NO. 07-08 -002 3-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B MA Y13, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ BETTY W HI TE, IN DI VID UA LLY AN D AS P ER SON AL R EPR ESEN TATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF W AR RE N W HI TE, D EC EASED , Appel lan t
v. BAY LORALL SAIN TS M ED IC AL C EN TER, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 96 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF T AR RA NT COU NT Y; TH NO. 096 -222 350 -07; HON. JEFF W ALK ER, PRESI DING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Betty W hit e ( W hit e) , i ndi v idu all y and as personal represent ati v e of the est ate o f W ar re n W hit e, de ceas ed, a ppeal s f ro m the tr ial court ’s dismi ss al of her heal th c are l iab il ity cl aim ag ain st Bay lor Al l Sai nts Me dic al Cen ter (B ay lor ). W hit e had sued Bay lor and then
mov ed to non- sui t t hat a cti on before tender ing an ex per t’ s re por t. A l ik e s uitw as ini ti ated several mon ths late r against the same defend ant and involv ing the sam e acto rs. W ithin2

days of initiating the secon d proce edin g, W hite se rv ed h er expert’s repo rt upon Baylor. No one di sput es that the d ate u pon w hic h the repor t w as ev entual ly

se rv ed ex ceede d 120 day s from the d a te W hit e c ommenced the first act ion ag ain st Bay lor

. Gi v en th is , Ba y lor
mov ed to di smi ss the proceed ing because the rep ort w as unti mely

. The tr ial co urt ag re ed and g rante d the mot ion. T he p iv ota l issue before us is w het her the 120 -day period w ithin
w hic h one prose cu ti n g a h eal th c are l iab il ity cl aim has to s er

v e an ex per

t’ s repor t s tar ts
anew eac h ti me the act ion is non- sui ted and lat er re -fil ed. W hit e als o ask s us to c onsi der
w het her oth er theo ries, w hich includ e tolling or the relation -back do ctrine, ren der the report ti mely

. Answer ing no, w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s d is mis sal of the c ause. W hether Non- suit C oupled with R efi li ng St ar ts Per iod Anew Al l re cog niz e tha t t he v e rsion of §74.3 51( a) of the Tex as Ci v il Pract ic e and Remedi es Cod e appl ic abl e at bar i s t hat w hic h was in ex is tenc e pr ior to September

of 2 0 0 5

. F u rt h e rm o re , i tp ro vid e d t h a to n e p ro s e c u t in g a h e a lt h ca re li a b il it y cl a im m u s tse rve o n e a c h p a rt y o n e o r m o re e xp e rtre p o rt s wit h a cu rr ic u lu m vit a e n o la t e r t h a t1 2 0 d a ys “af ter the d ate t he claim w as f iled.” T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C OD E A NN . §74 .351( a) ( Ver non 2005)

. Fai li ng to abi de by the deadl ine resul ted i n t h e d is mis sal of the c ause, i f the defendant s o mov ed. Id. §74. 351( b)

. As prev iou sl y

menti oned, the p iv otal q uest ion before us is w h e th e r th e 120- day period begins ane w

each time a hea lth care l iability claim is non -suited the n re-f iled. Every opi nio n w e fo u n d that address ed th is sp eci fic q uest ion sa id no. Me dical Hos p. of Buna, Tex., Inc . v

. Wheatley, N o. 09 -0 8- 0183- CV , 200 9 Tex . Ap p. L E X IS 2 7 6 9 a t* 1 7 (T e x. App.–B eaumont Apr il 23, 2009, no pet . h. ); Run ci e v . F oley, 2 7 4 S

. W

. 3 d 2 3 2 , 2 3 5 -3 6 (T e x.3

App.–H oust on [1 Dist .] 2008, no p et.) ; Daug hte ry v. Schiessler, 229 S.W .3d 7 73, 7 75 st ( Te x . A p p . – E a s t l a n d 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t.) ; Empowerm ent O pti ons, Inc . v

. Ea sley, N o. 09 -0 6- 0148- CV , 200 6 Tex . Ap p. L E X IS 9696 at *11- 12 (Tex

