## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 7 - 3 0 0 - CV
J AS ON MAR I S , P . A.

- C AP P E L L ANT V . TAD D H ENDRI CKS, AS APPE L L EE S I NDE P E NDE NTE XE CU T OR OFT HE EST ATE OF M EL I SSA H ENDRI CKS, DECEASED, AN D TA DD HEND RI CKS, I ND I VI DU ALL Y AN D A S NEXT FRI EN D O F JOS H U A A N D D A N I EL HE NDR I CK S , M I NOR S , AN D C H A R LI E M O R ELLO

----- ----- --

FR O M PROBATE CO URT OF DENTO N CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### OP I NI ON

----- ----- -- I. I N T R OD U C T I ON In th i s a c c e l e ra te d , i n te rl o c u to ry a p p e a l , A p p e l l a n t J a s o n M a r i s , P .A .-C
a p p e a l s th e tri a l c o u rt’s o rd e r d e n y i n g h i s m o ti o n to d i s m i s s t h e h e a l th c a re1 ... A ppe l l ee s al so as se rt ed cl ai m s ag a i n s t St eph en A . G l as er , D . O . an d

H ig h la n d F a m ilyM e d ic a l C e n t e r , w h o a r e n o tp a rto ft h is a p p e a l. 2 l i abi l i t y c l ai m s ofA ppe l l ee s Tadd Hendr i ck s, a s i nde pen den tex ec ut oroft he est at e of M el i ssa H endr i cks, deceased, and T add H endr i cks, i ndi vi dual l y and as
n e x t fri e n d o f J o s h u a a n d D a n i e l H e n d ri c k s , m i n o rs , a n d C h a rl i e M o re l l o . S ee T EX . C IV . P RA C . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 5 1 .0 1 4 (9 ) ( V e r n o n S u p p . 2 0 0 7 ). In a s in g le is s u e , M a r is a r g u e s t h a tt h e t r ia l c o u rt e r r e d b y n o t d is m is s in g A p p e lle e s ’ c la im s bec aus e Appel l ee s f ai l ed t o s erve hi m w i t h a n e xpe rtr epo rtco m pl yi ng w i t h t he
re q u i re m e n ts o f s e c ti o n 7 4 .3 5 1 o f th e c i v i l p ra c ti c e a n d re m e d i e s c o d e . S ee id . § 7 4 .3 5 1 (a ), (b ), (r )(6 ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 7 ). W e w i l l a ffir m .

II. F ACT UALAND P RO CEDU RA L B ACKGROUND A ppe l l ee s f i l ed t hei ror i gi nal pe t i t i on on O ct obe r12, 2004 , al l egi ng a hea l t h c ar e l i abi l i t y c l ai m ag ai ns tM ar i s, a phys i ci an’ s as si st antw ho w or ke d f or H i g h l a n d F a m i l yM e d i c a l C e n te r. A ppe l l ee s ave r r ed t hat M ar i s had r em ove d a 1 l e sion fr o m M e l i ss a H e n d ri c k s’s sc a l p i n O c to b e r 2 0 0 2 b u t fai l e d to se n d i t off f orap pr opr i at e pat hol ogi ca l ana l ys i s, “ t her ebyel i m i nat i ng a ny o pport uni t y f or [M e l i s s a ] to b e p ro p e rl y d i a g n o s e d a n d tre a te d fo r a m a l i g n a n t c o n d i ti o n .” M el i ss a s oughtt r ea t m entf ora si m i l arm as s t hatde vel ope d on hers ca l p a bout a y ea rl at er , w hi ch w as r em ove d by a di f f er ent phys i ci an, s entt o a pa t hol ogy l ab, and det er m i ned t o be “m al i gnan tand si gni f i cant l y pr ogr essed. ” M el i ssa3

s u b s e q u e n t lyu n d e r w e n t“ e x t e n s iv e r a d i c a l t r e a t m e n t ,” b u ts h e d ie d in Dec e m be r2004 . Th e partie s f i l ed m ul t i pl e expertr epor t s and m ot i ons t o di sm i ss. A p p e lle e s f ir s ta t t a c h e d t h e e x p e rtre p o rto fR h e t tK . F r e d r ic , M .D . t o t h e ir
o r ig in a l p e t it io n . T h e re p o rtd id n o tm e n t io n M a r is b yn a m e , b u t its e tf o rt h in parta chr onol ogy ofev ent s asev i den ce d byM el i ss a’ s m edi ca l r ec or ds , t he st andar d ofcar e appl i cabl e t o t he pr ocedu r e, how t he st andar d ofcar e had bee n br ea che d, an d a s t at em entofca us at i on. O n Novem ber21, 2005 , M ar i s f i l ed hi s f i r stm ot i on t o di sm i ssch al l eng i ng th e a d e q u a c yo f D r . F r e d ri c ’s e x p e rt re p o rt. S e eid . § 74 . 351( l). M a r is
c o n t e n d e d t h a tt h e r e p o rt d id n o t n a m e h im a n d t h a t D r . F r e d r ic t e s t if ie d in h is dep os i t i on on N ove m ber15, 2005 , “ t hathe i s no t q u a l i fi ed t o of f eran y opi ni ons ab outphy si ci an as si st ant s as he nev erw or ke d w i t h onean d doe s not k n o w the l a w .” O n J a n u a ry 1 3 , 2 0 0 6 , M a ri s fi l e d a s u p p l e m e n tal m o ti o n to di sm i ss w i t h at t ached excer pt s of D r . Fr edr i c’ s depo si t i on. A ppel l ees r espond ed t hatM ar i s had w ai ved any o bj ect i ons t o D r . Fr edr i c’ s r epor tf orf ai l i ng t o obj ect “n otl at ert han t he 21 da y a f t erth e d at e i tw ass erved ” and , al t er nat i vel y, st
r equ es t ed a t hi rt y- dayex t ens i on pu r su antt o s ec t i on 74. 351 ( c) t o c ur e a ny d e fi c i e n c y . S e eid . § 7 4 .3 5 1 (c ).4

