### NUM BER 13-08- 0038 6-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
RA YM OND R. “TREY ” FULP, I II , D.O . A ND C OL U M B IA

R IO G RA N D E H EA L T H C A R E, L .P ., D/B /A R IO GR A ND E R EGION A L HOS PITA L, A pp ellan ts,

v . ROB ERTM ILL ER, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 70t h Dist rict C ou rt o f H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas . 

## O P I N I O N B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza , a n d V el a

Op in io n b y

J u st ic e Ga rza Appel lan ts, R ay mond R . F ulp II I, D. O. and Col umbia Ri o Gr ande Hea lt hcare, L. P. d/b /a Rio Grand e Regional Hospita l (the “H o s pital”), app eal a jud gmen t den y ing their moti ons to di smi ss a h e a lt h c a re l iab il it y cl aim filed by

appel lee , R ober

t M il ler

. By

one issue, Fulp argues thatthe trial court ab used its discretion in den y ing his mo tion to dismissM i l l er has not f i l ed a n ap pel l ee’ s br i efi n t hi s case. 1 R e q u e n e s w a s n o n - s u ite d a n d is n o t a p a r ty t o th is a p p e a l. 2 2 becau se Mi ll er

did not timel y

submit ex per

t repor ts that compl ied w it h the r eq uirements of
sec ti on 74. 351 of the ci v il pr act ic e and re medies code. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 74.351 (V er non Supp. 2008)

. In addi ti on, the Hos pit al cont ends by one i ss ue th at the t ri al cour

t abu sed it s d is creti on i n deny ing i ts m o ti on to di smi ss bec ause Mi ll er fail ed to s er v e a c opy

of his ex per

t re por ts on the H ospi tal ’s att or ney i n c harg e. W e r ev erse and

1
re mand for proceed ing s c onsi ste nt w it h thi s o pin ion

. I. F A CT UA L A ND P ROC EDURA L B A CKGRO UND On D ecember

20, 2007, Mi ll er

fil ed hi s o rigin a l peti ti on as ser ti ng v ar iou s medi cal
ma lpractice claim s against Fulp , the Hosp ital, an d an esth esiologist Daniel Requen es, M.D. Specif ically , Mill er took issue w ith an elective hip rev ision surgery performe d by F ulp 2 on N ov ember

18, 2005. Mill er w as adm itted to th e Hospita l on Novembe r 10, 20 05, due to an inju ry to his ri g ht hi p. Acc ordin g to his or ig ina l peti ti on, M il ler su ff er ed c ompli cat ion s from the No v e mb e r

1 8 , 2 0 0 5 s u rg e r

y p e r fo r me d b y

F u l p , i n c l u d i n g a c u t e r e n a l fa i l u r e , pos toperati v e s hock , pos t- operati v e hemor rh ag icanemi a, de hy dr ati on, p u lmonar y co ll apse, and i atrog eni c h y potens ion

. These c ompli cat ion s req uired an extens iv e s tay i n the int ensi v e c ar e uni t and su bseq uent medic al care. After he was d isc h a rg ed from t he Hos pit al, M il ler

r emaine d on bed restfor tw o months. H e not ic ed th at “ [h]i s r ig ht l eg w as exter nal ly

rotate d and m ar kedl y sh orter than the left l eg w it h a v er y l imi ted rang e of moti on.” As a res ult , M il ler r emaine d i n F ulp ’s ca re for a n addi ti onal three month s. D ur ing this time , Fulp too k x -ray s of Mil ler’s leg . Mi ller alleged that he repe ate dly informe d Fulp3

of his consta nt pain and thathis conditio n ha d no t impro v ed since the surgery . How ever, Fulp “reassure d Plaint if f [Miller] tha t ‘everything w as f ine’ an d tha t Plaintif f w ould be ab le to w alk ag ain .” In Se pte mb er 2 0 0 6 , Miller sought a seco nd o pinion f rom a not her orth ope dic
surg eon. After

thi s c onsul tati on, M il le r was tol d tha t he needed a s econd hi p rev is ion beca use x-rays rev eale d the “hip prosthe sis coming throu gh the fem ur and the pro sthe sis
w as floati ng w it hin the thi g h.” M il ler w as als o tol d tha t “ the fil ms s how ed th at t he i nteg ri ty of the w ires hol din g the femur tog ether w as poor” and that “t he w ires had i ndeed b ro ken in the i nter

v eni ng per iod and the p ro sth esi s w as totally lo o se .” M il ler al leg ed th at he “i ncur re d addi ti onal ex pense s for medic al care, endured phy si cal pai n[,] as w ell as mental ang uis h, pe rmane nt i mpair ment, and di sabi li ty