. App.–B eaumont Nov ember 9, 2006, pet . den ied); Mo kk

ala v. Mead , 178 S.W .3d 6 6, 71 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4 D is t.] 2005, th pet. deni ed)

. Ins tead, they hol d tha t the time peri od beg ins w hen t he c lai m is first filed and cont inu es to r un ev en i f a non- sui t i s t aken. See Mokk ala v. Mead, 178 S.W .3d a t 71. Mo re i mport antl y , W hit e c it es us to no cas es cons ide ri ng the same q uest ion and hol din g other w is e. W e see no re ason to d ev iat e from t he unan imous st ance tak en i n W heatley, Runcie , Daug hte ry, Mokkala , and Ease ly and ov er ru le W hit e’s co ntent ion thatthe per iod beg an anew . To hol d oth er w is e woul d be to i g nore the pl a in wo rding of §74.351 (a ) sel ect ed by

the leg is lat ure. Tolling an d Relatio n-ba ck W hit e next arg ues that the n on- sui t t oll ed th e ru nni ng of t he 120- day deadl ine

. She arriv ed a t this conclu sion by analogiz ing the period to a statu te of lim itation s. S o too did she inv oke pr inc ipl es w hic h i nv olv e eq uitabl e tol li ng and the rela ti on- back doctr ine and assert th at th ey also rend er t ime ly h er e x pert’s repo rt. W e disagree for several reaso ns. Fi rs t, in Packa rd v. Mil ler, N o. 07 -0 6- 0454- CV , 200 7 Tex . Ap p. L EX I S 4 5 1 3 (T e x. App.–A mari ll o M ay

31, 2007, pet. den ie d) , w e refused to extend the s tatut or y deadl ine appl ic abl e to tender ing ex per t repor ts throug h the use of

equi tabl e pr inc ipl es. Id. a t * 6. To paraphrase Packa rd , i t i s n ot w it hin our prov inc e to adopt an eq uit abl e extens ion to the cl ear req uirements of

the sta tute. Id. To appl y eq uit abl e tol li ng here woul d be to v iol ate
w hat we s aid i n Packa rd

.4

Seco nd, we ac know led g e tha t s ome hav e c ompared §74. 351( a) to a s tatut e of limitat ions. Bu t w e do not see how this he lps W hite. W hile it ma y be tha t initiating a suit tol ls the ru nni ng of li mita ti ons, e.g. , Sheldon Indep. Schoo l Di st. v. M. L. Huds on Elec. C o., 567 S.W .2d 541 , 543 (Tex. Civ . App .–T y ler 1 978 , n o w rit), it d oes n ot rem ain to lled on ce the suit is dismissed. Rather, the relev ant time period is calculated f rom th e time the claim
acc ru ed until suiti s re- filed

. Cl ar y C or p. v . Sm it h , 949 S.W .2d 452 , 459 (Tex. App. –Fort W orth 19 97, w ri t den ied ). So, by follo w ing W hit e’s anal og y , one woul d hav e to conc lud e that the t i me p e r i o d t h a t s t a rt e d w i t h t h e fi l i n g o f h e r fi rs t s u i t n e v e r s t o p p e d , d e s p it e the
v olu ntar y di smi ss al. Third, w hil e th e r ela ti on- back doctr ine ca n be used as a means of ass erti ng an unti mely ca u se o f acti on, i t app li es to s it uati ons w herein a l it ig ant a mends his peti ti on to
a ssert the untim ely claim an d the latter arises f rom th e sam e transa ction o r occurrence under ly ing the ti mely

cl aims

. Br

ewster C olu m bia Med. C tr

. of McKi nney Subsidi

ar y, L.P. , 269 S. W .3d 3 14, 3 18 ( Tex . A p p.–D all as 2008, no pet .) ( sta ti ng that an a mendment or supp lem entto a plea ding rela tes back as long a s t he am end ed or supp lem ent ed claim is not b ased on new , d ist in ct , or d ifferent transacti ons)

