T h e r e c o rd d o e s n o t i n d ic a te w h y A m a ya se n t t h e fax twic e a n d fo llo w e d the fax e s w ith p e rs o n a l d e live ry. 1 A t the heari ng, A m aya’ s co unsel s t at ed t hat t hey were t hey were t aki ng every preca ut i o n t o ensur e t hat t he exp ert repo rt w a s se rv e d o n M a y 3

. C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS
WENDY AMAYA, Ap pe lla nt,

v. ANDRES S. ENRI QUEZ , M.D., I ND I VI DU AL L Y A

ND D/ B /A F RA NKL I N M ED I CA LCEN TE R, Appellee

. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 07 -0 00 86 -C V

Appea l from 171st District Court of El Paso County , Texas (TC # 2006-012)

O P I N I O N Wen dy Am ay a a pp e a ls f ro m an o rd e r d ism is si ng he r m e dic a l ma lpr a c tic e c la im a g a ins t An dr e s S. Enri qu e z, M. D. , ind ivi du a lly and d/b /a F ra nk lin Me dic a l Ce nte r. At

iss ue is t he tim e lin e ss of the de fe nd ants ’ o bje c tio n to the pla int if f’ s e xpe rt re po rt s. F or the re a so ns that f oll ow , w e re ve rs e and re mand. F ACTUAL SUMMA RY On Janu ary 3, 20 06 , We nd

y Am ay a fi le d a me dic a l ma lpr a c tic e su it a g a inst A nd re s S. Enriquez, M.D., individually and d/b/ a F ranklin Medica l Center (D r. Enrique z). On May 3, 2006-- a Wednesda

y --Ama y a filed the expert repor

t of Dr. Char les A. Cefa lu in support of her claims. She

serve d the re port on counsel f or Dr. Enriquez by fac simil e at 2:59 p.m. the same day . A fe w minutes later, A may a fax ed the r eport agai n . At 3:26 p.m., twenty -seve n minutes after the first fax was 1T h e twe n ty-f irst d a y fell o n M a y 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 , a W e d n e sd a y. U n d e r D r. E n rig u e z ’s the o ry, h o w e v e r, the d u e d a te 2 w a s e x te n d e d to M a y 2 7 , 2 0 0 6 , a S a tur d a y. T h e fo llo w ing M o n d a y, M a y 2 9 , 2 0 0 6 w a s a ho lid a y a n d the E l P a so C o u n ty C our t hous e wa s cl ose d. D r . E nr i quez di d n ot f i l e hi s ob j ect i on t o t he s uf f i ci enc y of t he exper t r eport un t i l T ues day , M ay 3 0 , 2 0 0 6

. delivere d, Amay a hand- delivere d the re port to counsel. On Ma y 30, 2006, Dr. Enr igue z fi l ed a motion to di smiss, obj ectingto the adequa cy of the re port. Amay a then f ile d an objec tion to the motion complaining that it was unti mely as it had not bee n filed within twenty -one da y s after service of the e x pert re port. Dr. Enr igue z countered that beca use the re port had fir st been ser ved by fac simil e, he w as entitled to an a dditional three da y s in which to file any objections, and ther efor e, his moti on filed on May

30, 2006 was timely

. On Novembe r 15, 2006, the trial c ourt conduc ted a 2 hear ing on the doctor’s moti on to dismiss and Amay a’s objec tion. I t impli edly overr uled Amay a’s timeliness objection and deter mined that Dr. Cefalu’s re port was de ficient, but it g rante d Amay a an additional thirty day s to comply with Chapter 74. Amaya subseque ntly filed and se rved a

revised repor t from Dr. Cef

alu and a n expert repor

t from B ruce Adornato, M.D. On J anuar y 3, 2007, Dr. Enriquez filed a motion to dismis s challeng ing the sufficie ncy of both expert repor

ts. The trial cour

t

c on du c te d a

he ari ngon

Marc h 7 , 2 00 7 a

nd de te rm ine d th a t th e report s were ins uf fi c ie nt. Consequently , the cour

t entere d an orde r dismissing Amaya’s suit. TIMELINES S OF CHALLENGE TO EXP ERT REPORT I n her f i rs t i s sue, Amaya conte nds that Dr. Enrique z’s challeng e to the suff iciency of the expert repor

