C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS

VE RO NI CAMO NT ES, Ap pe lla nt,
v. J ORGE VI L L ARREAL , M.D., Appellee
. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 06 -0 03 26 -C V

Appea l from 168th District Court of El Paso County , Texas (TC # 2005-3667)
O P I N I O N Ver onica Montes a

ppeals fr om a summary

judgme nt grante d in f

avor of Dr. Jorge Villarre al on the a ffirmative defe nse of limitations. W e must decide whether her attorney

exercised due diligenc e in re questing service of proc ess four months af ter the s t at ute of limitations had expi red. We conclude that he did not. For the rea sons that follow, we a ffirm. F ACTUAL SUMMA RY On Marc h 13, 2003, Dr. Vill ar re al, an obstetrician/g y necolog ist, performe d exploratory surg ery on thirty -two-year -old Montes at L as Palmas Medica l Center. He fo u n d a ru p tured lef t hemorrha g ic ovar ian cy st with possi ble torsion a n d p e r f o r me d a lef t salpingo- oophorec tomy . During surg ery , Dr. Villarr eal found adhesions to the sigmoid colon whic h wer e “taken down usingsharp dissection.” Mont es was discharg ed from the hos pital on Marc h 15. The following day , she re turned to L as P al m as by

ambulance with complaints of abdominal pain and ina bility to urinate. Dr. Villarr eal a dmitted Montes to the hospit al with a diagnosis of post-operative ileus. On Marc h 17, Montes develope d tachycar dia and tac hy pnea, a nd she under

went exploratory

surg ery on Marc h 18 with a pre -oper ative diagnosis of sepsis
. Dr
. J ai m e Rafae l Gomez and Dr. Villarr ealAl l s t at u t or y r ef er en ce s a r e t o t h e T ex as Ci v i l Pr ac t i ce s a n d Reme di es Code u n l es s ot h er wi s e i n di ca t ed. 1 perf ormed the e x ploratory

lapar otomy . Dr. Gome z dete rmined that Montes had a perf oration of the mid-sigmoid colon and ha d massive fe cal pe ritoneal c ontaminat io n . T h e y r e mo v e d th e f eca l material from the a

bdominal cavity , closed the pe rfor ation in the co l o n , and per formed a colostomy . Dr. Vi lla rr e a l c los e d th e a

bd ome n. On Marc h 25 , Mo nte s wa s fo un d to have a wo un d d e his c e nc e wi th bowel protrudingthe fa scia. She ha d additional surg ery t o re pair the w ound dehisce nce a nd
rema ined in the hospital until April 2. S he had a colostomy

closure on July

15, 2003. On Marc h 12, 2005, prior to the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations, M ontes sent Dr. Vill arreal a

statutory notice letter

and medica l authorization pursuant to Sections 74.051 and 74.052 of the Te x as Civil P rac tice and Re medies C ode. This notice tol led t he applicable statute of limit ations for a p er i o d of seve nty -five da y s. SeeT EX .C IV .P R AC .&R EM .C ODE ANN . § 74.051(c) (Ve rnon 2005). On May 25, 2005, Montes filed her orig inal petition ag ainst Dr. Villarr eal a nd L as 1 Palmas Medical Cente r. The fi rs t amended petition, filed on September 22, 2005, dr opped L as Palmas as a de fenda

nt. On September 2 7, citation was issued a nd Dr. Villarr eal wa s serve d on October 4. Dr. Villarr eal f

iled a mot ion for summ ary judgme nt assertingtwo g rounds: (1) a lthough he r pe tit ion wa s f ile d w ith in t

he a pp lic a ble statut e of

lim itatio ns , M on te s f

a ile d to us e du e dil ig e nc e in obtaining service of citation; a nd (2) the alleg ations raised in the first amende d petition alleg ed new , distinct, or differ ent transa ctions and did not relate back unde r Section 16.068. In her summar

y judgme nt response, Montes e x plained for the four month and nine day delay in serving citation on Dr. Villarr eal. She attached the aff idavit of her attorney , J ames Kirby Read, in s up po rt