. Addi ti onal ly , W hit e c it es us to no
cases e xten ding t his the oryt o the in itiation o f su bseque nt law suits, as op pose d to th e me re amendment o r suppl ementati on of pl eadi ng s i n a s uitthatal re ady i s p endi ng . Add ing a New

Claim Finally , W hite p o s it s thatthe 12 0-da y period which began w hen she f iled he r first sui t di d notenc ompass the new cl aim ass erted i n her

se cond act ion

. W e ag ain di sag re e.5

W h i t e fi rs tsu e d Ba y l o r

be c a u s e i t s “ p h a r ma cy , nu rs e s , nu rs e s ai d e s a n d o t h e r s t a ff

. . . faile d to admini ste re d medi cat ion s” to her husba nd (W ar re n) “a s p re sc ri bed.” So too did sh e des cr ibe her

cl aim as tho se persons g iv ing W ar re n a d ru g that“ w as nei ther presc ri bed nor

. . . benef ic ial to” hi m. V ia the p eti ti on i n her se cond sui t, she ag ain su ed Bay lor al one for

the condu ct of the s ame actors. H ow ev er , s he c hang ed her al leg ati ons b y s t a t i n g t h a tt h e h o s p i t a l ’ s “ s t a ff dis pense d and admini ste re d . . . a dr ug thatw as nei ther presc ri bed nor benefici al to . . . W ar re n . . . .” (E mphasi s a dded)

. In ot her w ords, sh e now compl ain ed notonl y

of the s taff

admi nis ter ing i nappropr iat e dr ug s bu t als o di spens ing them. W e s ee th is as a di sti nct ion w it h o u t a d if ferenc e. Both conc epts enc ompass the
same a cto rs and the s ame pur por tedl y under ly ing ca use of W ar re n’s deat h, i. e. his ingestion o f

a particula r drug giv en h im by hospita l emp loyees. A nd, while th e ph arma cy mayhav e “ dis pense d” the dr ug w hil e the nursi ng st aff “ admini ste re d” i t, the s eq uence of
ev ents remaine d the sa me as that desc ri bed i n and unde rlying the cl aim in her first sui t. Indeed, W hit e admi tted as much w hen s he arg ued t hat t he al leg ati ons in the sec ond proc ee di ng “ rel at e- ba c k ” t o th os e i n th e fi rs t; s i mp l y p ut , bo th concer n th e s am e transacti on, o cc ur re nce, or operati v e facts

. In s hor t, w hat w e hav e before us is si mply the same old w ine being poured int o a new sk in. T h e n e w sk in does not c hang e the ch aract er of the w ine

. Nor

does now inv oki ng the w ord “ dis pense ” differenti ate t he subs tanc e of he r sec ond sui t from that of her firs t. So, the 120- day

peri od did no t s tar

t ane w by addi ng thatw ord i nto h er l iv e pl eadi ng filed i n the se cond sui t. See Me dical Hos p. of Buna, T ex. , Inc. v W

heatley, 2009 Tex . Ap p. L EX I S 276 9 at *8 (stating that a p laintif f cann ot use a rtf ul plea ding to avoid the de adline ); Car e C enter , Ltd. v . Su tton , N o. 09 -0 7- 469- CV , 200 8 Tex . Ap p. L E X IS 2 7 4 3 a t*1 5 (T e x.6

App.–B eaumont Apr il 17, 2008, pet. file d) (hol din g thatbec ause the o ld cl aims w ere broad
eno ugh to encom pass the new one s, the 120 -period d id notrenew itself ); T o r ov . A la n i z, No. 04- 06- 0814- CV , 2007 Tex . Ap p. L E X IS 3119 at * 3- 4 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o Apr il 25, 2007, no pet.) (s tati ng that the ti me li ne for ex per t repor ts beg ins w hen t he l aw sui t i s fil ed and c annot be extended by fil ing an a ddi ti onal cl aim in an amended peti ti on bas ed on the
sam e asse rtion alleged in th e original petition ). Hav ing re

jected each of W hit e’s is sues and arg uments , w e aff ir m the f in a l o rder dis mis si ng her

l aw sui t.

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice