### NUM BER 13-09- 0035 0-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
GULF COAST M EDICA L CENTER, LLC, T ON Y T OD D , C R N A , D A N MA D SE N , M.D
. A ND SOU TH T EXAS M EDIC A L CL INIC S, P.A ., A pp ellan ts,
v. JA CQUELI NE TEM PLE A ND M A RCUS BA NK S, IN DIVID UA LL Y A ND AS REPRES ENTA

TIVE OF TH E ESTATE OF M A RK ASIA BA NK S, A

D ECE ASED M INOR

C HIL D, A p pe llees.
On ap pe al f rom th e 2 3rd Dist rict C ou rt of W ha rton C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Ga rza an d Be na v ide s

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza Appel lan ts, Gul f Coas t Me dic al Cen ter , LLC (“ Gul f C oast ”) , Tony Todd, C RN A, D an Madse n, M.D. and Sout h T exas Medical Cli nics, P.A. (“STMC”), challenge the trial court’s deni al of thei r moti ons to di sm iss t h e suitbroug ht by appel lee s, Jac q uel ine Temple and Ma rc us Banks, i n d ivi dual ly and as re pr esent ati v es of the es tate of Mar kas ia Bank s, a decea sed minor

ch il d. Spec ific all y , app ell ants arg ue that the t ri al cour t had no d is creti on to de ny thei r moti ons becau se appelle e s f a iled to t imel y se rv e an ex per

t medi cal r epor

t. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74.351 (Ver non Supp. 2009) . W e rev erse andA n a de no i de c t om y i s t he su rgi c al rem ova l of ad en oi ds , al s o k no w n as ph ary ng ea l t on s i l s , w hi c h a re 1 c o l l e c ti o n s o f l y m p h o i d ti s s u e o n th e ro o f a n d p o s te rio r w a l l o f t h e n a s o p h a ryn x
. I DA G. D OX , ET AL ., A T T OR NEY ’ S I L L US T RA T E D M ED I C AL D I C T I O N A R Y A 16 , T 51 (199 7).

A p p e lle e s a ls o n a m e d T r ia d H o s p ita ls , I n c . ( “ T r i a d ” ) a s a d e f e n d a n t. T r ia d is n o t a p a r ty t o th is 2 a p p e a l. 2 re mand. I. B A CKGRO UND On Nov ember

7, 2005, four- y ear-o ld M ar kas ia Bank s w as admit ted t o Gul f Coas t, a hos pit al in W har

ton, Tex as, to underg o a routi ne aden oid ect omy
. D r. M adsen 1 per formed th e surg er

y and Todd ass is ted. Ma rk asi a w as dis charg ed from the hospi tal after the s urg er

y , butw as re -a dmit ted s ev er al hours lat er due to compl ic ati ons. She di ed l ater that day

. On N ov ember 6, 2007, appel lee s, Ma rk asi a’s parents , f ile d s uital leg ing that appel lan ts w er e neg li g ent i n the ir ca re and tr eatment of Mar kas ia. 2 In M ar ch of 2008, ea ch appel lan t fil ed a moti on to di smi ss appel lee s’ su it , c lai ming that (1 ) appel lee s w er e req uired to fil e an ex per t medica l re por

t purs uant to sect ion 74.3 51 of the civi l practice an d reme dies code , butt hat(2) app ellees failed to do so prior to March 5 , 2 0 0 8 , w h i c h w a s t h e d e a d l i n e fo r t h e s e r v i c e o f s u c h a r eport. Se e id. § 74 .351( a) (stating that a claima nt in a he alth ca re liability claim sha ll serv e an ex pert m edica l report not later tha n the 120 th da y af ter the date the original petitio n w as f iled). On M a rch 19, 20 08, app ellees se rv ed a n expert report pre pare d by D enn is R. T aylor, M .D., stat ing: (1) w hat he believed to be the stan dard of care ap plicable to each defendant; (2 ) that the d efendants br eache d tha t s tanda rd o f care; and (3 ) that “[ i] f the sta ndard of care had been follo w ed, [M ar kas ia’ s] death w oul d i n reason abl e probabi li ty not have occurred and an inno cen t c h il d w ould not ha v e died .” In respon ding to app ellant s’ moti ons to di smi ss , app ell ees arg ued that t he c ase had bee n abat ed for si xty day s d ue to appel lan ts’ fail ur e to prov ide an a uthor iz ati on form for the re lea se of prot ect ed heal th infor mati on. See i

d. § 74.052( a) (Ver non 2005). Acco rd ing to appel lee s, thi s a batement
caus ed th e 120- day

deadl ine for the fil ing of an ex per t medi cal r epor

t t o be extended by sixty days, to May5, 200 8, th e re b y rende ring Dr. Taylor’s repo rt timely. App ellees a lsoAppel l ees m ade t he f ol l owi ng co l or f ul ar gum ent i n t hei r r esponse t o ap pel l ant s’ m ot i ons t o di sm i ss: 3 I t i s a wel l known f act t hat [ ci vi l p ract i ce an d r em edi es cod e cha pt er ] 74 was r am - r odded t hr ough t he L egi sl at ur e by a r i ght -w i ng l egi sl at or hel l ben t on deny i ng co nsum er s and com m on p eopl e t hei r day i n cour t