of he r r e sp on se . Re a d o ff e re d tw o r e a so ns why

c itatio n w a s n ot i ssu e d p ri or to September 27, 2005. F irst, he believe d that under Sec tion 74.052, a ll pr ocee dings wer e abate d forsix ty

day s after suit wa s filed. Second, he was awa iting the e x pert re port from Dr . Br uce H albridg e, which he rec eived shortly befor e he filed it on September 22, 2005. Counsel did not want to serve Dr. Villarr eal a

nd cause him to incur attorney ’s fe es and costs until he had an expert repor t which satisfied the statutory require ments. Indeed, Read non-suited L as Palmas beca use the expert repor

t did no t e xpre ss a

n o pin ion on de fi c ie nc ie s in

the c are of

Mo nte s b y

the ho sp ita l. DU E D ILI G EN CE IN SER VI CE OF CI TA TIO N On appeal, M ontes challeng es bot h g rounds on which sum mary judgme nt could have been g ra nte d. In I ssu e On e , Mo nte s c on te nd s th at sh e e sta bli sh e d a g e nu ine iss ue of

mate ri a l f

a c t a s to whether she exercise d d i l i gence in havingDr. Villarr eal se rved w ith process, thus pre cluding
summa ry jud g me nt o n li mit atio ns g ro un ds
. Standard of Review The standa

rd of r eview fo r t raditi onal summary judgme nt is well established. Nixon v. Mr. Property Managem ent Co., Inc. , 690 S.W .2d 546, 548 (Tex. 1985). The movingparty car ries the burd e n o f s ho wi ngthe re is n o g e nu ine iss ue of mate ri a l fa c t and it i s e nti tle d to jud g me nt a s a matter of law. Browning v. Prostok , 1 65 S.W. 3d 33 6, 34 4 ( Te x. 20 05 ); Duran v. Furr’s S u p ermarkets, Inc. , 9 2 1 S. W. 2 d 7 7 8 , 7 8 4 ( T e x. Ap p . - - E l P a s o 1 9 9 6 , w r it d e n ie d )
. E v idence favor able to the non- movant will be taken a s true in dec iding whe ther ther e is a disputed issue of
mate ri a l f a c t. Fo rt W

or th O ste op ath ic Ho sp ., In c . v . R e ese , 148 S.W. 3d 94 , 9 9 ( Te x. 20 04 ); Duran , 921 S.W .2d at 784. All rea sonable inferenc es, i ncluding any doubts, must be re solved in favor of the non-movant. Id .; Duran , 921 S.W .2d at 784. A def endant movingfor summary judgme nt on the aff

irmative defe nse of limitations has the burden to conclusively

establish that defe nse. KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison County Housing Finance Corp. , 988 S.W .2d 746, 748 (Tex. 1999). Thus, the def endant must (1) c onclusively prove“ A ny pers on or hi s aut hor i zed age nt as s er t i ng a hea l t h c ar e l i abi l i t y cl ai m sh al l gi ve wr i t t en not i ce of s uch 2 c la im b y c e rtifi e d m a il, r e tur n r e c e ip t r e q u e ste d , to e a c h p h ysic ia n o r h e a lth c a re p ro v id e r a g a ins t wh o m su c h c la im is be i n g ma de a t l e a s t 60 da y s be f or e t h e f i l i n g of a s u i t i n a n y c ou r t of

t h i s s t a t e ba s e d u po n a h e a l t h ca r e l i a bi l i t y c l a i m. T he not i ce mus t be ac com pani ed by t he aut hor i zat i on f orm f or r el eas e of

prot ect ed he al t h i nf

ormat i on as r equi r ed un der Sect i on 74. 05 2. ” T EX .C IV .P RAC . &R EM .C O D E A NN . § 7 4
. 0 5 1 (a). when the c ause of

action ac crue d, and (2) neg ate the disc overy rule, if it applies and has bee n pled or otherw ise raise d, by

provingas a matter of law that there is no g enuine issue of materia l fac t about when the pla intiff discovere d, or in the exercise of re asonable diligenc e should have discovere d, the nature of its inj ury . Id
. I f the movant e stablishes that the statute of limitations bars the ac tion, the non-movant must then adduce summary judgme nt proof ra is i n g a fac t issue in avoidance of the statute of limitations. Id
. TheSta tute A suit for per sonal injuries must be broug h t within two y ear s from the time the c ause of action ac crue s. T EX .C IV .P R AC .&R EM .C ODE ANN . § 16.003(a) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). The statute of limit ations is tolled for a period of seventy -five day s when the plaintiff g ives the notice require d by 2 Se c ti o n7 4
. 0 5 1 . T EX .C IV .P R AC .&R EM .C ODE ANN . § 74.051(c) . But a timely filed suit will not interrupt the r

unning of limit ations unless the plaintiff exercise s due diligenc e in the issuance a nd service of citation. Prou lx v . W e lls , 2 35 S.W. 3d

21 3, 21 5 ( Te x. 20 07 ). I f s e rv ic e is d ili g e ntl y eff ecte d afte r l imitations has ex pired, the date of service will relate ba ck to the date of filing
. Gant v. De Leon , 7 8 6 S
. W
. 2 d 2 5 9 , 2 6 0 ( T e x. 1 9 9 0 ); Eichel v . Ullah , 831 S.W .2d 42, 43 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1992, no writ). Explanations for the Delay Once a def

endant has aff

irmatively pled the limitations defense a nd shown that servic e wa s eff ecte d afte r l imitations expired, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to ex plain the delay
. Prou lx , 235 S.W .3d at 215. I t is the plaintiff’s burden to pr esent e vidence reg ardingthe ef forts t hat wer e madeto serve the defe ndant and to explain ever y lapse in ef

fort or pe riod of dela

y . I d. at 21 6. In s ome instances, the pla intiff’s explanation may be l egally

improper to ra ise the dilige nce issue a nd the d ef en d an t will bear no burde n at all. Id ., c iti ng Be lle za -G onza le

z v . V illa , 57 S.W .3d 8, 11 (Tex.App.--Houston [14t h Dist.] 2001, no pet.)(holdingenfor cea ble ora l ag ree ment to delay service
wa s ins uf fi c ie nt to s ho w d ili g e nc e a s a matte r o f l aw) ; Broom v. M acMaster , 992 S.W .2d 659, 665 (T e x.Ap p. -- Da lla s 1 99 9, no pe t.) (h old ingpla int if f’ s d e sir e to o bta in r e mand fr om f e de ra l c ourt

did not justi fy

delay in service defe ndant). In other situations, the plaintiff’s e x p l an at i o n may demonstrate a

lack of due dil ige nce as a matter of l aw, as when one or more la pses betwe en ser

vice eff orts are unexplained or patently unrea sonable. Prou lx , 235 S.W .3d at 216, citing Gant v. De Leon , 7 8 6 S. W. 2 d 2 5 9 , 2 6 0 ( T e x. 1990) an d Ta rra nt C ou nty v . V e nd igr iff , 71 S.W .3d 921, 925-26 (T e x.Ap p. -- F or

t Wor th 2 00 2, pe t. d e nie d) . B ut i f t he pl ain tif

f’ s e xplanatio n f

or the de lay ra ise s a materia l fac t issue conce rningthe dilige nce of service eff orts, the burden shifts ba ck to the def endant to c onclusively

show why , as a matter of law , the explanation is insufficient. Prou lx , 235 S.W .3d at 216. I n a s s e s s i n gd i l i g e n c e , th e r e l e v an ti n qu i r y i s w h e th e r

th e p l a i n t i f

f a c t e d a s ano r d i n ar i ly pr ud e nt p e rs on

wo uld have a c te d un de r the same or sim ila r c ir c ums tanc e s and

wa s d ili g e nt u

p unti l the time defe ndant was a ctually serve d. Id. ; Eichel , 831 S.W .2d at 44. The duty to use due dilige nce continues fr om the date suit is filed until the defenda nt is served. Eichel , 831 S.W .2d at 44. An aly sis As we have sa id, Re a d o ff e re d tw o r e a so ns fo r t