The t r i al co urtco nduc t ed a hea r i ng on M ar i s’ s f i r stm ot i on t o di sm i sson Jan uary 18, 2006 , and f ound t hatD r . Fr edr i c’ s r epo rtw as“ i ns uf f i ci entast o” M a r i s b u tg r a n t e d Ap p e l l e e s a t h i rt y - d a ye x t e n s i o n t o c u r e t h e d e f i c i e n c y . On F e b r u a r y1 6 , 2 0 0 6 , A p p e lle e s f ile d a n o t h e re x p e rtre p o rts ig n e d b yD r . F r e d r ic t ha tn a m e d M a r i s . M a r i s c on c e de d du r i ng a r gu m e nti n a n Augu s t13, 2007 hea r i ng t hat “Dr . Fr edr i c’ s af f i dav i t w asco r r ec t ed and f i xed by t hen na m i ng m y c l i e n t a s - - b yn a m e . . . . H e w a s n a m e d i n th a t c o rre c ti n g a ffid a v i t . . . .” I ncl ude d w i t h Appel l ee s’ se con d su ppl em ent al r es pons e t o a r equ es tf or di s c l os ur e a nd d e s i gn a t i on o f e xp e rt s , w hi c h w a s f i l e d on J a nu a r y 17, 2006 , w as an expertr epor tf r om S unti S r i vat hanaku l , M . D . D r . Sr i vat hanaku l r eached t he sam e concl usi ons as D r . Fr edr i c r egar di ng t he appl i cabl e st andar d ofcar e, t he m ann eri n w hi ch t he ca r e p r ovi ded by M ar i s f ai l ed t o m ee t t hats t and ar d,
a n d th e c a u s a l re l a ti o n s h i p b e tw e e n th a t fa i l u re a n d M e l i s s a ’s d e a th . H o w e v e r, Dr . Sr i va t ha na k ul “ i m pl od e d ” d u ri n g hi s d e po s i t i on o n O c t ob e r30, 2006 , r e s u lt in g in A p p e lle e s ’ d e -d e s ig n a t in g h im a s a t e s t if y in g e x p e rts h o rt ly th e re a fte r. A ts om e p oi ntbe t w ee n Decem ber1, 2006 an d August13, 200 7 , t he t r i al court“r ul ed t hatD r . Fr edr i c coul d not t est i f y agai nstM ar i s due t o hi s l ack2 ... T h e re c o rd d o e s n o t c o n ta i n a n o rd e r s tri k i n g D r. F re d ri c a s a n e x p e rt

w i t ness. M ar i s di d, how ever , f i l e a m ot i on t o s tr i ke D r . Fr edr i c on D ecem ber 1, 200 6 , a nd M ar i s’ s cou ns el s t at ed atan A ugus t13, 2007 he ar i ng t hatt he t r i al co urtha d s t r uckD r . Fr edr i c as an exp ert , pr ohi bi t i ng hi m f r om “ t es t i f yi ng a s to s ta n d a rd o f c a re o r b re a c h o f d u tyo f c a re a s to [M a ri s ].” 5 o f q u a l i fi c a ti o n s .” T h e r e a f t e r , o n M a r c h 2 3 , 2 0 0 7 , t h e t r i a l c o u rt s i g n e d an 2
or dergr ant i ng A ppel l ees’ m ot i on f or l eave t o desi gnate new expert s. A ppel l ees f i l e d t he exp e rtr e p o rt s o fT e r r e n c e L e e M o o r e , M . D. a n d De n n i s De l a s i , P . A. O n M ay 29 , 20 07 , M ar i s f i l ed h i s second sect i on 7 4. 35 1 m ot i on t o di sm i ss, a rg u i n g i n p a rt th a t th e n e w e x p e r t r e p o rts o f D r. M o o re a n d p h y s i c i a n ’s assi st antD el asi w er e unti m el y and shou l d be di sm i ssed because t hey w er e f i l ed aft ert he exp i r at i on oft he se ct i on 74. 351 ( a) 120