. . . .” On Jan uary 16 , 200 8, atto rney Ste v en Gon z alez f iled an orig inal an sw er on be half of the H ospi tal deny ing M il ler ’s al leg ati ons. O n J anuar y 25, 2008, Ful p fil ed hi s o ri g ina l answer denying all of

Mil ler’s allegations. On Ap ril 18, 200 8, Miller f iled not ice of his ex pert
re por ts w it h F ulp ’s co unsel and John R. Ly d e, c ounse l for th e H ospi tal i n an unr ela ted medic al malpract ic e s uit

. In hi s n oti ce, M il ler att ached the ex per

t repor ts of Jett a M . Brow n, M. D. , C ind y

M il ler , R .N ., and G re g or y S. Gol dsmi th, M. D. On A pr il 25, 2008, Ful p fil ed obj ect ion s t o M il ler ’s ex per t repor ts and a moti on to dis mis s. See i

d. § 74 .351( b)

. In hi s fil ing , F ulp al leg ed th at t he ex per t re p o rt s f a ile d to: (1 ) setforth the appl icab le s ta n dard of care; ( 2) i denti fy the a ll eg ed breach by F ulp ; and (3) identif

y and ex plain “any cau sal link between an y alleged brea ches a nd th e Plaint if f ’s compl ain ed of i nju ri es. ” Subs eq uentl y , on Ma y 8, 2008, the Ho spi tal fil ed i ts moti on to dis mis s, all eg ing that

M il ler had faile d to ti mely

se rv e an ex per

t repor t and curr ic ulu m v it ae4

on i ts attor ney

i n c harg e w it hin the 120- day ti me frame pr esc ri bed by se cti on 74. 351( a) of the c iv il pract ic e and re medies co de. See i d. §§ 7 4.351( a) , ( b)

. On M ay 27, 2008, the t ri al cour t c onduc ted a hear ing on F ulp ’s objec ti ons and moti on to dis mis s and the Hos pit al’ s mot ion to dis mis s. Al so on M ay 27, 2008, Mi ll er

fil ed
a respon se to F ulp ’s obj ect ion s a nd moti on to dis mis s. In thi s fil ing , M il ler , for the first ti me, inc lud ed Go nz ale zi n the ce rt ific ate o f ser v ic e. The tr ial co urt den ied F ulp ’s obj ect ion s a nd moti on to dismi ss on June 2, 20 08, a nd th e H ospi tal ’s moti on to di smi ss on J une 6, 2008. This appeal ens ued. II. S TA TE M ENT OF J URI S DI CT I ON Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuan t to section 51.01 4(a)(9) of the T exas Ci v il Pr act ic e and Remedi es Cod e. Id. § 51 .014( a) (9 ) (V er non 200 8)

. Sect ion 51. 0 1 4 (a )( 9) per mits the appeal of an i nter loc utor y order from a dis tr ic t cou rt o rd e r that “ deni es all or part of the relief

sought by a motio n un der Se ction 7 4.3 51(b ) . . . .” Id.

III . S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW W e rev iew

a t ri al cour

t’ s d eci si on to di smi ss a c ase pursuantto sec ti on 74. 351 of the c iv il pract ic e and re medies co de unde r an abus e of d isc re ti on s tandard. S e e A m. Tr ansiti onal Car e Ct rs . of T ex. , Inc. v. Pal

aci os , 46 S. W .3d 873 , 877 -78 (Te x . 200 1). The tr ial co urt abu ses i ts dis creti on i f it act ed ar bit ra ri ly or u n re a so n a bly

w it hout re ferenc e to any g uid ing r ule s or pr inc ipl es w hen it deni es a m oti on for dismi ss al and sanc ti ons. See W alk er v. Gut ier re z , 111 S.W .3d 56, 62 ( Tex . 200 3) ; Strom v. Mem ’ l Herm ann Hosp. Sys. , 110 S. W .3d 2 16, 2 20 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 3, pe t. deni ed)