. T he bi l l ’ s sponsor i s no l ongeri n t he Legi sl at ur e f or goo d r e a s o n . T h e P la in tif f s ’ p o s itio n is th a t t h is b ill w i l l n o t s ta n d th e lig h t o fd a y o n c e it is exam i ned by i m par t i al Just i ces. I t basi cal l y gi v e[ s] heal t h car e f aci l i t i es, doct or s, and nur ses th e r ig h t to k i l l p e o p l e a n d n o t b e h e l d a c c o u n ta b l e fo r th e i r a c ti o n s a s i t i s i m p o s s i b l e to i nve s t i ga t e t he cl ai m s an d d ea l w i t h t he m an y t i m e c on s t rai nts.

. . . T o d en y t he s e P l ai nti ffs t hei r day i n Cour t woul d be a gr eat t r av est y and woul d l ead f ai r - m i nded ci t i z ens t o be l i ev e t hat w e o p e ra te u n d e r a H i tl e r- l i k e o r S ta l i n -li k e g o v e rn m e n t w h e re d u e p ro c e s s i s d e n i e d i ts ci t i z ens. S e p a r a t e a p p e l l a t e b r i e f s w e r e f i l e d b y ( 1 ) Gu l fC o a s t , ( 2 ) To d d , a n d ( 3 ) D r
. Ma d s e n an d S TMC 4 j oi nt l y
. Each br i efr ai ses sub st ant i al l y t he sa m e i ssues. 3 argued in the ir respo nse to app ellant s’ mo tions to dism iss tha t chap ter 74 of the ci v il pr act ic e and re medies code, w hic h incl udes the e x per t repor t req uirement, v iol ates the due proces s c lau se of the fourt eenth amendment to the Uni ted S tates C onst it uti on and the d ue
c o u rs e o f l a w p ro v i s i o n o f t h e Te x a s C o n s t i t u ti on. See U.S. C ON ST . amend. X IV; T EX
. C ON ST . ar

t. I, § 19. 3 After a hear ing , t he tr ial co urt den ied appel lan ts’ moti ons to di smi ss w it hout
ex pla ini ng i ts re asoni ng , and thi s i nte rlo cu to ry appeal foll ow ed. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 51. 014( a) (9 ) (V er non 200 8) ( per mitt ing appeal o f i nter loc utor

y order deny ing al l or

par t of a mot ion to dis mis s for fail ur e to se rve an ex per t repor t i n a h eal th
care l iab il it y

cl aim)

. On ap peal , app ell ants urg e by si x i ss ues that the t ri al cour t er re d by deny ing thei r moti ons to di smi ss
. Sp eci fical ly , t hey arg ue: (1 ) a p p e lle e s w er e req uired 4 t o s e r v e a n e x p e rt me d i c a l r e p o rt ; ( 2 ) a p p e l l e e s fa i l e d t o t i me l y s e r v e s u c h a r e p o rt ; ( 3) app ellees’ failure to co mp ly w ith the statu tory me dical au tho riz ation requirem ent did no t toll
or extend the e x per

t repor t dea dli ne; ( 4) the ex per t re por t ev entual ly

se rv ed by

appel lee s
w as ina deq uate; ( 5) the ex per t repor t req uirements are v ali d under the Uni ted States and T exas Constitut ions; and (6) app ellees are note ntitled t o a thirty- day exten sion of time in
w hic h to file a c ompli ant e x per t repor t. II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW W e re v iew a tr ial cour

t’ s order deny ing a moti on to dis mis s for failu re to compl y w it h t h e e x p e rt r e p o rt r e q u i r e me n t u n d e r a n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n s t a n d a rd