t was untimely , and ther efor e, the tria l court er red by consideringth e m er i t s of the motion. Amay a asse rts that beca use the e x pert re port was ha nd-deliver ed to Dr. Enr iquez’s counsel on May 3, 2006, any

objection or challeng e to the sufficie ncy of the e x pert re port was due to be filed

n o l a t e r t h anM ay 2 4 , 2 0 0 6

. B e c a u s e D r . E n r i qu e z d i d n o t f i l e t h e r e p o rtu n t i l M ay 3 0 , 2 0 0 6 , A m aya

rea sons that the motion wa s filed untimely . Dr. Enr iquez responds that bec ause the expert repor t wasR ule 2 1 a, i n p erti ne nt p art, p ro vid es: 3
E ve ry n o t i ce req u i red b y th ese ru l es, a n d ev ery p l ea d i n g , p l ea , m o t i o n , o r o t h er fo rm o f req u est r equi r ed t o be s er ve d unde r Rul e 21 , ot h er t h an t h e c i t at i on t o be s er v ed u pon t h e f i l i n g of a c au s e of ac t i on a n d ex ce pt as ot h er wi s e e x pr es s l y prov i ded i n t h es e r u l es , ma y be s er v ed by de l i v er i n g a c opy t o t he part y t o be s er ved, or t he part y ’ s dul y aut hor i zed agen t o r at t orn ey o f recor d, as t he cas e may b e , eith e r in p e rs o n o r b y a g e n t o r b y c o u rie r re c e ip te d d e live ry o r b y c e rtifi e d o r re g ister e d m a il, to t he part y ’ s l as t kn own addre s s , or by t el ephoni c do cumen t t r ans f er t o t he r eci pi ent ’ s cu r r ent t el ecopi er n u m b e r, o r b y su c h o the r m a n n e r a s the c o u rt in its d isc re tio n m a y d ire c t. first serve d upon counsel by fac simil e, he w as entitled to the additional three day period provide d b y T EX .R.C IV .P. 21a, even thoug h the expert repor t w as also serve d upon counsel by hand-de livery t h e s am e d ay. Se c tio n 7 4. 35 1( a ) o f t

he Civ il Pr a c tic e and

Re me die s Co de pr ov ide s: I n a hea lth care liability

claim, a c laimant shall, not later than the 120th da y afte r the date the orig inal petition wa s filed, serve on eac h party or the pa rty ’s attorne y

one or mor e ex p er t reports, with a curr iculum vitae of e ach e x pert listed in the re port for eac h phy sician or he alth car e provide r ag ainst whom a liability claim is a sserted. The date f or ser ving the repor

t may be extended by

writ t en agre ement of the aff ecte d parties. Ea c h d

e fe nd an t ph y sic ian or he alt h c ar e pr ovide r who sec on du c t is implicated in a report must file and serve any ob j ec tion to the suff

iciency of the re po rt no t late r th an the21 st d ay afte r th e da te it wa s se rv e d, fai lin g wh ic h a ll objections are waived. [E mp h a s is a d d e d ]. T EX .C IV .P R AC .&R EM .C ODE ANN . § 74.351(a) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). Section 74.351 does not define how the plain t i ff m u s t serve the expert repor t on the defe ndant. Althoug h Rule 21a does not e x pressly ref ere nce service of a re port requir ed by a statute,

sever al intermediate appe llate cour ts have concluded that service of t he ex pert re port is gove rned by Rule 21a of the Tex as Rules of C ivil P roce dure. See U niversity of Texas He alth ScienceCenter 3 at Houston v. Gutierrez , 237 S.W .3d 869, 872 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) ; Herrera v . Seton Northwest Hospit al , 212 S.W .3d 452, 459 (Tex.App

. --Austin 2006, no pet.); Ke nd ric k v . G ar c ia , 171 S.W .3d 698, 703-04 (Te x .App.--E astland 2005 , p et
. d enied). Section 74.001(b) of

the Civil P rac tice and Re medies C ode provides that any undefine d leg al term or w ordof art is to be given “such m eaning as i s consistent with the common law.” T EX .C IV .P R AC .&R EM .

