Opinion issued March 5, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

————————————

NO. 01
- 14
- 00792
- CV

——————————— EUGENIA WOODARD , Appella nt V. FORTRESS INSURANCE C OMPANY AND RONNIE EL MORE, D.D.S. , Appell e e s
On Appeal from the 215th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2014
- 09985

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Eugenia Woodard, filed suit against appellees, Ronnie Elmore, D.D.S. and Fortress Insurance Company, alleging injuries following some dental work . Fortress Insurance obtained a summary judgment in its favor. Dr. Elmore obtained a dismissal of the claims against him based on Woodard’s failure to file2 an expert’s report. In her pro se brief o n appeal, Woodard complains about the injuries she alleg es Dr. Elmore caused her and his refusal to submit to alternative dispute resolution. We treat this as a challenge to the propriety of the order dismissing the claims again Dr. Elmore. 1
We affirm. Background Dr. Elmore performed some dental work on Woodar d. Some time later, Woodard filed suit against Dr. Elmore and Fortress Insurance , alleging injuries resulting from the dental work. Bo th defendants answered the suit. One hundred twenty

- three days after he answered the suit, Dr. Elmore filed a motion to dismiss due to Woodard’s failure to file an expert report. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. Standard of Review This appeal concerns dismissal of Woodard’s claims against Dr. Elmore due to Woodard’s failure to file an expert report pursuant to Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, the Health Care Liability Act. We review the

1 Woodard does not make any direct complaints about Fortress Insurance in her pro se brief. As a result, we do not construe her brief to raise an issue against Fortress Insurance. Although we liberally construe pro se pleadings and briefs, we nonetheless r equire pro se litigants to comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1(i) (requiring briefs to contain clear and concise argument for contentions made); W heeler v. Green , 157 S.W.3d 439, 444 (Tex. 2005) (holding pro se lit igants are not exempt from rules of procedure )

.3 trial court’s ruling in such cases for an abuse of discretion. Bowie Mem’l. Hosp. v. Wright , 79 S.W.3d 48, 52 (Tex. 2002) (citing Am. Transitional Care Ctrs. of Tex., Inc. v. Palacios , 46 S.W.3d 873, 878 (Tex. 2001)). A court abuses its discretion if it acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Wright , 79 S.W.3d at 52 (citing Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc. , 701 S.W.2d 238, 24 1

– 42 (Tex. 1985)). When reviewing matters committed to the trial court’s discretion, we may not substitute our judgment for the trial court’s judgment. Walker v. Gutierrez , 111 S.W.3d 56, 62 (Tex. 2003) (citing Flores v. Fourth Court of Appeals , 777 S.W. 2d 38, 41 (Tex. 1989)). Our analysis of an expert’s qualifications is limited to the four corners of the expert’s report and the curriculum vitae. Palacios , 46 S.W.3d at 878. Analysis In a health

- care - liability claim, a plaintiff must serve a defendant w ith an expert report, along with the curriculum vitae of each expert listed in the report, no later than 120 days after the defendant files its answer. T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 74.351(a) (Vernon Supp. 2014 ). If the plaintiff fails to serve an

e xpert report for the defendant, the court, on the defendant’s motion, must dismiss with prejudice all claims brought against that defendant by that plaintiff. Id. § 74.351(b)(2).4 The record reflects that Woodard did not file any expert report. After 1 20 days passed, Dr. Elmore filed a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the trial court was required to dismiss Woodard’s claims against Dr. Elmore. See id. We overrule Woodard’s sole issue. Conclusion We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Laura Carter Higley Justice Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Huddle.