. NCE D Me ntal4

Hea lt h, Inc. v. Kidd , 214 S.W .3d 28, 32 (Tex. App .–E l Paso 20 06, no pe t.) (applying abu se of dis creti on standard to tr ial court ’s denial of m oti on to di smi ss ); Ken drick v. Garcia , 171 S.W .3d 6 98, 7 02 ( Tex . Ap p.–Eas tla n d 2005, pet. deni ed) ( same) ; see Am . T ra nsiti onal Car e C tr s. of T ex. , Inc. v. Pal

aci os , 46 S.W .3d 8 73, 8 78 ( Tex . 200 1) ( appl ying a b use of dis creti on s tandard to tr ial co urt’ s g ra nti ng o f moti on to di smi ss ). A tr ial co urt abu ses i ts dis creti on i f it a ct s in an a rb it ra ry or unreason abl e manner or w it hout re ferenc e to any g u id ing r ule s o r pr inc ipl es. Dow ner v. Aqu am arine Op erato rs, Inc. , 701 S.W .2d 2 38, 241- 42 ( Tex . 198 5)

. How ev er , a tr ial co urt has no d is creti on i n det er mini ng w hat t he l aw is or in apply ing the law to the fact s. W

alk er v. Packer

, 827 S.W .2d 833 , 840 (Tex. 1992 ); Bayl or U niv. M e d . C tr

. v . Bi ggs , 237 S.W .3d 9 09, 9 16 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 2007, pet. den ied). Th erefore, when the issues are p urely question s of law , w e ef

fectively cond uct a de nov o rev iew

. See Pallares v. Magic Valley Ele c. Coop ., Inc. , 267 S.W .3d 6 7, 69 -7 0 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2008, pet. r ef’d) ( appl y ing a de nov o s tandard of re v iew to the is sue of w hether

ch apter 74 i s appl ic abl e to pl ain ti ff ’s cl aims ); see als o Johnso n v . Cit y o f For t Worth , 774 S.W .2d 653 , 656 (Tex. 1989 ) ( hold ing th a t“ ma tters of statu tory const ruction are question s of law for t h e cou rt to decid e rathe r than issue s of fact”); Nea sbitt v. W

ar re n , 22 S.W .3d 1 07, 1 09 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 2000, no pet.) ( sta ti ng that the issue of

the expert repo rt req uirem ent ’s applicab ility is a “ pure q uest ion of

law ”). III
. D I S CUS S I ON A
. Hea lt h Care L iab ili ty C laim By the ir f irst issue, app ellant s argue thatthe claim s asserted byapp ellees a re subj ect to the ex per

t re por t re q uirement of c hapter 74 of t he ci v il pr act ice a n d rem edi es code. W e musttherefore de ter mine w hether app e lle e s’ clai ms are “ heal th c ar e l iab il it y cl aims ” as defined i n the st atute

. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74 .35 1(a). A “hea lth care liability claim” is def ined as:
a c ause of acti on ag ain st a health care prov ide r or phy si ci an for tr eatment, lac k o f trea tment, or

othe r cl aimed depar

ture f ro m acc epted sta ndards of m e d ic a l c a re , o r h e a lt h ca re , o r s a fe t y o r p ro fe s s io n a l o r a d m in is t ra t ive ser v ic es direct ly

r ela ted t o heal th care, w hic h prox imat ely re sul ts in inj ur y to or deat h of

a c lai mant, w hether

the cl aimant ’s cl aim or ca use of acti on5

sound s i n tor

t or co ntract

. Id

. § 7 4

. 0 0 1 ( a ) ( 1 3 ) ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 5 )

. A “ h e a l t h c a r e p ro v i d e r ” i s “ a n y p e rs o n , p a rt ner shi p, professi onal as soc iat ion , c or por ati on, faci li ty , or i nst it uti on dul y

l ic ensed , c erti fied, registered, or cha rtered b y the St ate of

Te x as to pro v ide he alth ca re.” Id. § 74.001( a) (1 2) (A). T h is i ncl udes a “ heal th c ar e i nst it uti on” su ch as a hos pit al, as w ell as any “ employ ee, i ndependen t c ontract or , or ag ent” thereof. Id. § 74.0 01(a )(11 )(G), (a)(12)(A)(v ii), ( a)(12)(B)(ii)

. App ell e es con cede thatGulf Coast, Dr. Madsen , and ST MC are “ hea lth care prov ide rs ,” but arg ue th at “ there i s n o ev ide nce in the re cord t hat Todd w as a reg is tered
nurse at the time of the events giv ing rise to th is case.” Appe llees do not disp ute , howev er, that Todd wa s a n “ employ ee, i ndependen t c ontract or , or ag ent” of Gul f Coas t and /or STMC

. See i

d. § 74 .00 1(a)(12)(B)(ii)

