motion challeng ing the adequa cy of an e xpe rt re po rt on ly

if it a pp e ars to t

he c ourt , a ft e r h e ari ng , th a t th e re po rt do e s n ot r e pr e se nt a g o o d f a it h e f f o rt t o c o mp ly

w it h th e d e f in it io n o f ane xp e rt r e p o rt i nSu

b s e c ti o n( r ) ( 6 ).” Id
. § 74.351(l). Appropriately , appellants’ motion cha lleng ing the adequa cy of appellee ’s expert repor t addre sses sections 74.351 (l) a nd (r) but does not mention (b). Appellants ar g ue for

the broad rea ding of the term “re lief” in section 51.014(a) (9) a s anyrelief , which would include a

decla ration that appe llee’s r eport wa s statutorily defic ient and there fore not timel y fi l ed. This rea ding w ould require us to view the term “ relief ” in isolation. 5 I nstead, we examine the lang uag e in se ction 51.014 in context. Go nz ale z, 2 0 0 5 T e x . A p p . LE X IS 4463, at *5. Section 51.014(a) (9) a llows interlocutory appea l of a de nial of “a ll or part of the relief soug ht by a motion under § 74.351(b) ,” while ( a)(10) allows appe al of a n order that “g rants re lief soug ht by a motion under Section 74.351(l).” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a )(9)

-6

(10) (empha sis a dded). The relief available under section 74.351(b) is e x plicitly set out. I f an e x pert repor t is not served within the rele vant per iod, the trial court must g rant the f oll o wi n g re l i ef

: (1)
awa rd the de fenda

nt health ca

re pr oviders re asonable attorney ’s fe es and c osts, and (2) dismiss the claim with prejudice
. See id. § 74. 35 1( b) . Co nv e rs e ly , th e re lie f a va ila ble un de r s e c tio n 7 4. 35 1( l) is not so clearly

enumer ated; that sec tion directs a c ourt to g rant a motion challeng ing the adequa cy of an e x pert re port if that report does not repr esent a g ood faith ef

fort to comply

with the definition of an e x pert re port in (r)( 6). Id . § 74.351(l). A moti on challeng ing the adequa cy of an e x pert re port that does not r equest the relief set out in section 74.351(b) is a motion for relief u n d er 7 4
. 3 51(l). Trial cour t orders reg arding section 74.351(l) can also be the subject of interlocutory appea ls. See id. § 51.014(a) (10). How ever , that g rant of jur isdiction is l im i t ed t o t h e appeal of a n order that

“ gran ts relief

soug ht by

a motion under Sec tion 74.351(l).” Id. ( e mp h a s is a d d e d )
. The orde r on appea l here was a denial

of re lie f soug ht by

a motion under that sec tion and there fore cannot be
a pp e a le d und e r se c tio n 5 1. 01 4( a )( 10 ). We m us t pr e su me that th e le g isl a tur e de lib e ra te ly c ho se thi s lang uag e distinguishing the appe al of a denial of “the relief

” under section 74.351(b) and the a ppeal of a grant of “relief” under se ction 74.351(l). See G ables Realty Ltd. P'ship. , 8 1 S
. W
. 3 d a t8 7 3
. In
a c c or da nc e wi th t hat la ngua g e , w e c ann ot e xer c ise jur isd ic tio n o ve r an a pp e a l of thi s o rd e r b e c a

us e it is neither an order denying the relief soug ht by a motion under 74.351(b) nor one g ranting relief soug ht by a motion under sec tion 74.351(l). Ap pe lle e s argue , h ow e ve r, that sec tio n 5 1. 01 4( a )( 9) wa s in te nd e d to be re a d b ro a dly to include other f

orms of re lief. That se ction includes an e x ception: “ an ap p ea l m ay not be takenSee Tex. Ci v. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(c ) (“ . . . the cour t may g rant one 30-day 6 extension t o the claimant in orde r to cure the def iciency .”). When a tr ial cour t gr ants a 30-da y extension under (c) , it does not dismi ss or awa r d fee s or 7 c os ts. In su c h c a se s, e ve n w he r e the r e is n o ti me ly exp er t r epo r t bec a us e the r e po r t or r e po r ts filed we r e found defic ient and wher e the defe ndant m oves for dismiss al, fee s, or costs, the tr ial cour t may deny the motion. T ex. C iv. P r ac. & Re m. C ode Ann. § 74. 351(c) (We st 2005). T he gr ant of an extension to the plaintiff can be a denial of a defe ndant’s motion und er 7 4. 351(b). S e c tio n 5 1. 01 4( a )( 9) ge ne r a lly make s su c h de nia ls the pr op e r su bje c t of an in te r loc uto r y a

pp e a l. Id
. § 51. 104(a) (9) ( West S upp. 2004-05). Rather than inviting us t o as s u me jur isdiction over 7 from an or der g ranting an extension under Sect i o n 7 4 .351.” Tex. Ci v. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 6 § 51.014(a) (9). Pointing out that an extension i s not among the enumer ated r elief in sec tion 74.351(b), they

rea so n t hat the leg islature must have intende d to allow interlocutory appea ls of order s d e n y in g o th e r

r e li e f th anth a t l is te d
. O th e r

w is e th e le g is latu

r e n e e d n o t h a v e included lang uag e excepting an orde r gra n t i n g an extension. Our examination of the rele vant sec tions prec ludes this interpretation.