- dayde adl i ne, w hi ch se ct i on 7 4 .3 5 1 (a ) p ro h i b i ts . S e eid . § 7 4 .3 5 1 (a ); see al so D anos v. Ritt

ger, No. 01- 06- 0 0 3 5 0 -C V , 2 0 0 7 W L 6 2 5 8 1 6 , a t * 3

– 4 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] M a r. 1 , 2 0 0 7 ), re v ’d, 2 0 0 8 W L1 1 7 2 1 8 3 (T e x . 2 0 0 8 ). O n A ugu st13 , 20 07 , at t he hear i ng on M ar i s’ s second m ot i on t o di sm i ss, M ar i s ar gued t hatA ppel l ees’ cl ai m s agai nsthi m shoul d be di sm i ssed because (1 ) “n o w th a t D r. F re d ri c h a s b e e n s tri c k e n fro m th i s m a tte r, h i s re p o rt obvi ousl y does not m eet th e s tan dar d und er74 . 35 1, ” ( 2) A ppel l ees dedes i gna t ed D r . Sri v a th a n ak ul asan ex pertw i t nes s, “ [ s] o t her ef or e, t he st andar d-o f

- car e r equi r em ent s as an opi ni on r egar di ng [ M ar i s] have not been3 ... See Danos , 2 0 0 7 W L6 2 5 8 1 6 , a t * 3

– 4 . 6 m e tt im e lyb yt h e p la in t if f s ,” a n d (3 ) t h e n e w e x p e rt r e p o rt s w e r e u n t im e ly
u n d e r D ano s . T h e t r ia l c o u rtd e n ie d M a r is ’s m o t io n t o d is m is s . Itis f r o m t h is 3 i nt er l ocutor y or dert hatM ar i s appeal s. III. S ECT I ON 74. 351 E XPERT R EPOR TS Li ke hi s ar gum ent s at t he A ugu st13 , 20 07 hear i ng, M ar i s cont ends t hat t het r i a l c ou rte r r e d byn otg r a nt i n g h i s m ot i on t o di s m i s s b e c a us e ( 1) “A p p e l l e e s s e rve d o n l yo n e rep o rti n side the 1 2 0 -da yd e a d l i n e tha t f a i l e d to
m e n ti o n M a ri s a n d tha t w a s from an ex p e rtw h o w a s u n q u a l i fi e d to te sti fy abo utt he st and ar d ofca r e f ora phys i ci an’ s as si stan t,” ( 2) A ppe l l ee s “f i l ed a second r epor tout si de th e [1 2 0 -day] deadl i ne by an exp ertw ho al so w as unqua l i f i ed t o of f er t he opi ni ons r ega r di ng t he st and ar d ofca r e a ppl i ca bl e t o” M a ri s, an d ( 3 ) “A p p e l l e e s’ atte m p t to e sc a p e d i sm i ss a l b yse rvi n g the rep o rt s oft w o new expert s m o re t han t w o year s pastt he deadl i ne i s notaut hor i zed

. . . .” M a ri s th u s a rg u e s th a t A p p e l l e e s fa i l e d to s e rv e a n e x p e rt re p o rt bec aus e t he onl y r epo rt s se r ved w er e n ot“ exp ertr epo rt s”asde f i ned by se ct i on 74. 351 ( r ) ( 6) . Appel l ee s r es pond i n pa rt t hatM ar i s w ai ved an y obj ec t i ons t o t he
su ffi c i e n c yo f t h e rep o rtb yfai l i n g to ti m e l yas se rtan o b j e c ti o n . W e ag ree w i th A ppel l ees.4 ... Th e l e gi s l a t ur e a m e nd e d s e c t i on 7 4 .3 5 1 i n 2005, a nd t he2005

chang es appl y as f ol l ow s: o n l yto a ca u se o f ac ti o n tha t ac c rue s o n o r a fter th e effe c ti v e d a te o f th i s A c t [ S e p te m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 5 ]. A n a c ti o n th a t a c c ru e d b e fo re th e effe c ti v e d a te o f th i s A c t i s g o v e rne d b y th e l a w ap p l i c a b l e to t he ac t i o n i mme d i a t e l y b e f o r e t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f t h i s Ac t , an d t hatl aw i s cont i nued i n ef f ectf ort hatpur pose. S ee A c to fMa y 1 8 , 2 0 0 5 , 7 9 t h L e g . , R . S . , c h . 6 3 5 , § 2 , 2 0 0 5 T e x . G e n . L a ws 1 5 9 0 , 1 5 9 0 ( c o d i fi e d at T EX . C IV . P RA C . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 74. 351 ( V er non 2 0 0 5 )) . B e c a u se A p p e l l e e s’ ca u se o f ac ti o n ac c rue d b e fo re th e effe c ti v e d a te oft hec ur r e ntv e r s i on o fs e c t i on 74. 351, t hef or m e rv e r s i on o fs e c t i on 74. 351 t hatw asef f ec t i ve f orcl ai m s f i l ed on or af t erSept em ber1, 2003 ap pl i es , an d a l l r e f e r e nc e s t o s e c t i on 74. 351 h e r e i n a r e t o t ha tv e r s i on of s e c t i on 74. 351. S ee A ctofJun e 2, 2003 , 78t h L eg. , R. S. , ch . 204 , § 10. 01, 2003 Tex. G en. L a w s 8 4 7 , 8 7 5 (am e n d e d 2 0 0 5 ) (cu rr e n t v e rsi o n a t T EX . C IV . P RA C . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 7 4 .3 5 1 (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 7 )).7 A . S t andar d ofRev i ew W e r evi ew a t r i al co urt ’ s ru l i n g on a m ot i on t o di sm i ssunde rs ec t i on 74. 351 f oran ab us e o fdi sc r et i on. A m . Transiti ona l Care C tr