. W e the refore conclu de tha t To dd is a “hea lth care prov ide r” under

the sta tutor

y defini ti on. W e n e xt tu rn t o t h e sp eci fic n ature of appel lee s’ cl aims

. In t hei r firs t amended peti ti on, a ppel lee s c lai med thatD r. M adsen w as neg li g ent i n:
a. Fai li ng to re cog niz e tha t the decease d c hil d s houl d nev er hav e been d is c h a rg e d so qu ic k ly a f t e r t h e su rg e ry; b. Fai li ng to proper ly su per v is e the C RN A, [ TonyTodd];
c. Failing to mon itor the d ecea sed ch ild’s conditio n; an d in d

. F a il in g t o t re a tt h e d e c e a s e d ch il d ’s co n d it io n p ro p e rl y. Appel lee s c lai med thatTodd w as neg li g ent i n:
a. Fai li ng to super

v ise t h e a dmini strati on of the dr ug s u sed to pu t t he chi ld to s lee p; b. Fai li ng to asc ertai n the fact t hat t he c h ild sh oul d nothav e been d is c h a rg e d so qu ic k ly;
c. Fai lure to g iv e the proper dr ug s i n the co rrectamount of dosag e; d. Failure to m onito r the de cease d child’s cond ition; a nd in
e
. F a il u re t o t re a tt h e d e c e a s e d ch il d ’s co n d it io n p ro p e rl y. Fi nal ly , app ell ees cl aimed that Gul f Coas t and STM C w er e neg li g ent i n:6

a. Failure to pro perly supe rv ise the ir emplo y ees; b. Fai lure to proper ly su per v is e the admi nis trati on of the dr ug s u sed to put t he c hil d to sl eep;
c. Di sc harg ing the decea sed chi ld lon g before itw as safe; d. Abandoni ng the decea sed chi ld;
e. Fai lure to monit or the decea sed chi ld’ s c ondi ti on; f

. Failure to trea t the dece ased child’s conditio n prop erly ; and in g
. Fai lure to prov ide the medic al nursi ng ca re r e asona bly r eq uired for the d eceas ed c hil d’s co ndi ti on. Al l of the c lai ms made ag ain st ap p e lla nts , i ncl udi ng thos e al leg ing neg li g ent super v is ion , i nv olv e al leg ed “ depar ture[s ] from acc epted sta ndards of medic al care, or heal th c ar e, or

sa fetyor

professi onal or

admi nis trati v e s er

v ic es direct ly

r ela ted t o health care.” See i

d. § 74. 001( a) (1 3) ; Diversicare Gen. Partne r, Inc. v. Rubio , 185 S.W .3d 8 42, 848 ( Tex . 200 5) ( noti ng thata c ause of act ion alle g es a departu re from ac cept ed s tandards of med ical care or hea lth care on ly if th e act or o mission co mp lained o f is “ an inse para ble par t of the re ndi ti on of medi cal se rv ic es” ); Ponc e v . El P a so H e a lthcar

e Sy s. Ltd. , 55 S.W .3d 3 4, 39 ( Tex . Ap p.–El Pa so 2 001, pet. deni ed) ( noti ng that“ the t ra ini ng and super v is ion of occ upati onal therapi sts to prov ide the re q uired c ar e i s n eces sar il y g ov er ned by an a ccept able stand ard of med ical care, he alth ca re, or safety”)

. Appel lee s a rg ue th at no ex per t t est imony

w oul d be needed to prov e the ir cl aims at trial, and theref ore, th at th e expert report requirem entshou ld no t a p p ly to th ose claim s. W e di sag re e. W hil e w e may cons ide r w hether ex per t testi mony

is neces sar

y to prov e a claim in de term ining w het her a claim is a “ hea lth care liability claim, ” see Diversicare , 185 S.W .3d a t 851 , t his i s o nly one factor

w e tak e i nto a cc o u n t whe n m aki ng that deter minat ion

. In t his ca se, th e c la im s made by appel lee s a re cl ear ly

su bje ct to t he
re q uirements of c hapter 74 under the pla in lan g uag e of t he sta tute, and so w e ne e d not
c on s i de r w he th er o r n ote x pe rt te s ti mo ny

w ou l d i n fac t be n ec es s ar y t o prov e th os e c l ai ms at tr ial

. See i

d. ; Hun suc ker

v. Fustok , 238 S.W .3d 421, 42 7 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st. D is t.] 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t