. III . F ULP ’ S M OT I ON TO D I SM I SS By his sole issue o n ap pea l, Fulp asserts tha t the t rial court abu sed its discretio n in5

deny ing hi s mot ion to dis mis s b ecaus e M il ler fail ed to ti mely

se rv e ex per

t reports that compl ied w it h s ect ion 74.3 51. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74 .35 1(a), (r)( 6). Spec ific all y , Ful p arg ues that: (1 ) Brow n and Ci ndy ar e not q ual ified to render opi nio ns as to Fulp’s liability; ( 2) Goldsm ith’s expert report failed to set forth the ap prop riate stan dard of care; an d (3) Go ldsm ith’s expert re port failed to esta blish causa tion. In add ition, Fulp cont end s thatthe trial court ab used its discretion in ref using to award him at torne y ’s fe es. a. A pp licab le L aw Sect ion 74.3 51 of the ci v il pract ic e and r emedie s c ode prov ide s, in re lev ant p art, that: (a ) In a heal th car e lia bil it y clai m, a cl aimantshall , not l ater than the 120th day

after the date the o ri g ina l peti ti on w as filed , s er v e on each par

ty or the par ty ’s att or ney

one or m or e ex per

t repor ts, w it h a cur ri cul um v it ae of each ex per

t l is ted i n the r epor

t for eac h p h ysician or heal th c ar e prov ide r ag ain st w hom a l iab il it y cl aim is as ser

ted.

. . . (b) If , as to a def end ant p hysici an or h ealth ca re p rov ider, an ex pert re por t has not been ser

v ed w it hin the per iod speci fied bySubs ect ion ( a) , t he court, on the mot ion of

the af fecte d ph y sician or hea lth care provider, shall, subj ectto Subs ect ion ( c) , ent er an o rd er

that : (1 ) aw ards to t h e a ff ect ed phy si ci an or heal th c ar e prov ide r re asona ble att or ney ’s fees and co sts of cou rt i ncur re d by the phy si ci an or

heal th c ar e prov ide r; and (2 ) di s mi s s es th e c l ai m w i th r es pe c t to th e ph y s i c i an or he al th care prov i de r , w i th p r ej ud i c e to t he r efi l i ng o f t he c l ai m. (c ) If an ex per

t repor t has not been s er

v ed w it hin the per iod sp eci fied by Subs ect ion ( a ) b e cause el ements of the repor t are found defic ien t, the cour t may g ra nt on e 30- day

extens ion to the c lai mant i n o rd e r to c u re the defici ency . If th e c lai mant doe s n ot recei v e not ic e of the cour t’ s r uli ng g ra nti ng the extens ion unti l after the 120- day deadl ine has pas sed, then the 30- day extens ion sh all r un from t he dat e the pl ain ti ff first re cei v ed not ic e.

. . . .6 ( l ) A court shall grant a mo tion ch allenging the ad equacy of an expert re por t onl y i f it appears t o the co urt, after hear in g, that t he repor t doe s n ot re p re se n t an obj ect iv e g ood fait h effort t o c omply w it h the defini ti on of an expert report in Su bsect ion (r)( 6).

. . . . (r )( 6) “Ex per

t repor t” m eans a w ri tten r epor t byan ex per

t t hat p ro v ide s a fair su mmary

of the e x per

t’ s o pin ion s a s o f t he dat e of the re por t reg ardin g appl ic abl e s tandards of c ar e, the manner in w hic h the care re nder ed by the phy si ci an or

heal th c ar e prov ide r fail ed to m eet the s tandards, and the c ausal re lat ion shi p betw een t he fail ur e and the i nju ry , har m, or damag es cl aimed. Id. § 74. 351( a) -( c) , ( l ), (r )(6). Generall y , an ex per

t repor t’ s a deq uacy

does not depend on w hether the ex per

t us es any particu lar “magical w ords.” W indso r v. M

axwell , 121 S.W .3d 42, 48 (Tex. App. –Fort W o rt h 20 0 3 , p e t. de n ie d ) (ci ti n g Bowie Me m’ l Ho sp. v. Wrigh t , 7 9 S

. W

. 3 d 4 8 , 5 3 (T e x. 2002) ). A re por

t i s s uff ici e n t if

i t “ cont ain s i nformati on s ummari z ing and ex pla ini ng the
causa l relat ionsh ip bet w een t he doct or’s f ailure to me et the app licable sta nda rds of care and the pla intif

f ’s injury .” Id. (cit in g Bow ie , 79 S.W .3d a t 53)

. The ex per t mus t ex pla in the basi s o f “hi s s tatement s” l ink ing “ his co ncl usi ons” to the fact s. S e e E a r le v . R a tl if f , 998 S.W .3d 882 , 890 (Tex. 1999 ). Moreover, a “fa ir summ ary ” is “some thing less than a f ull state me nt” of

the ap plicable stand ard of care, ho w

it was brea ched , and how tha t breach
ca u se d t h e i nju ry . Spitz er v. Berry , 2 4 7 S

. W

. 3 d 7 4 7 , 7 5 0 ( Te x . A p p . – Ty l e r 2 0 0 8 , p e t. d e n ie d ) (qu o ti n g Pal

aci os , 46 S.W .3d a t 880 ). “N onethel ess , ‘a f air su mmary

mustse t out
w hat care w as expecte d, bu t notg iv en’ a nd h ow tha t cause d the injury .” Id. ( q uoti ng Pal aci os , 46 S.W .3d a t 880 ). In Pal aci os , t he Tex as Supreme C our t s tated that : [t] he i ss ue for the t rial co urt i s w hether ‘ the repor

t’ r epr esent s a g ood- faith effort t o c omply

w it h the st atuto ry

def initi on of an ex per

t repor t.