he fo ur month d e lay

in s e rv ingDr . V ill arr e a l: (1 ) co u n sel believe d that issuing ser vice would violate the six ty -day abate ment period in Section 74.052; and (2) c ounsel did not want to cause Dr. Villarr eal to incur attorney ’s fe es an d costs or expose Montes to li ability fo r those expenses until counsel had r ece ived an e x pert re port whichA di f f e r e n t i s s u e a r i s e s w h e n a n ot i c e a n d me di c a l a u t h or i z a t i on a r e s e n t by t h e pl a i n t i f f but t he med i cal 3 aut ho ri zat i o n i s d ef

ect i ve. I n t hree op i ni o ns i ss ued t hi s same da t e, we hel d t hat pro vi d i ng the r e q u ired st at ut o ry not i ce and a def

ect i ve med i cal au t hor i zat i on f orm t ol l s t he s t at ut e of l i m i t ati o n f

or s eve nt y - f

i ve day s un der S e c tio n 7 4 .0 5 1 (a ). Rabat i n v . Ki dd , N o . 0 8 -0 7 -0 0 1 3 7 -C V ( T e x .A p p .-- E l P a so O c t. 1 6 , 2 0 0 8 , no p e t. h .); R ab at i n v. V asquez , N o . 0 8 -0 7 -0 0 1 3 8 -C V (T e x .A p p .-- E l P a so O c t. 1 6 , 2 0 0 8 , no p e t. h .); R ab at i n v. Ch avez , No. 08
- 07
- 00 01 39
- CV (T ex. A p p . - - E l P aso O ct
. 16 , 20 0 8 , no p et
. h. ). satis fi e d s tatut or

y re qu ir e me nts
. Dr . V ill arr e a l c ounte rs that Re a d’ s e xplanatio n ba se d o n th e sixty -d ay a bate me nt p e ri od

is invalid. We mustag ree . Section 74.052(a) provides that notice of a health car e claim under Section 74.051 must be acc ompanied by a medica l a

uthorization i n the form spe cified by Section 74.052. Th e re le va

nt p or tio n o f t he statut e pr ov ide s: F a ilure to p ro vid e thi s a

uth or izatio n a lon g wi th the no tic e of he a lthc are c la im s ha ll abate all further

proce eding s ag ainst the phy sician or he alth car e provider re ceiving the notice until 60 day s following rec eipt by the phy sician or he alth car e provide r of the re quired a

uthorization. T EX .C IV .P R AC .&R EM .C ODE ANN . § 7 4
. 0 5 2 ( a )
. B y it s p la in la n g uag e, the sixt y -day

abate ment period
oc c ur s whe re the re qu ir e d me dic a l a uth or izatio n is not sent by the plaintiff with the statutory notice. SeeT EX .C IV .P R AC .&R EM .C ODE ANN . § 74.051(a)
. Montes sent the authorization with her notice 3 to D r. Villarre al and then waited more than six ty day s befor e filing suit. Consequently , the six ty -day abate ment period is inapplicable here . Counsel’s statutory interpre tation was incorr ect a nd does not provide a rea sonable e x planation for f ailure to re quest issuance of citation. We turn now to the second e x planation. Read state d in his affidavit that he w as wa iting for the expert repor

t from Dr. Halbridg e. Read rec eived the repor t in September of

2005 and filed it on September 22. Citation was issued on Septembe r 27 and D r. Villarr eal wa s s er v ed on Oc tober 4. As e vid e nc e that th is e xplanatio n is le g iti mate , Re a d p ointe d to his no n- su it o f t he c la ims a g a ins t L a s Pa lma s. C i t i n g Broom v. M

acMaster , 992 S
. W
. 2 d

6 5 9 (T ex . Ap p . -- Da l l as 1 9 9 9 , n o p et
. ), Dr
. Vi l l arr ealargues that Read’ s expl anation does not c onstitut e an a dequat e ex cuse. In Broom , the def endant hospital was not serve d with proce ss until four months after the limitations period expired. The ho sp ita l mo ve d f