. ) ( “[ E ] xp e rtt e s t im o n y m a y o r m a y n o tb e n e c e s s a ry at trial but. . . the expert7

repo rt is alw

ays neces sar

y at the dis cov er

y phase for a heal th care li abi li ty cl aim ev en to p ro ce e d to tr i a l

. ” ) ( c i t in g Murphy v. Russell , 167 S.W .3d 835 , 838 -39 (Te x . 200 5)) (emp hasis in original). W e c oncl ude t hat appel lee s’ cl aims ag ain st all appel lan ts ar e “h eal th c ar e l iab il it y cl aims ” under

the sta tutor

y def in it io n
. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN . § 74.001( a) (1 3)

. Therefor e, the ex per t repor t req uirement ap pli ed to thes e c lai ms. See i d. § 74. 351. W e s ust ain appel lan ts’ first is sue. B. Ti meli ness o f th e R epo rt By the ir second issue , app ellant s conte nd th at th e trial court erred in de nying their moti ons to dis mis s becau se appel lee s faile d to ser v e an ex per

t medi cal repor

t w it hin 120 day s of f il ing su it

. See i d. § 74.351( a)

. By

their thi rd i ss ue, a ppel lan ts arg ue th at t he 120- day deadl ine for fil ing su ch a repor t w as not t oll ed or

extended due t o appel lee s’ fail ur e to prov ide appel lan ts w it h req uired pre- sui t not ic e and medic al author iz ati on for ms. See i d. §§ 74. 051( a) ( Ver non 200 5) , 74. 052. W e ag re e. Sect ion 74 .05 1(a) of

the civi l practice an d rem edie s code provi des: Any person or his au tho riz ed a gent asse rting a health care liability claim sha ll g iv e w ri tten noti ce of such cl aim by ce rt ified mai l, r etur n recei pt req uest ed, to ea ch phy si ci an or

heal th c ar e prov ide r ag ain st w hom su ch cl aim is bei ng made at lea st 60 day s b efore t he fil ing of a s uiti n any co urt of thi s s tate based upon a health care lia bil it y clai m. The noti ce must be ac compani ed by the author iz ati on form for rele ase of prot ect ed heal th i nformati on as re q uired unde r Sect ion 74.0 52. Id. § 74 .05 1. Sect ion 74 .05 2(a) provides as follows: Not ic e of a heal th c ar e c lai m under Sec ti on 74. 051 mus t be acc ompani ed by a medi cal auth or iz ati on i n the form s peci fied by th is secti on. Fai lure to prov i de t hi s a ut ho r i z at i on a l on g w i th t he n ot i c e of h ea l th c are c l ai m shall abate all fur ther pr oceed in g s a g a inst the p hys ician or health c ar

e pr ovi der re cei vi ng th e not

ic e unti l 60 day s fol low ing r ecei pt by the phy si ci an or

heal th care prov ide r of the req uired aut hor iz ati on. Id. § 74 .05 2(a) (emp hasis ad ded ). Not ing thatappel lee s h a d fail ed to co mply w it h the noti ce and aut hor iz ati on requireme nts, Tod d f iled a not ice of aba tem ent on February 1, 20 08, stating in part tha t “all further proceed ing s a g ain st thi s defendant in thi s mat ter are hereby

ABA TED for

a pe ri od8

of 60 da y s followi ng receipt of the required aut horization by this Defend ant .” On app eal, T odd a rg ues in pa rt that th e ab ate me nt did not serve to toll or exten d the ex pert rep ort dea dline b ecau se the case w as ab ate d on ly as to “procee dings aga inst ” Todd, see id. (e mphasi s a dded) , and the ser v ic e of an ex per

t re por t by appel lee s w oul d notco nst it ute
suc h a p ro ceedi ng
. Fur ther , Gulf Coast , Dr . M adsen and STMC note co rrect ly on a ppeal that the tr ial cour

t nev er entered an order of ab atement in thi s cas e. They also co n tend that any abatement that may hav e tak en effect due to Todd’ s n oti ce of abatement did not appl y to them s peci fical ly

bec ause thos e appell ants “ nev er req uest ed, recei v ed, o r ag re ed to a ny a ba te me nti n th e c as e. ” I n r es po ns e, a pp el l ee s u rg e th at , ac c ordi ng t o th e pl ain language of

the sta tute , an ab ate me nt ta kes ef fect aut om atically up on a plaintif f ’s fa ilure to prov ide the re q uired medical authori z ati on. See i d. M or eov er , app ell ees cont end t hat all par ti es to t he s uitw er e “prohi bit ed f ro m proceed ing in anymanner” dur ing the per iod of abatement , and therefore, the “ onl y r eason abl e c oncl usi on” i s t hat “t he 120- day per iod for
ser v ing [an ex per

t] re por t w as extended by

the per iod of abatement .” Ass uming , w it hout deci din g , t hat ( 1) se ct ion 74.05 2 i mposes an a batement automati cal ly upon the p lai nti ff ’s fail ur e to compl y w it h the auth or iz ati on req uirement, and (2) su ch an aba tem ent a pplies to all partie s to the suit, w e ne v erthe less conclu de th at such an abat ement do es not s er v e to tol l or

extend the 1 20-d a y e xpe rt r e por t dea dli ne. See Em er itus Cor p. v . H igh sm it h , 211 S.W .3d 3 21, 3 30 ( Te x. Ap p.–San Ant oni o 2006, pet. deni ed) ; Esta te o f Re g is v. Har ri s C ounty