C ODE ANN . § 74.001(b)( Ver non 2005). Bla ck’s L aw Dic tionary define s “ser

ve” a s “[t] o make leg al deli v er y o f a notice or proc ess” or “[t] o prese nt a per son with a notice or pr ocess a s require d by law”) . B LACK ’ S L AW D I CT I O N A RY 13 72 (7 th ed . 1 99 9) . U se d b ro a dly , th e te rm “ se rv e ” g e ne ra lly ref ers t o t h e delivery

by a par ty of a doc ument to the proper party in a manner

that provides

rea sonable, sufficient not ice. Spiegel v. Strother , 262 S.W .3d 481 (Tex.App.--B eaumont 2008, no pet.). Rules 21 and 21a are followed in providing notice that is less forma l than the citation re quired to be served upon the fil ing of a c ause of action. Id ; see T EX .R.C IV .P. 21 , 2 1a . T he Rul e s o f C ivi l Procedur e apply

to healthca

re liability

claims. SeeT EX .R.C IV .P. 2 (the Rules o f Civil P roce dure g overn the proce dure to be followed in all civil ac tions in t he justice, c ounty , and district cour ts of our state) . Given the a

pplication of the Rules of Civil Procedur e to healthca re liability

claims and the L e g isl atu re’s use o f t he wo rd “ se rv e ” in S e c tio n 7 4. 35 1( a ), we a g re e that Ru le 21 a a pp lie s to service of th e e xp e rt r e p o rt. I t f o ll o w s th a t R

u le 2 1 a ’ s p r o v is io nf

o r a d d in g thr e e d ay s to any presc ribed pe riod wher e ser vice ha s been a ccomplished by mail or fax w ould also apply to the filing

and se rv ic e of

any ob je c tio n to the su ff

ic ie nc y of the e xpe rt

re po rt
. Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedur e presc ribes four methods of se rvice : (1) by

cer tified or reg istered mail; (2) by delivery ; (3) by

telephonic doc ument transfe r; or (4) such other

manner as the c ourt in its dis cre tion may direc t. T EX .R.C IV .P. 21 a . N oti c e may be se rv e d b y

a pa rt y t o t h e s u i t , ana t t o r

n e y o f r e c o r d , a s h e r i f f o r c o n s t a b l e , o r b y an y o t h e r p e r s o n c o mp e t e n tt o t e s t i f y. T EX .R.C IV .P. 21a. Se rv ic e by

ma il i s com

ple te and the pa

rt y is co ns ide re d ser

ve d on the date the do c ume nt i s mailed. Id. R

u l e 2 1 a a s s u m e s t h a tt h e p o s t a l s e r v i c e w i l l d e l i v e r

t h e d o c u m e n t w i t h i nt h r e e d ays afte r it is mailed. SeeO’Connor’s Te x as Rules Civil Trials ch. 1-D,§ 6.1 (2008 ed.). To deter minethe date to f ile an o bje c tio n und e r S e c tio n 7 4. 35 1( a ) whe n th e e xpe rt re po rt wa s del ive re d b y ma il, the re cipient adds thre e day s to the 21-day time period provided f

or by Section 74.351(a)

. See T EX .R.C IV .P. 21a. Service by persona l delivery

is complete whe n the document is de livered to the person or office to which it is addressed. I n such a c ase, the rec ipient of an e x pert re port is not entitled to any

additional time to respond. Documents serve d by fax a re considere d serve d on the day the fax is sent provided they are rec eived be fo re 5 :00 p.m. local time of the re cipient. See T EX .R.C IV .P. 21a. Service by fax after 5:00 p.m. local time of the re cipient is deeme d serve d on the following day

. Id. When the expert repor t is serve d by fax, the rec ipient a dds three day s to Section 74.351(a) ’s 21-da

y time period for

filing a n objection to the suffic iency of the expert repor

t. One appar ent re ason for

addingthree day s to any

presc ribed pe riod when service is acc omplished by fax is to equalize as much as possible the time by which a pa

rty must r es p o n d . Documents may be

serv e d b y f

a c s im il e an y d ay an d an y ti me o f th e w e e k , n o t ju s t d u r in g r e g u la

r b u s in e s s h o u rs on ordinary business day s. Saturday s, Sunday s, and leg al holiday s are counted f or purpose of the thre eday periods in Rule 21 and 21a . Thus, if a doc ument is served by fax on a Saturday or Sunday