I t is true that section 74.351(b) does not include a n extension under subpoints (1) a nd (2 ), wh ic h li st t he afor e me nti on e d r e lie f— dis mis sa l w ithpr e jud ic e and

a tto rn e y ’s fe e s and

c os ts. See id. § 74.351(b). How ever , section 74.351(b) does explicitl y subject each of these for ms of relief to section 74.351(c) , the provision allowing the cour t to gr ant a 30-day extension to cure defic iencies in an expert repor

t. See id. § 7 4
. 3 5 1 ( b ) , ( c )
. T h u s , t h e r e l i e f a c o u rtg r an t s u n d e r

( b ) i s a l w a ys

“ su bje c t to Sub se c tio n (c ), ” wh ic h a llo ws a tr ia l c ourt to d e ny a de fe nd ant’ s mo tio n to dis mis s w ith fee s and costs and instead gra nt a 30-day extension even where “an e x pert re port has not bee n serve d
w it h in th e p e r io d s p e c if

ie d
. . . b e c a

u s e e le me n ts o f th e r e p o rt ar e f o u n d d e f ic ie nt.” Id
. § 74.351(b),( c). There fore we c annot infer from section 51.014(9)’s e x ception of a n appea l for an 7inter locutor y appea ls of denials of motions other than motions for r elief under section 74. 351(b),

t h e e x c e p t i o n i n 5 1
. 0 1 4 ( 9 ) c l ari f i e s t h a tani n t e rl o c u t o rya p p e a l i s o n l y a v a i l a

b l e w h e nt h e c o u rt h a d d e n i e d a d e f e n d an t ’ s m o t i o nb u th a d n o t g ra n t e d

t h e p l a i n t i f

f a d d i t i o n a l t i m e t o c u re de fi c ie nc ie s. See id. §§ 51. 014(9); 74. 351(b), (c)
. 8 extension t hat the leg islature intended to a llow orders de ny ing motions for rel i ef other than dismiss al, fe es, and c osts under sec tion 74.351(b) to be the subjec t of an interloc utory appea l. Moreove r, appe llants’ co n t rar y interpre tation squarely

contra dicts the leg islature’s limi te d g r an t o f ju r is d ic ti o nin

s e c ti o n5 1
. 0 1 4 ( a ) ( 1 0 )
. Se c ti o n5 1
. 0 1 4 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) c o n f e r s ju r is d ic tion exclusively over interlocutory appea ls of order s that g rant relief under section 74.351(l). Id . I f we
wer e to re ad sec tion 51.014(a) (9) as a gra nt of jurisdiction over a

n interlocutory

appea l of an orde r denying a motion for any re lie f re g ard ing a de fi c ie nt e xpe rt

re po rt or an e ve ntu a l di smi ssa l w e wo uld in t his c a se be e xer c isi ngjur isd ic tio n o ve r t he ir a pp e a l of the tr ia l c ourt ’s denial o f t heir motion challeng ing the adequa cy

of the e x pert re port under se ction 74.351(l). The leg islature has a ddresse d int e rl oc uto ry

a pp e a ls o f o rd e rs re g ard ingthe a de qu a c y of e xpe rt re po rt s und e r s e c tio n 7 4. 35 1( l) in
se c tio n 5 1. 01 4( a )( 10 ). I f i t ha d int e nd e d to a llo w an in te rl oc uto ry a pp e a l f ro m an o rd e r t

hat denies relief soug ht by

a motion u nder se ction 74.351(l), sure ly it would not have only

used the wor d

“ gran ts .” See id. § 5 1
. 0 14 (1 0) ; Gab le s R e alt yLtd . P 'shi p , 81 S.W .3d at 873 (whe n construing statutes we must presume leg islature purpose fully excluded words not appe aringin s t at u t e). Following appellants’ sug g ested interpr etation would re nder use less the provisions of sec tion 51.014(a) (10). This we decline to do.

Be cause this appeal c halleng es an orde r that is neither a n order denying the relief soug ht by a motion under 74 .351(b) nor one g ranting relief

soug ht by

a motion under sec tion9

74.351(l), we lack jurisdiction to hear it. Se e Sta ry , 967 S.W .2d at 352-53 (statutory list of inst ance s when jurisdiction per

mitted over interlocutor

y appea l exclusi ve).
CO NC LU SION We dismi ss the appea l for wa nt of jurisdiction.

David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Kidd, Patterson and Pury ear ; J ustice Kidd Not Participating Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: August 26, 2005