Hosp. D is t. , 2 0 8 S

. W

. 3 d 6 4 , 6 9 (T e x. App .– Ho u st on [1 4th D is t.] 2006, no p et.) ; Hage dorn v. Tisdale , 73 S.W .3d 3 41, 3 48- 49 (Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 2002, no pet .)

. In Hage dorn , the parties to a me dical liability suit
a gre e d t o a si xty -d ay

abat ement order

bec ause the p lai nti ff

had not c ompli ed w it h the noti ce re q uirement prov ide d i n t h e predece ss or to chapt er

74. 73 S .W .3d a t 347

. The Am arillo court not ed th at, a lthou gh abat em entis the prope r rem edy fo r fa ilure to com ply
w it h the notic e req uirement, “s ome co urts hav e found i t per mis si ble for c ertai n ac ti ons to be ta ken dur ing an a batement , s uch a s the j oin der of par ti es and t he di smi ss al of the
cause of action .” Id. at34 7 -4 8 (cit in g De Checa v. Diagnost ic Ctr. Hosp., Inc. , 852 S.W .2d9

935, 938 n. 5 ( Tex . 199 3) ; United Oil & M inerals, In c. v. Costilla Energy, Inc. , 1 S.W .3d 8 40, 846 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1999, no pet.) ). The cour t conc lud ed that the a batement
order di d notextend the d eadl ine for fil ing an e x per t medi cal r epor

t. Id. at 348- 49. The
cour t ex pla ine d i ts r uli ng by noti ng thatthe leg is lat ur e c oul d nothav e i ntended to all ow plaint if fs to ben ef it by the ir failure to com ply w ith the notice and auth oriz ation requirem ent s: W e are di stu rb ed by

the fact th at, if an a batementfor fai lure to g iv e the re q uired not ic e under the act automati cal ly ex tends the deadl ine for fil ing the medic al ex per

t repor t, a pl ain ti ff

w oul d in f a ct b e rew arded w it h addi ti onal time for t he f iling of

h is rep ort by his failure to com ply w ith the statu tory not ice re q uirement. In other

w ords, a heal th care prov ide r w oul d be pla ced in the posi ti on of ha v ing to choos e w hether to seek an a batementfor t he fail ur e of the p lai nti ff

to g iv e him t h e s ta tutor il y r eq uired 60- day

noti ce or

to hol d the p l a i n t i f f t o t h e s t a t u t o r i l y

r e q u i r e d d e a d l i n e fo r

f i l i n g t h e e x p e rtre p o rt

. W e canno t bel iev e t h a t th e i ntentof the l eg is lat ur e to dis courag e fri v olo us law sui ts and en co u rag e s ettl ement of c lai ms w oul d be ser v ed by su ch a cons tr uct ion , s inc e the l eg is lat ur e has dete rmi ned t hat fai li ng to ti mely fil e an ex per t repor t means thatthe cl aim is ei ther frivolous or

at besthas been pr ematurely

broug ht. Id. at34 8 (cit in g Am . Tr ansiti onal C ar e C tr s. of T ex. v. Pal aci os , 4 6 S

. W

. 3 d 8 7 3 , 8 7 8 (T e x. 200 1)). Appel lee s rely

on Cam pbel l v. Kosa re k , 4 4 S .W .3d 6 47 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 2001, pet. deni ed) , i n arg uin g thatthe sta tutor y abatement ser

v ed to tol l the e x per

t repor t dea dli ne. In Campbe ll , the court fo und tha t a sixty- day aba tem ent orde r rend ered by the trial court
ser v ed to ext end the ex per t medi cal r epor

t dea dli ne by

si xty day s. Id. at 65 0. How ever, Campbe ll

i s readi ly

di sti ng uis habl e from t he i nst ant c a se becaus e the abat ement order there w as entered pursuan t to a p ro vision of the i nsurance code. See i d. at 64 8. The abatementi mposed in C ampbe ll had nothi ng to do w it h the noti ce and aut hor iz ati on
re q ui r e me n t s o f c h a p t e r 7 4 , a n d w e c o n s i d e r