befor e 5:00 p.m., the rec ipient’s time to respond would beg in to run even though the rec ipient mig ht not se e the fax until the following Monday (assuming it is not a holiday ). Am ay a fi rs t fa xed

the e xpe rt

re po rt to D r. Enri qu e z’s a tto rn e y and the n h and -d e liv e re d it

to the attorne y ’s offic e less than thirty minutes later. Unde r Section 74.351(a ), Dr. E nriquez was require d to f

ile any objection to the sufficie ncy of the repor t not later than the twenty -first day afte r the service date, except Rule 21a provides that “[w]henever a par ty has the rig ht or is require d to do

s o m e ac t wi thin a presc ribed pe riod afte r the ser vice of a notice or

other pa per upon him and the notice or pa

per is served upon by mail or by telephonic document transfe r, three day s shall be adde d to th e p r e s c r ib e d

p e r io d

. ” T EX .R.C IV .P. 21a. The twenty -first day fell on May

24, 2006, aWed

ne sd ay . D r. Enri g ue z re a so ns that be c a us e he wa s se rv e d f

ir st b y fax, th e du e date f

or his

re sp on se is a

uto matic a lly

e xten de d thre e da

y s b y Rul e 21 a

and hi s res pons e wa s n ot d ue un til May 30, 2006 beca

use the last day

of the time period fell on May 27, a S aturda y , and the following Monday , May

29, was a

leg al holiday

. See T EX .G OV ’ T C ODE ANN . § 662.003 (a )( 4 )(Vernon 2004)(Me morial Day

). Dr. Enr iquez argues that the purpose of Rule 21a is “to g ive the par ties a def inite date fr om which to compute the timeliness of a ny require d act. ” Un d er either me thod of servic e, per sonal de liv e ry or fax, se rv ic e wa s c omp le te on Ma y 3, 20 06 . T he purp os e of Rul e 21 a is satis fi e d b e c a us e Dr. Enr iquez ha d a def

inite date fr om which he c ould compute the due date of his re sponse to the expert repor

t, namely , May

3, 2006. The c ritical iss u e i s whether Dr. Enr iquez is entit led to have t h e 2 1

- d ay p e r i o d

e x t e n d e d b y t h r e e d ays b e c a

u s e A m aya s e r

v e d h i mb y bo th fax and persona l delivery . Dr. Enriquez rea sons that se rvice was c omplete when the fax was sent and the subsequent ha nd -d e liv e ry

of the e xpe rt

re po rt wa s r e dund ant a

nd sim ply ir re le va nt t o th e c omp utati o n o f t

he tim e to respond. The Rules of Civil P roce dure do n o t addre ss whether the additional three -day

period applies when a party is se rved on the same day by two methods of service only one of which allows fo r the a dd iti on of thr e e da y s to the tim e to re sp on d. F ur the r, ne ith e r p art

y c ite s any c a se s d ir e c tly on point an d we are awa re of none addr essing this iss ue. The appar ent purpose of Rule 21a’s provision adding three day s to a time period when a party is se rved by fax or mail is to e nsure that t h e p art y h a s r o u g h l y t h e s am e t i m e t o r e s p o n d a s i f t h e p art y h a d b e e n s e r v e d b y p e r s o n a l d e l i v e r

y. But whe n a party

is served by

both fax and hand-de livery on the same da

y , there is no logica l rea son to give the party an additional thre e day s. We find that the trial court e rre d by impliedly

overr uling Amay a’s motion to dismi ss Dr. Enrique z’s objection to the expert report. We sustain I ssue One a nd

reve rse the order of the trial cour t dismi ssing Ama

y a’s c laims ag ainst Dr. Enrique z, indi vidually andd/b/a Fr anklin Medica l Center. Given our dispositi on of I ssue One, it is unnece ssary to addre ss the

re m ai n i n g i s s u es o nap p ea l

. T h e c au s e i s r e m an d edt o t h e t ri al co u rt fo r f u rt h er p ro ce ed i n gs consistent with his opini on.

J uly 31, 2009 ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, J ustice Be fore Chew, C.J ., McClure, a nd Ba raja s, C.J . (Ret.) Ba raja s, C.J . (Ret.), sitting by assig nment