. . . That7

def inition requires, as to each def end ant , a fair summ aryof the expert’s opin ions ab out the ap plicable stand ard of care, the ma nne r in w hich th e care failed to mee t tha t stan dard , and the cau sal relation ship be tw een thatfailure and the claim ed inju ry. B e c ause the sta tute focuse s on w hat the rep ort dis cus ses , t he onl y

i nformati on rele v ant t o the i nq uir y i s w it hin the four cor ners o f the doc ument. 46 S. W .3d a t 878 ( int er nal ci tati ons omit ted)

. An expe rt repor t nee d notmarshal al l the pla int iff’s p ro of, but i t mus t inc lud e the ex per t’ s opi nio n on each of the el ements i denti fied in the s tatut e i n order

to re pr esenta g ood- faith e ff ort. Id. ; se e Spitzer , 247 S.W .3d a t 751

. Add itiona lly , the su prem e court fashio ned a t w o-pa rt inquiryfor rev iew ing ex pert rep orts. Palacios , 46 S.W .3d at8 79

. “ F i rs t, t he r ep or t mu s t i nfo r m t he d efe nd an t of t he s pecific cond uct th e p la intif

f has called into question . Secon d, an d equally imp ortan t, the report
mu st provide a basis for the trial cou rt to conclu de th at th e claims h ave merit.” Id. b. Discus sion At t he out set , w e address Fu lp’ s a rg uments as to the q ual ific ati ons of Brow n and Cindy to op ine on Fulp’s liability . N e it h e r Brown’s nor Cindy ’s ex pert rep orts specif ically anal y z e the st andard of ca re , breach of the s tandard of care, or ca usat ion as to Ful p. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74. 351( r) (6 ). As M il ler st a te d i n hi s A pr il 18, 2008 expert report not ice, bot h Brown’s an d Cindy’s expert reports ad dresse d “the n eglig ence of Defend ant COLUMBIA RIO GRANDE HEALT CHARE [sic], L.P. d/b / a RIO GRANDE REGIONAL HOSPIT AL . . . .” Only G oldsm ith’s expert report referen ces Fulp w ith respe ct to t he es sent ial el ements del ine ated in sec ti on 74.351( r) (6 )— sta ndard of car e, breach of the s tandard of care, an d c ausat ion

. See i d. Becau se ne ither Brown’s no r Ci ndy’s ex pert
re por ts re ferenc e F ulp w it h respec t t o the se cti on 74. 351( r) (6 ) ele ments , we n eed not add ress Fulp’s argumen t as t o B ro w n’s and Cindy ’s q ualif ication s to opin e on Fulp’sFul p do es no t chal l enge G ol dsm i t h’ s qua l i f i cat i ons t o r enderan opi ni on i n t hi s case. 3 8 li abi li ty

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .1. Inst ead , w e w ill focus o n the ade quacy of Goldsm ith’s
e xp e rtre p o rtin a d d re s s in g F u lp ’s li a b il it y. 3 In hi s e xpe rtrep o rt , G o ld sm it h no te d th e fo llo wing: 2. A pplica ble Standar ds of C are Relating to R ay R. Fulp, III, M.D. The st andard of care for orthopedi c t re atment of the pos t- cl osed redu ction o f the rig ht hip of Mr. Mill er on and af ter Novembe r 10, 20 05 would ind ic ate fur th e r non- operati v e treatment and ev alu ati on. After the c los ed re duct ion procedu re , a pati ent [ of] Mr . M il ler ’s ag e and other m e d ical cond i t i o n s s h o u l d h a v e b e e n fo l l o w e d w i t h r e c o mm e n d a t i o n s o f re s t r i cte d act iv it y to re duce the r is k o f f urther di sl ocat ion . There is no d ocument ati on of or imag ing st udi es that show the hip di slo ca ti o n w as due t o c omponent malpos it ion