t h e c a s e u n p e rs u a s i v e fo r t h a tr e ason. I n s t e a d , w e a r e c omp e l l e d t o fo l l o w t h e m o r e p e rs u a s i v e p r e c e d e n to f Hage dorn , 73 S.W .3d at 348 -49, an d its progeny and conclu de that any aba tem entcause d by appellee s’ failure to co mp ly

w ith the statu tory not ice or aut horization requireme nt did notserv e to to ll
or extend the d eadl ine for t he s er v ing of an ex per

t medi cal r epor

t. See i d. ; see a lso Em er itus Cor p. , 21 1 S. W .3 d at33 0 (fo llo wing Hage dorn ); Esta te of Regis , 208 S.W .3d a t 69 (sam e).B e c a u s e w e fi n d th a t th e e x p e rt re p o rt w a s n o t ti m e l y fil e d , w e n e e d n o t a d d re s s a p p e l l a n ts ’ fo u rth 5 i s s u e a rg u i n g th a t c o n te n t o f th e re p o rt i s i n a d e q u a te

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47. 1. 10 W e concl ude that appell ees’ ex per t repor t w as unti mely

. Ap pel lan ts’ se cond and 5 thi rd i ss ues ar e s ust ain ed. C. Constitutionality of Expe rt Report Requireme nt By thei r fifth is sue, appel lan ts arg ue that the ex per t repor t req uirement i mposed by chapt er 74 is c o n st it uti onal under the Uni ted S tates and Tex as Con sti tuti ons. See U. S. C ON ST . amend. X IV; T EX
. C ON ST . ar t. I, § 19. W e ag re e. W hen rev iew ing the cons ti tuti onal it y of a s tatut e, w e begi n w it h a p re sumpti on th at the sta tute is co nst it uti onal

. W alk er v. Gut ier re z , 111 S.W .3d 5 6, 66 ( Tex . 200 3) ; see T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. § 311. 021( 1) ( Ver non 200 5)

. The par ty ch all eng ing the cons ti tuti onal it y of a st atute then bears t h e b u rd e n of demonst ra ti ng thati t fail s t o meet cons ti tuti onal
re q uirements

. W

alk er , 1 1 1 S. W .3 d at66 (cit in g Spr ing Br anch Indep. Sc h. D is t. v. Stam os , 695 S.W .2d 556 , 558 (Tex. 1985 )). Ev er y co urt t hat h as cons ide red w hether the ex per

t repor t req uirement pa ss es
cons ti tuti onal must er

has co ncl uded t hat i t doe s. See, e.g., Wils on- Ever ett v. Chr is tus St. Jos eph , 242 S.W .3d 7 99, 8 02- 804 ( Tex . A p p .– Ho u sto n [1s t D is t.] 2007, pet. deni ed) (section 74.3 51 d oes n ot vi olate sepa ra t io n of powers provisi on o f

Te x as Const itution ); Thoy akul athu v. Br

ennan , 192 S.W .3d 849, 855- 56 (Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 2006, no pet .) (d u e p ro c e s s doe s not require “ex cept ions [to the expert repo rt req uirem ent ] tha t w ould encompas s a ny

concei v abl e compli cat ion in order to pass co nst it uti onal must er ”) ; Herrera
v. Seton Nw. Hos

p. , 212 S.W .3d 4 52, 4 61- 62 ( Tex . Ap p.–A u st in 2 004, no pet .) ( sec ti on 74. 3 5 1 does not v iol ate d ue c ourse of law prov is ion of Tex as Con sti tuti on) ; Perry v. Stanley , 83 S.W .3d 8 19, 8 25 ( Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 2003, no pet.) ( same) ; Moceg a v. Urquha rt , 79 S.W .3d 6 1, 64 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2 0 0 2 , p et. deni ed) (prede cessor to section 74.35 1 did not v iolate ope n courts prov ision of Te x as Const itution ); G il l v. Russo , 3 9 S

. W

. 3 d 7 1 7 , 7 1 8

- 1 9 ( Te x
. A p p
. – H o u s t o n [ 1 s t D i s t

. ] 2 0 0 1 , p e t . den ied ) (s ame); Schrop v. Bapt ist Mem ’ l Health Sys. , 5 S. W .3 d 727, 736- 37 ( Tex . Ap p.–San11