s. of Tex. , I nc. v. Pal aci os , 46 S. W . 3d 873, 878 ( Tex. 2001 ) . A t r i al cou rtab us esi t s di sc r et i on
w hen i tac t s i n an ar bi t r ar y or unr ea so nab l e m ann er or w i t hout r ef er enc e t o a ny g u i d i n g ru l e s o r p ri n c i p l e s . D owner v. A quam ar

i ne Operators, I

nc. , 701 S. W . 2d 2 3 8 , 2 4 1

– 4 2 (T e x . 1 9 8 5 ), cert. denied, 4 7 6 U .S . 1 1 5 9 (1 9 8 6 ). B. Sect i on 74. 351 Requi r em ent s and St and ar ds 4 Ci vi l p r a c t i c e a nd r e m e di e s c od e s e c t i on 74. 351 pr ov i de s t ha t , w i t hi n 120 da y s o f fi l i ng s ui t , a pl ai nt i f fm us ts erve exp ertr epo rt s f orea ch phys i ci an or8

h e a l th c a re p ro v i d e r a g a i n s t w h o m a l i a b i l i tyc l a i m i s a s s e rte d . T EX . C IV . P RA C . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 7 4. 35 1( a) . A n “e x pertr epor t ” i s a w r i t t en r epor tby an exp ertt hatpr ovi desa f ai rs um m ary oft he exp ert ’ s opi ni ons r ega r di ng t he

“ a p p l i c a b l e s t and ar ds ofca r e, t he m ann eri n w hi ch t he ca r e r end er ed by t he physi ci an orheal t h car e pr ovi derf ai l ed t o m eet t he st andar ds, and t he causal
re l a ti o n s h i p b e tw e e n t h a t fa i l u re a n d th e i n j u ry , h a rm , o r d a m a g e s c l a i m e d .” Id . § 7 4 .3 5 1 (r)(6 ). “Each def endan tphysi ci an orheal t h car e pr ovi derw hose
c o n d u c t i s i m p l i c a ted i n a r e p o rt m us tf i le and s erve anyobj ec ti on to the
su ffi ci en c yo f th erep o rt not l at ert han t he 2 1stday af t er th e dat e i tw as ser ved, f ai l i ng w h ic h a ll o bj ect i ons ar e w ai ved. ” Id . § 7 4 .3 5 1 (a ) ( e m p h a s is
a d d e d ). “If a n e x p e rt r e p o r t h a s n o t b e e n s e rv e d w i th i n [1 2 0 d a y s ] because el em ents of

the repo rtare f

ound de f

i ci ent, t he cour tm ay gr antone 3 0- day ext ensi on t o t he cl ai m anti n or der to c ur e t he def i ci ency. ” Id . § 7 4. 35 1( c) ( em phasi s added) . I f , on t he ot herhand, a pl ai nt i f fdoes n o t ser ve a tim ely
e x p e rt rep o rt , th e tr i a l c o u rt , o n the m o ti o n o f t h e affe c ted p h y sici a n o r he a l th
ca r e p r ovi der , s hal l , s ubj ec tt o se ct i on 74. 351 ( c) , en t eran or derdi sm i ss i ng t he
c a s e w i th p rej u d i c e . Id . § 7 4 .3 5 1 (b ). A s st r essed by t he i t al i ci zed port i ons oft he st at ut e abov e , t her e i s a d i sti n c ti o n b e tw e e n a n a b se n t rep o rt a n d a re p o rttha t i s ti m e l yb u t de fi c i e n t,
w hi ch consequ ent l y af f e ct s t he appl i cabi l i t y oft he t w ent y- one dayw ai ver9

p ro v i s i o n i n s e c ti o n 7 4 .3 5 1 (a ). S e eOgle tre ev. Ma tth e ws , No. 06- 0502, 2007 W L 42 16 60 6, at *3 ( Tex . N ov. 30 , 20 07 ) ( “[ A ] def i ci entr epor tdi f f er s f r om an abs ent r epo rt . ”) . W hen a r epo rti s nots erved w i t hi n 120 daysaft ers ui ti s f i l ed, t he def end antm ay f i l e a m ot i on t o di sm i sst he ca se , an d t he t r i al cou rt hasno d i s c re ti o n b u t t o d i s m i s s th e c a s e . S ee T EX . C IV . P RA C . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 7 4 .3 5 1 (b ); Nexi

o n He a lth atO ak Manor , I nc. v. Brewer, 243 S. W . 3d 848, 851 ( Tex. A pp. — Tyl er2008 , no p et . ) . Sect i on 74. 351 ( b) doe s notco nt ai n a d e a d lin e b y w h ic h a d e f e n d a n tp h y s ic ia n o rh e a lt h c a r e p r o v id e rm u s tc o m p la in
a b o u t th e a b s e n t re p o rt. Po l a n d v. Gri g o re , 01- 07- 00197

