Opinion issued March 5, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-14-00792-CV

———————————

EUGENIA WOODARD, Appellant

V.

FORTRESS INSURANCE COMPANY AND RONNIE ELMORE, D.D.S., 

Appellees

On Appeal from the 215th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case 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 file 
2

an expert’s report. In her pro se brief on appeal, Woodard complains about the 

injuries she alleges 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 Woodard. Some time later, 

Woodard filed suit against Dr. Elmore and Fortress Insurance, alleging injuries 

resulting from the dental work. Both 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 require pro se litigants to comply with applicable laws and rules of 

procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i) (requiring briefs to contain clear and 

concise argument for contentions made); Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439, 444 

(Tex. 2005) (holding pro se litigants 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, 241–42 (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 with 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. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

CODE ANN. § 74.351(a) (Vernon Supp. 2014). If the plaintiff fails to serve an 

expert 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 120 

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.