. To deter mine if the componen ts ar e mal posi tio ned, imag ing s t u d ie s s h o u ld h a ve b e e n d o n e p ri o r to s u rg e ry. T h is wa s a n e l e c t ive procedu re , and D r. F ulp sh oul d hav e proceed ed w it h appro p ri ate i mag ing stu die s a nd obtain [ed] ol d reco rd s. Ther e i s n o doc umentati on th at s urg ic al re v is ion and re pla cementof the f emora l prost hesi s w as indi cat ed, and it w as a v iolation of

the ap plicable stan dard of med ical practice to und ertake such procedu re on N ov ember 18, 2005. The pati ent shoul d hav e been infor med of the t echni cal di ff ic ult y and compl ic ati ons of revisi ng the w ell -fix ed c omponents as w ell as g iv en a prog nosi s a nd non- operati v e treatment opti on. Dr. Fu lp h a d to cutand spl itthe femur to re mov e the ex is ti ng prost hesi s a nd th e procedu re he u nder took and compl eted re su lt e d i n an unst abl e, pa inful , and dete ri or ati ng j oin t. It w as further

the mini mum sta ndard of m e d ica l care for D r. F ulp to follo w thi s p ati ent c los ely

pos t- surg er

y and ins ur e that his re cons tr uct ed and cabl ed femur w as g ro w ing bac k t og ether a n d wa s strong enoug h to w it hst and his w eig ht dur ing ambula ti on. As re flect ed by the x -ray s t aken by Dr . F ulp on F ebr uar

y 8, 2006, Ma rc h 14, 2006, and Apr il 4, 2006, and as re f le c t e d b y h is p ro gr e s s n o t e s o f t h e s a m e d a t e s , Dr

. Fu lp fa il e d t o p e rc e ive that the condi ti on of t he femur and femoral prost hesi s w as deter iorati ng and he fail ed to under

tak e cor re cti v e surg er

y to pr ev ent further

des tr uct ion and det erioration of

the f em ur. Furthe r, it w as the st and ard of ca re f or Dr. F ulp to intervene to rep air the fail ing prost hesi s and f emur cond it ion or, as did Dr . Ba ss et on Sept ember9

21, 2 006, to refer t he pat ien t t o anot her su rg eon w it h the ex p e rience and abi li ty to addr ess the failu re , such as Dr . C hr is tens en. Dr . F ulp breache d the stan dard s of

care by his failure to e ither inte rv ene or refe r. Causa l Connection Betw een Brea ch of Standard and Inj ury to Patie nt As a resul t of breach of the s tandard of care by D r. Fulp as dis cus sed abo v e, Mr. Mi ller sustaine d the followi ng injuries/dam ages: 1. Inabi li ty

to w alk

w it hout ass is tanc e for 18 month s p ost
s u rg ic a ll y; 2. Add itiona l med ical ex pen ses; 3. Pai n and mental ang uis h; 4. Extensiv e an d pe rman ent bon e loss of t he great er trocha nte r; and 5. Fut ur e medi cal ex pense s rela ted t o the r ig ht hi p. Ful p’s pr imar

y co mplai nts as to Gol dsmi th’ s e x per t repo rt i s t hat G old smi th fail ed to s et forth the a ppl ic abl e s tandard of care and that Gol dsmi th di d notes tabl is h the ca usal li nk betw een F ulp ’s a lle ged breac hes of the s tandard of care and the i nju ri es Mi ll er sus tai ned. In his ex per

t repor t, Gol dsmi th w as not req uired to m arshal all of the ev ide nce Mi ll er e xp e c t e d t o p re s e n ta tt ri a l, a n d G o ld s m it h wa s re qu ir e d o n ly t o p ro vid e a “f a ir su m m a ry” of the req uired el ements

. See Bow ie , 7 9 S. W .3 d a t 52 (cit in g Pal aci os , 46 S. W .3d at 878 ); see als o Spitzer

, 247 S.W .3d at 750. It is cl ear from Mi ll er ’s ple adi ng s that he to ok is sue
w ith: (1) the Novemb er 18, 2 005 elective surg erycond ucte d by Fulp; and (2) Fulp’s failure to int er v ene or re fer him to another spec ial is t after his hip fail ed to heal proper ly foll ow ing the elective surg ery . Contrary to Fulp’s con ten tions, Goldsm ith’s expert report ad equate ly set s for th t he s tandard of care per tai nin g to Ful p and how thatst andard of

ca re w as br eache d. How ev er , w e agree w it h Fulp ’s contenti on that Golds mith fail ed to es tabl is h a
caus al li nk betw een Ful p’s all eg ed breache s o f the s tandard of care and the i nju ri es Mi ll er10