- CV , 2008 W L 3 4 0 4 4 7 , a t * 9 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] F e b . 1 , 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t.). C ons equ ent l y, s ec t i on 74. 351 ( a) ’ s t w ent y- one da y obj ec t i on dea dl i ne doe s not
a p p l yto a n o b j e c ti o n to a n e x p e rt re p o rt b a s e d o n b e l a te d s e rv i c e . S e eid . C o n v e r s e l y , i f a r e p o rt h a s b e e n t i me l y s e r v e d b u t d o e s n o t meett he
s ta tu to ryd e fi n i ti o n o f a n “ e x p e rt re p o rt” b e c a u s e th e re p o r t h a s o n e o r m o re def i ci enc i esi n i t s con t ent s, t he t r i al cou rt m ay gr ant one t hi rt y- dayex t ens i on t o c ur e t he def i ci enc i es ; t hus , unl i ke s ec t i on 74. 351 ( b) , di sm i ss al f ol l ow i ng a def end ant ’ s m ot i on c om pl ai ni ng o f a de f i ci ent , butt i m el y, r epo rti s not
m a n d a to ry . S ee T EX . C IV . P RA C . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 74. 351( c ) , ( r ) ( 6) ;Pol and, 200 8 W L 340 447 , a t * 8 ; Th oyakul athu v. Brennan , 192 S. W . 3d 849, 853 ( Tex . A pp. — Tex ar kana 20 06 , no pet . ) ( “Secti on 7 4. 35 1( c) appl i es onl y w hen10

‘a n exp ertr epo rtha s notbe en se r ved w i t hi n’ t he 120

- daype r i od ‘ b e c ause el em ents of the repo rt have been f oun ddef

i ci ent . ’ Thi s cl ear l y r equi r es a t im e ly -s e r v e d re p o rtt h a tis d e f ic ie n t .” ) ( e m p h a s i s i n o r ig in a l). B yit s p la in la n g u a g e , s e c t io n 7 4 .3 5 1 (a )’ s re q u ir e m e n tt h a t a d e f e n d a n tw h o s e c o n d u c tis i m pl i cat ed i n a r epor tm ustf i l e and ser ve “any obj ect i on t o t he s u f f i ci en c y of th e rep o rtn o t l a ter tha n the 2 1 st d a yafte r th e d a te i t w a s se rve d ” a p p l i e s to
a n o b j e c ti o n b a se d o n th e su ffi c i e n c y( o r de fi c i e n c y ) o f a ti m e l y -se rve d rep o rt . T EX . C IV . P RA C . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 7 4 .3 5 1 (a ) (e m p h a s i s a d d e d ); Pol and, 2008 W L 340 447 , at *8 ( “[ T] he ‘ obj ec t i on t o t he su f f i ci enc y of t he r epo rt ’ i n . . . se ct i on 74. 351 ( a) m ea ns an obj ec t i on t o t he r epo rt ’ s su bs t anc e, no t t o t he ti m e l i n e s s o f i ts s e rv i c e .” ). C o n s e q u e n tl y , a d e fe n d a n t p h y s i c i a n o r h e a l th c a re pr ovi derw ho’ s con duc ti s i m pl i ca t ed i n a t i m el y- se r ve d re p ortm us tf i l e a nd
ser ve any obj ec t i on t o t he su f f i ci enc y oft he r epo rtnotl at ert han t w ent y- one days af t ert he r epor tw as served, “f ai l i ng w hi ch al l obj ect i ons ar e w ai ved. ” S ee T EX . C IV . P RA C . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 7 4 .3 5 1 (a ); s e e a l s o O gletree , 2 0 0 7 WL 4 2 1 6 6 0 6 , a t * 4

– 5 ; Penav. Methodi st Hea lthca re Sys . of

San Antoni

o, Ltd. , 22 0 S .W .3 d 5 2, 54 ( Tex . A pp. — S an A nt oni o 2 00 6, no pet . ) ( hol di ng t hat t w e n ty-o n e -da yp e ri o d for d e fen d a n t he a l th ca re p rov i d e r t o o b j e c t t o su f f i ci enc y ofr epo rtnott r i gge r ed unt i l cl ai m antha s f i l ed bot h t he r epo rtan d
a c u rri c u l u m v i ta e o f e a c h e x p e rt l i s te d i n re p o rt).11