Ant onio 1 9 9 9 , n o p e t.) (dismissal of claim du e to f ailure to co mp ly w ith expert report
re q uirement, ev en if cl aim is m er it or iou s, does not o ff end due proces s) ; Hor sley- Laym an
v. Angeles , 968 S.W .2d 5 3 3 , 537 ( Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 1998, no pet .) ( ov er ru li ng
cons ti tuti onal chal len g es to cos t bond and ex per t repor t req uirements ); see als o Et her edge
v. Mc Car thy , N o. 05 -0 5- 00164- CV , 200 6 T ex . Ap p. LE X IS 5 492, at * 2- 3 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as June 27, 20 06, no pe t.) (m em
. op. ) (dism issal im pose d as a direct result o f plaintif f ’s fa ilure to f ile an ex pert repo rt in com pliance w ith the statu tory dea dline w as app ropriate and did not v iolate the du e proce ss clause). App ellees p rimarily

argue o n a p pea l that th e objective of the expert repo rt
re q uirement is to dis courag e and dis pose of f ri v olo us cl aims , see W alk er , 111 S.W .3d a t 66, a nd, b e c a u s e t h e i r c l a i m i s n o t fr i v o l o u s , t h e s t a t u t e i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a s a p p l i e d to them. W e recog niz e tha t i nju sti ce mayr esul t w hen a mer it or iou s c lai m is di smi ss ed w it h prejud ice by v irtue of

a techn ical def iciency, such as the failure t o t im e ly f ile an expert
me d i c a l r e p o rt i n a h e a l t h c a r e l i a b i l i t y c l a i m. H o w e v e r , w e a r e n o t a t l i b ertyto cra ft exception s to the ex pert rep ort requireme nt every t ime t he obje ctiv e of

t hatrequirem ent is frust ra ted. See i

d. (“ W e do not b eli ev e the C onst it uti on req uires pr ior noti ce that the l aw is se rio u s a b o u t a cl ear ly st ated cons eq uence for fai li ng to compl y w it h i ts ter ms.” ); see also Tex. W

orkers’ Com p. Comm ’

n v. Garcia , 893 S.W .2d 5 04, 5 20 ( Tex . 199 5) ( q uoti ng Sm ith v. Davis , 426 S. W .2d 8 27, 8 31 ( Tex . 196 8) ) (“ The w is dom or ex pedi ency

of the l aw is the Le gisl atu re’s prerogativ e, no t ours.”). Follow ing the prece den t of our sister courts,
w e c oncl ude t hat t he ex per t repor t req uirement i n c h a p te r 7 4 of the ci v il pract ic e and
re medies co de does not v iol ate t he due proces s c lau se of the fourt eenth amendment t o the U nit ed St ates C onst it uti on or the due c ourse of law

prov is ion of the Tex as Con sti tuti on. Appel lan ts’ fifth i ss ue i s s ust ain ed. D. Entitleme nt t o Thirty -Day Extensi on By their sixth i ss ue, a ppel lan ts cont end t hat, shoul d w e find that appel lee s fai led to ti mely co mply w it h the ex per

t medi cal r epor

t req uirement, appel lee s a re not enti tl ed to a thi rt y -d ay

extens ion of ti me to file a c ompli a n t e xpe rt repor t. Ag ain , w e ag re e. Sect ion12

74.351( c) of t he ci v il pr act ic e and re medies co de prov ide s t hat “ [i ]f an ex per t repor t has not bee n served w ithin th e pe riod specif ied by Sub section (a) beca use elem ent s o f t he rep ort
ar e found defic ien t, the c our t may g ra nt on e 30- day

extens ion to the cl aimanti n order to cure the def iciency.” T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74. 351( c)

. W e hav e c oncl uded tha t app ellees f ailed to comp ly w ith the ex pert rep ort dea dline, but th is is n o t beca use ele ments of an other

w is e- ti mely -fil ed repor

t w er e found defic ie n t. Ins tead, appel lee s si mply faile d to ser

v e any re por

t w hats oev er w it hin the 120- day per iod

. Ac cordin g ly , t he tr ial co urt i s w it hout author it y to g ra nt ap pel lee s a thi rty -da y e xtens ion under se cti on 74.351( c)

. See i

d. Ap pel lan ts’ si xth i ss ue i s s ust ain ed.

IV. C ONCL US I ON W e reverse the judgme nt of the tri al court de nying app ellant s’ motio ns to dism iss, and w e remand th e c ause to t he tr ial co urt t o ( 1) aw ard reason abl e att or ney ’s fees and
cos ts of c our

t to appel lan ts, and (2 ) dis mis s t he s uitag ain st appel lan ts w it h preju dic e. See id. § 74.3 51(b ).

DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Del iv er ed and filed the 21stday of Janua ry , 201 0.