sus tai ned. The Tex as Supreme Cou rt has hel d tha t an ex per t repor t “ canno t merely

st ate t he expert’s conclusion s abo ut th ese e lem ent s. . . . Rathe r, th e expert m ust explain the basis of his statem ent to link h is c onclu sions to the f acts.” Bow ie , 79 S. W .3d at 52. Becau se he fail ed to l ink

hi s c oncl usi ons to the fact s, Gol dsmi th’ s c oncl usor y st atements aboutthe injuries a n d d a m ages Mill er sustain ed followi ng Fulp’s alleged breach es of the sta nda rd of care do not suff ice to establish the explanat ion of the cau sation requirem ent for expert
re por ts. See Winds or

, 1 2 1 S. W .3 d at49 (cit in g Rat li ff , 998 S.W .2d a t 890 ( noti ng thatthe expert mu st explain the b asis of “his statem e n t s ” linking “ his conclu sions” to th e facts)). Mo re ov er , w e are prec lud ed f ro m fill ing gaps in a repor t by draw ing i nferenc es or

g uess ing
as to w hat t he ex per

t l ik ely m e a n t or i ntended

. Se e Aus ti n Hear t P. A. v . Webb , 228 S.W .3d 2 76, 2 79 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 2007, no p et.) ; Bow ie , 79 S. W .3d at 53 (“Th e repo rt must inc lud e the req uired informati on w it hin its four cor ners.” ). As a resul t, w e c oncl ude that Gol dsmi th’ s ex per

t re por t is defici ent as to the caus ati on el ement; therefore, the t ri al court ab used its discretion in de nying Fulp’s mot ion to dismiss. Accord in gl y, we sustain Ful p’s so le is sue on appe al. c. O pp or

tu ni ty t o Cu re The Supreme C our

t of T ex as has rec entl y

hel d tha t, w hen el ements of a ti mely fil ed expert report are foun d ad equate by the trial court but ruled def icient by a cou rt of app eals, one thir ty -d ay ex tens ion to cure the r epor t may be g ra nted by

the tr ial co urt upo n r emand,
ev en i f the or ig ina l 120- day per iod for fil ing su ch a repor t has ex pired. Lel

and v . Br andal , 257 S.W .3d 2 04, 2 06- 07 ( Tex . 200 8) ; see T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74 .35 1(c). Acc ordin g ly , bec ause w e hav e concl uded that Gol dsmi th’ s ex per t repor t i s d efici ent a s t o11

t h e ca u s a t io n e le m e n t , itis fo r t h e t ri a l c o u rt t o d e t e rm in e wh e t h e r t o g ra n tMi ll e r o n e t h irt yday extens ion to file a compl ian t ex per t repor t. See Le lan d , 257 S.W .3d 2 04, 2 06- 08; see also T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74. 351( c) ( sta ti ng that, “ [i ]f the c lai mant doe s n ot
re cei v e not ic e of

the cour t’ s rul ing granti ng the extens ion until after the 120- day

deadl ine has pass ed, t hen t he 30- day extens ion sh all r un from t he dat e the plai nti ff first re cei v ed th e noti ce” ). Fur ther more, bec ause Mi ll er may be e nti tl e d to one t hir

ty -d ay extens ion pursuant to s ect ion 74.3 51( c) , F ulp i s n ot en ti tl ed to an a w ard of atto rn ey ’s fees und er se cti on 74.351( b) of the c iv il pract ic e and re medies co de atthi s sta g e. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74. 351( b) ( prov idi ng thata he alt h c ar e prov ide r is enti tl ed to , among othe r things, att orne y ’s fe es subject to sect ion 74 .35 1(c )’s thirty-day ex ten sion provision); se e als o C ri tes v. C oll ins , 215 S .W .3d 9 24, 9 27 (Te x . App .–Dallas 2 007 , pet . f iled) (holding, in a heal th c ar e l iab il it y

cl aim, that“if a defendant is not enti tl ed to dismi ss al w it h preju dic e, iti s a ls o notenti tl ed to r eason abl e att or ney ’s fees and co sts ”)