C . A ny O bj ect i ons t o R eport ’ s Suff i ci ency W ai ved H er e, A ppe l l ee s se r ved D r . Fr edr i c’ s r epo rton M ar i s w hen t heyf i l ed and
ser ved t hei ror i gi nal pet i t i on on O ct ober12 , 20 04 . Because A ppel l ees served M ar i s w i t h a n e xpe rtr epo rtw i t hi n 120 daysoff i l i ng s ui t , t he r epo rtw asnot an absentr epor tnecessi t at i ng t he m andato ry di sm i ssal ofA ppel l ees’ cl ai m s. S ee T EX . C IV . P RA C . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 74. 351 ( b) . M ar i s’ s ar gum entt hatt he
r epor ti s no expertr epor tbecause i tdi d not speci f i cal l y n a m e hi m i s an obj ect i on and ar gum entdi r ect ed t o t he r epor t ’ s suf f i ci ency. Th e quest i on t hen i s w het herD r . Fr edr i c’ s al l ege d def i ci ent r epo rt i m pl i ca t ed M ar i s, t r i gge r i ng t he tw e n ty -o n e d a ys u f fi c i e n c yo b j e c ti o n d e a d l i n e o f s e c ti o n 7 4 .3 5 1 (a ). S e eid . § 7 4 .3 5 1 (a ). T h e re p o rt s e ts fo rth a c h ro n o l o g yo f e v e n ts a s e v i d e n c e d b yM e l i s s a ’s
m e d i c a l re c o rd s . I t s ta te d i n p a rt, Ther e a r e tw o di f f er entha nds de sc r i bi ng t hi s vi si tan d t he s u b s e q u e n ts u r g e r yo n O c t o b e r2 1 , p e r f o r m e d a tH ig h la n d F a m ily M edi ca l Cl i ni c a tw hi ch t i m e a 1 cm m as s l es i on w as r em ove d f r om M s. H end r i ck s’ s ca l p. Ther e i s no i ndi ca t i on i n t he r ec or ds t hatt he m a teri a l rem o v e d fr o m h e r sc a l p w a s e v e r s e n t for a p p rop ri a te pat hol ogi cal anal ysi s. D r . Fr edr i c o pi ned t hat th e “ st and ar d ofca r e i n t hi s ca ser equ i r ess ubm i ss i on ofal l t i ss ue r em ove d f r om pa t i ent s w ho p re s e n t w i t h a s of tt i ss ue m as s f or a p p ro p ri a te p a th o l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s .” H e a l s o o p i n e d th a t th e a p p l i c a b l e s ta n d a rd12

ofm edi cal car e had been b r eached f or“[ f ] ai l i ng t o subm i tt he t i ssue r em oved fr o m M s. H e n d ri c k s fo r a p p rop ri a te p a th o l o g i c a l an a l y sis” a n d for “[f] a i l i n g to d i a g n o s e a n d tre a t th e m a l i g n a n c y p r e s e n t i n M s . H e n d ri c k s ’[s] b o d y .” D r. Fr edr i c f urt herr ea so ned t hat “Hi ghl and Fam i l y M edi ca l C l i ni c, by and t hr ough t he ac t s and om i ss i ons ofi t s st af f , f ai l ed t o m ee tt he app l i ca bl e s t and ar d of
me d i c a l c a r e o rb r e a c h e d t h e a c c e p t a b l e s t a n d a r d o fmed i cal c a r e . ” He
c o n c l u d e d th a t th e “ fa i l u re to c o n fo rm to a c c e p ta b l e s ta n d a rd s o f m e d i c a l c a re pr oxi m at el y caused t he s u b s e q u entdi sabi l i t y exper i enced byM s. H endr i cks,
a n d u l tim a t e ly w i l l b e a p rox i m a te c a u se o f he r de a th fr o m m e tas tati c so ft t i ss ue sa r com a. ” M ar i s i s t he i ndi vi dua l w h o re m ove d t he i ni t i al cy stf r om M el i ss a’ s sc al p. W e d e te rm i n e th a t D r. F re d ri c ’s re p o rt s u fficie n tl yi m p l i c a te d M a ri s ’s
c o n d u c t. See Pal

aci os , 46 S. W . 3d at 876 –80 ( di sc us si ng pur pos e o fr equ i r i ng e x p e rt te s ti m o n ya n d re p o rt i n m e d i c a l m a l p ra c ti c e c a s e s a n d s ta ti n g th a t re p o rt
m ustf ul f i l l st at ut e’ s pur pose of i nf or m i ng defendantofspeci f i c condu ctcal l ed i nt o que st i on by pl ai nt i f f and pr ovi di ng a bas i s f or t r i al cou rt t o con cl u d e the cl ai m s have m er i t ) . M ar i s t hu s had t w ent y- one day s f r om t he dat e he w as se rve d w i th th e rep o rt

— o r u n ti l N o v e m b e r 2 , 2 0 0 4

— to as se rth i s o b j e c ti o n s to t h e r e p o rt , b u t h e d i d n o t f i l e h i s f i r s t mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s c o mp l ai ni ng oft he
r epor tunt i l N ovem ber21 , 20 05 , and hi s second m ot i on to d i sm i ss unt i l M ay5 ... T h e c a s e s th a t M a ri s re l i e s o n to s u p p o r t h i s a rg u m e n t th a t D r.