or summa ry jud g me nt o n li mit atio ns and the pla int if

f r e sp on de d w ithan a ff

ida vit fr om h e r att orn ey who state d th at he “ wi thh e ld” iss ua nc e of c itatio n b e c a

us e “ the re wa s st ill a question in [ his] mind” whether the hos p i t al wa s an appr opriate pa rty to the suit. Id. at 665. The tr ia l c ourt g ra

nte d summa

ry jud g me nt in fa

vo r of the de fe nd ant. Th e Da lla s Court of A pp e a ls
re j ec t edth i s ex p l an at i o n , s t at i n g: What Broom’s attorney

does not ac knowledg e is that he made the de cision to make Presby terian H ospital a party

to the s uit when he filed Broom’s petition naming the hospital as a def

endant. Ha

ving ma de that dec ision, itwas incumbe nt upon B room to diligently

attempt to se rve the hospital to preve nt he r claims from beingbarr ed by the statut e of

lim itatio ns . Id . at 6 6 5
. Br oom’s attorney offe red a nother e x planation for the delay . He “ chose not to issue citation and have the Def

endant Presby

terian served” beca

use t he case had been removed to fe dera l court a nd he fe lt that the hospital’s presenc e in the suit would complicate his attempts to have the
case rema nded to state c ourt. Id. But the evidenc e showed that the ca se wa s not removed f or three
months a ft e r i t w a s f

ile d. Thus , B ro om c ou ld have se rv e d th e ho sp ita l at any po int duri ngthe fi rs t three months the case w as pendingin state court irr espec tive of any rea son for not se rvi ngthe hospital while the case was pe nding in f eder al cour

t. Id. The c ourt observe d that even if counsel’s
rea sons for with h o lding se rvice may be tac tically

understanda

ble, they did not create a f

act issue about whethe r dilige nce w as used in ef fec ting se rvice
. Id. And while a p l ai n t i ff m ay have g ood
rea sons for not wanting to se ek immediate servic e on a de fenda nt, those rea sons do not neg ate the require ment that diligenc e be use d in attempting se rvice once the limit ations period has pa ssed. Id. I f t he lim itatio ns pe ri od

ha s e xpir e d, a

pla int if f m us t use du e dil ig e nc e to p ro c ur e se rv ic e re g ard le ss
o f re as o n s h e m ay

have not to wa

nt to do so. Id. “To hold otherw ise would ig nore the g oal ofstatut e s o f l imi tatio ns to i nf or m d efen dan ts in a

tim e ly fa sh ion of c la ims a g a ins t th e m and

wo uld evisce rate the longestablished due dilig ence require ment.” Id. Th is c a se c ann ot b e dis tin g uis he d f ro m Broom
. Counsel expressed bot h ethical a nd tactica l
c on c e rn s f

or c ho os ing no t to dil ig e ntl y purs ue se rv ic e of Dr . V ill arr e a l. T he Da lla s Co ur t of Ap pe a ls reje cted simil ar c oncer

ns in Broom . Once suit was filed, Montes wa s obligated to diligently procur e service despite counse l’s desire to wa it for the expert re p ort. See B room , 992 S.W .2d at 665 (r e je c tin ge xplanatio n that atto rn e y wa s not sur e wh e the r the de fe nd ant h os pit a l w a s a pr op e r p art

y to the suit because once the attorney filed suit ag ainst the hospit al, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to diligently

attempt to serve the hospital to prevent her claims from bei n g b ar red by the statut e of lim itatio ns ). Mo nte s’ atto rn e y a lso de lay e d re qu e sti ng iss ua nc e of c itatio n b e c a

us e he did not want his client to incur liability for attorney ’s fe es and c osts. This tactical d ecision does not neg ate the r equire ment that diligenc e be used i n attempting service once the limit ations period has passed. S ee id. W e ov e rr

ule I ssu e On e . G ive n o ur dis po sit ion

of I ssu e On e , it

is u nn e c e ssa ry to addre ss I ssue Two. The judgme nt of the trial cour t is affirmed.
October 23, 2008 ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, J ustice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d Ab l e s , JJ. Ables, J., s itting by

assig nment