. IV. T H E H O S P IT AL ’ S M OT I ON TO D I SM I SS By i ts sol e i ss ue on appeal , t he H ospit a l arg ues that the t ri al cour t abu sed it s discretion in denying its mo tion to dism iss beca use Mi ller failed to time ly serv e his expert
re por ts on th e H ospi tal ’s att or ney i n c harg e. W e ag re e. 1. S ta nd ard o f Rev iew The r uli ng under

r ev iew w it h r espec t t o the H ospi tal co ncer ns a purely l eg al is sue:
w het her the Hospital w as served in accorda nce wi th section 74.35 1(a). W e revi ew such q uest ion s of law

de n ov o. See Uni v. of Tex. Health S ci. C tr . at Houston v

. G utier re z , 237 S.W .3d 8 69, 871 (Tex

. App.–H oust on [1s t D is t.] 2007, pet. deni ed) ; see a lso Buck v. Blum ,12

130 S .W .3 d 285, 290 (Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2004, no p et.) ( noti ng thatto the
extent that the resol uti on of an i ss ue re q uires an int er pr etati on of t he heal th c ar e l iab il it y sta tute, a de nov o s tandard appl ies ); Ponc e v. El Paso Hea lt hcar e Sys ., Ltd. , 55 S.W .3d 34, 36 (Te x . App .–E l Paso 20 01, pet. den ied) (same ). 2. Disc ussi on Sect ion 74.3 51 does not define t he te rm “s er v e.” T h e re fore, w e mustl ook to t he Cod e C onst ru cti on Ac t for g uid ance. See Her re ra v. Seton N w. Hosp. , 212 S.W .3d 4 52, 459 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 2006, no p et.)

. The Co de C onst ru cti on Ac t s tates that“ ‘w ords and p h ra s e s t h a th a ve a c qu ir e d a t e c h n i c a l o r p a rt ic u la r m e a n in g, wh e t h e r b y le gi s la t ive def inition o r otherwi se, sha ll be constru ed a ccordingly .’” Id. (qu o ti n g T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. § 311. 011( b) ( Ver non 200 5) ). “ Serve” and “s er v ed” hav e di sti nctand famili ar l eg al meanin g s w it hin the cont ext of the ru les of ci v il procedu re . Id. (cit in g T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 21a ). Gi v en the appl ic abi li ty of t he ru les of c iv il procedu re to heal th c ar e l iab il it y cl aims , see T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74. 002 ( Ver non 2005) , and the u se of “s er v e” and “s er

v ed” in the s tatut e, w e ag re e w it h our si ste r cour

ts that the L eg is lat ur e i ntended for c lai mants to com ply w ith rule 21 a requ ireme nts to f ulf ill the requirem ent s of section 74.3 51(a ). Guti er re z , 2 3 7 S. W .3 d a t 8 7 2 (cit in g Herrera , 212 S.W .3d a t 459 ; Ken drick v. Garcia , 171 S.W .3d 698 , 703 -04 (Te x . App .–E astlan d 20 05, pet. den ied)). As re cog niz ed by

the Guti er re z c o u rt , “ [ t ] h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n i s s u p p o rt e d b y a l e g is la t ive ch a n ge t h a t re p la ce d th e w o rd ‘f u rn ish ’ with ‘se rve’ ” ba se d on th e fo llo wing: Pr ior to the e nact ment of C hapter 74, medic al- li abi li ty

cl aims w er e g ov er ned by ar ti cl e 4590i of t he Tex as Rev is ed Ci v il Stat utes , w hic h re q uired a heal thcare- li abi li ty

cl aimantto furni sh an ex per t repor t w it hin 180 day s a fter t he cl aim w as filed

. T EX
. R EV
. C IV
. S T AT
. A NN
. art. 4590i , § 13.01( d) , repealed by Actof 2003, 78th Leg ., R. S., ch. 204, § 10 .09, 20 0 3 T e x. Gen. Law s 8 84.13

W hen t he l eg is lat ur e repeal ed ar ti cl e 4590i i n 2003 and ena cte d Cha pter 74, itr epla ced the w ord “ furni sh” w it h the ter m “ ser v e.” W e presume that the L e gi s la t u re e n a c t e d t h e s t a t u t o ry c h a n ge wit h kn o wle d ge o f e xis t in g l a w. See Herrera , 2 1 2 S. W .3 d at45 9 (cit in g A c k e r v . T e x . W a te r C o mm ’n , 790 S.W .2d 2 99, 3 01 (Tex

. 1990) (“ A sta tute is pr esumed to hav e been enact ed by the leg is lat ur e w it h c omplet e k now ledge o f the ex is ti ng l aw

and w it h re ferenc e to it .” )) . Therefore , w e may al so pr esume it s a w ar eness of the me anin g atta ched to the w ord “serv e.” Id. 237 S. W .3d a t 872