F r e d r ic ’s re p o rtw a s n o e x p e rt r e p o rt a r e a ll d is t in g u is h a b le o r in a p p o s it e , p a rt ly bec aus e e ac h oft he def end ant s i n t hose c a s e s fi l ed t i m el y obj ec t i ons t o t he re p o rts , u n l i k e M a ri s . S ee D a vi s v. Webb , No. 14- 07- 00331

- CV , 2008 W L 1 9 0 0 5 4 , a t * 1

– 4 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] J a n . 2 2 , 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t. h .) ( hol di ng t hat exp ert r epo rtofopt om et r i stw asno e xpe rtr epo rtbe ca us e o nl y a “ p h y s i c i a n ,” w h i c h d o e s n o t i n c l u d e a n o p to m e tri s t, m a y q u a l i fya s a n e x p e rt on t he i ss ue ofw het hera phys i ci an dep art ed f r om ac ce pt e d s ta nda r ds of m e d i c a l c a re ); Cu el

l a r v. W a rm Sp ri

ngsReh a b . F

o un d., No . 0 4

- 0 6

- 0 0 6 9 8

- CV , 2 0 0 7 W L 3 3 5 5 6 1 1 , a t * 1

– 3 (T e x . A p p .— S a n A n to n i o N o v . 1 4 , 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t.) ( hol di ng t hatt r i al court pr oper l y di sm i ssed sui t because exper tr epor t s ofnur se and M exi ca n- l i ce ns ed doc t or , ne i t her o f w hom w er e “ phys i ci ans , ” w er e n o re p o rts ); se e a l

soA us ti

n Heart , P. A . v. Webb , 2 2 8 S . W . 3 d 2 7 6 , 2 7 8 ( T ex. A p p .— A u s ti n 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t.) (d e fe n d a n t o b j e c te d to re p o rt); Si m ons on v. Keppard, 225 S . W . 3d 868, 870 ( Tex. A pp. — D al l as2007 , no pet . ) ( def end ant o b j e c te d to re p o rt). W e a r e a l s o m i ndf ul ofJus t i ce W i l l et t ’ s con cur r i ng op i ni on i n Ogletree o b s e r v i n g t h a t , i n a d d i t i o n t o a b s e n ta n d d e f i c i e n tr e p o rt s , t h e r e mi ght be a th i rd c a teg o ry o f e x p e rtrep o rt s th a t m e ri ts d i sm i ss a l j u st l i k e an ab se n t r e p o rt : “ a d o c u m e n ts o u t t e r ly la c k in g t h a t , n o m a t t e r h o w c h a r it a b lyv ie w e d , its im p ly canno tbe deem ed an ‘ expert r epor t ’ atal l , even a def i ci entone. ” S ee Ogletree , 200 7 W L 421660 6, at*6 ( W i l l et , J. , con cur r i ng) . D r . Fr edr i c’ s r epo rtdoe s not fa l l w i th i n th i s c l a s s i fi c a ti o n . 13 29 , 20 07 , m any days beyon d t he t w ent y- one- day dead l i ne. M ar i s’ s suf f i ci ency obj ect i on t o t he r epor tcoul d have been ur ged w i t hi n t he st at ut or y t w ent y- onedaype r i od. Bec aus e M ar i s di d not as se rthi s su f f i ci enc y obj ec t i ons w i t hi n t he tw e n ty -o n e -d a y p e ri o d , h e w a i v e d h i s o b j e c ti o n s . S eeT EX . C IV . P RA C . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 7 4 .3 5 1 (a ). see al so Ogletree , 2007 W L4216 606, a t*4–5 . 5 In l i g h t o f M a ri s ’s w a i v e r o f h i s s u ffi c i e n c y o b j e c ti o n s , th e tri a l c o u rt’s
su bs equ entde t er m i nati o n t hatD r . Fr edr i c’ s r epo rtw as“ i ns uf f i ci entast o”6 ... M ar i s ar gued att he A ugu st13 , 20 07 hear i ng on hi s m ot i on t o di sm i ss

th a t “ n o w th a t D r . F r e d []ri c h a s b e e n s tri c k e n fro m th i s m a tte r, h i s re p o rt obvi ousl y does not m eet t he st andar d und er 74 . 35 1. ” A nd M a ris a rgu es, “Because t he t r i al courtst r uck D r . Fr edr i c’ s r epor tas t o M ar i s[ , ] . . . A ppel l ees n e v e r s e rv e d a n ‘e x p e rt re p o rt’ a s d e fi n e d b yth e s ta tu te .”

7 ... S ee D aubertv. Mer rel l D owPhar

m s. , I nc. , 5 0 9 U .S . 5 7 9 , 1 1 3 S . C t. 2 7 8 6 (1 9 9 3 ). 14 M ar i s and i t s gr antt o A ppel l e e s ofa t hi rt y- day ext ensi on t o cur e t he al l eged def i ci ency w as super f l uou s and pr ocedu r al l y i ncon sequenti al , w hi ch A ppel l ees h a d a rg u e d to th e tri a l c o u rt. M o re o v e r, th e fi l i n g o f D r. S ri v a th a n a k u l ’s re p o rt af t ert he expi r at i on of t he 1 20

- day dead l i ne l i kew i se w as ofno ef f ectbecause A ppel l ees t i m el y ser ved D r . Fr edr i c’ s r epor ti m pl i cat i ng M ar i s and M ar i s w ai ved hi s su f f i ci enc y obj ec t i ons t o t he r epo rt . M ar i s’ s ar gum ent s r el yi ng on D ano s , w hi ch t he supr em e cou rt h a s r ever sed, and com pl ai ni ng of t he unti m el y f i l ed
n e w ex p e rtrep o rt s o f D r. M o o re a n d p h y sici a n ’s a ss i sta n t D e l a si a re i n a p p o sit e f ort he sam e r easons. M a ri s fu rth e r c o n te n d s th a t A p p e l l e e s fa i l e d to s e rv e a ti m e l yre p o rt
com pl yi ng w i t h t he r equ i r em ent s ofs ec t i on 74. 351 ( r ) ( 6) b e c a u s e, ha vi ng det er m i ned t hatD r . Fr edr i c “ cou l d nott es t i f y aga i ns t M ar i s due t o hi s l ac k o f qual i f i cat i ons, ” t he t r i al courtsubsequentl y st r uck D r . Fr edr i c f r om t est i f yi ng as an exper ton b e h a lf o fA ppel l ees. M ar i s conf uses a D a ub ert 6 m ot i on 7 chal l engi ng a t est i f yi ng expert w i t h a sect i on 7 4. 35 1- based m ot i on t o di sm i ss15

a h e a l th c a re l i a b i l i ty c l a i m . N o th i n g i n s e c ti o n 7 4 .3 5 1 p ro v i d e s th a t a n e x p e rt
r epor tm eet i ng t he st at ut e’ s r equi r em ent s i s i nval i dat ed i ft he exper tw ho si gned of fon t he r epor ti s subsequent l y st r uck pur suantt o a D a ub ert cha l l eng e , nor has M ar i s di r ect ed us t o any such aut hor i t y. M or eover , t he supr em e courthas
s ta te d th a t th e tri a l c o u rt’s i n q u i ryw h e n d e te rm i n i n g w h e th e r th e re p o rt
re p re s e n ts a g o o d fa i th e ffo rt to c o m p l y w i th th e d e fi n i ti o n o f a n e x p e rt re p o rt i n s e c ti o n 7 4 .3 5 1 (r)(6 ) i s l i m i te d to th e fo u r c o rn e rs o f th e re p o rt. Pal aci os , 46 S . W . 3d at87 8. M ar i s cannotr el y on excer pt s f r om deposi t i on t est i m ony taken l ong af t ert he f i l i ng of an adequ at e expert r epor t and al l egedl y est abl i shi ng t hat a desi gnated experti s not qual i f i ed t o pr ovi de exper tt est i m ony b ecause such
exc er pt s ar e n oti ncl ude d w i t hi n t he f ourco r ner s oft he r epo rt . Fi nal l y, ac ce pt i ng M ar i s’ s ar gum entw oul d be i nco ns i st entan d i nco ngr uo u s w i th t he goal s ofsect i on 7 4. 35 1 b ecause, a s M ar i s st at es i n hi s br i ef , “t he pur poses behi nd t he am endm ent s [ t o t he M edi cal Li abi l i t y A ct ] w er e, am ong ot hert hi ngs, t o r em ove unw ar r ant ed del ay and ex pen se , t o a cc el er at e t he di sp os i t i on ofnonm e ri to ri o u s c a s e s , a n d to g i v e h a rd -a n d -fa s t d e a d l i n e s fo r th e s e rv i n g o f e x p e rt
re p o rts .” M a ri s ’s a tte m p t to d i s p o s e w i th a n i n i ti a l d e te rm i n a ti o n th a t a n e x p e rt
r epo rts at i sf i esth e re q u i rem ent s ofs ec t i on 74. 351 aft era t r i al co urt ’ s r ul i ng
m ont hs o r y e a r s l a t e r t h a t t h e s a me e x p e rt wh o s p o n s o r e d t h e r e p o rt i s not16

qua l i f i ed t o t es t i f y a s an exp ert i s w hol l y i nco ns i st ent w i t h t he “p ur pos e” oft he
s ta tu te . W e h o l d th a t th e tri a l c o u rt d i d n o t a b u s e i ts d i s c re ti o n b yd e n y i n g M a ri s ’s
m o ti o n to d i s m i s s A p p e l l e e s ’ h e a l th c a re l i a b i l i tyc l a i m s . A c c o rd i n g l y , w e over r ul e M ar i s’ s sol e i ssue. I V . Concl us i on H a v i n g o v e rru l e d M a ri s ’s s o l e i s s u e , w e a f f i r m th e tri a l c o u rt’s i n te rl o c u to ryo rd e r d e n y i n g M a ri s ’s m o ti o n to d i s m i s s A p p e l l e e s ’ h e a l th c a re l i abi l i t y cl ai m s.

DI XON W . HOL M AN J U S T I C E PA N EL A : CA YC E, C. J. ; H O LM A N an d W A LKER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: M a y 1, 2008