. Rule 21 a au tho riz es the followi ng four me tho ds for se rv ice upo n a party: (1) delivery in person, by

ag ent, or

by co urier- re cei pted del iv er y ; ( 2) ce rt ified or

r eg is ter ed mai l; ( 3) tel ephoni c d ocumenttrans fer; or (4 ) suc h other manner as the cour

t i n i ts dis creti on may direct

. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 21a. In addi ti on, t he par ty or att or ney of re cord mustce rt ify

to the
cour t c ompli ance w it h thi s r ule i n w ri ti ng ov er si g nature and on th e fil ed i nst ru ment. Id. Here, M il ler

se rv ed Ly de w it h c opi es of his ex per t repor ts in a manner

co nsi ste nt
w it h r ule 21a. See i

d. H ow ev er , t he record demons tr ates that Gonz ale z , notLy de, fil ed the H ospi tal ’s or ig ina l answ er to Mi ll er ’s peti ti on on J anuar y 16, 2008, thus co nst it uti ng the Hospita l’s first app eara nce in th is case. Once again, chapte r 74 is not clear as to exactly
w ho a party mu st serv e; sect ion 74 .35 1(a) me rely provi des th at a claim ant must serv e his expert re ports on th e “party or the party’s atto rney.” T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74. 351 (a). Sect ion 74 .00 1(b) state s that“[a ] n y l e ga l term or w ord of art used in this chap ter, not o ther w ise defined in thi s c hapter , s hal l hav e s uch meanin g as i s c onsi ste nt w it h the
com mo n law .” Id. § 74.0 01(b ) ( Verno n 20 05). Beca use th e rules of civ il procedu re app ly to he alt h c ar e l iab il it y

cl aims , see id. § 7 4

. 0 0 2 , a n d b e c a u s e se ve ra l T e xa s co u rt s h a ve already co ncl uded t hat rul e 21a g ov er ns ser v ic e in health ca re l iab il it y cl aims , w e c oncl udeT he r ecor d do es no t r ef l ect t hat Ly de o r any ot her at t or ney r epr esent ed t he Hospi t al i n t hi s case. 4 14 the l e gisl a tu re i ntended al so for r ule 8, a c oroll ar y to ru le 21a’ s s er

v ic e req uirements , t o appl y to heal th c ar e l iab il it y

cl aims

. See Morin v. Boecker , 1 2 2 S

. W

. 3 d 9 1 1 , 9 1 4 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, no pet.) (h old ing that“ w hen a par ty i s repr esent ed by

co unsel
w ho h a s ma d e a n a p p e a r a n c e , r u l e s 8 a n d 2 1 a r e q u i r e t h a t a l l c o mm u n i c a t i o n s be s ent to t h e p a rt y’s a tt o rn e y”) (cit in g Brune io v. Brune io , 8 9 0 S

. W

. 2 d 1 5 0 , 1 5 5 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 1994, no w ri t) (“ [The] rul es sug g estthat . . . notic e . . . [be] se nt t o the attor ney i n c harg e if the part y

is represent ed, or to t he par ty hi msel f if pro se .” )) ; see a lso Prest wo o d

v. S e ttle , No

. 0 3 -0 7 -0 0 1 1 1 -C V , 2 0 0 8 T e x. A p p . L E XI S 1 4 5 8 , a t*9 n . 5 (T e x. App.–A ust in Feb. 28, 2008, pet. filed ) (n oti ng thatthere w as no di sput e tha t r ule 8 of the
ru les of ci v il procedu re r eq uired th at ex per t repor ts in a he a lt h c a re l iabil it y cl aim to be
ser v ed on the a ttor ney in charg e therefore impl ic it ly co ncl udi ng thatr ule 8 ap pli es to he alt h
care l iab il it y

cl aims ); Mc Inty

re v. R am ir

ez , 109 S.W .3d 741, 745 ( Tex . 200 3) ( sta ti ng that , in cons tr uin g a s tatute, “ o u r p rim ar y obj ect iv e i s t o det er mine and g iv e effectto the L e gisl a tu re ’s in te n t” ) (qu o ti n g Nat ’ l Lia b. & Fi

re Ins

. Co. v. Al

len , 1 5 S

. W

. 3 d 5 2 5 , 5 2 7 (T e x. 2000) ). In t he presentca se, Gonz ale zw as the a ttor n e y i n c harg e bec ause he made the Hos pit al’ s i nit ial appearance. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 8

. As su c h , Mi ll e r wa s re qu ir e d t o se rve 4 Go n z ale zw it h the ex per t repor ts in acc ordance w it h r ule s 8 and 21a. See i d. ; s ee a lso T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 21a . As Miller a dm itted a t the hea ring on th e Hospita l’s motion to dism iss, he f ail ed to serv e Gonz ale zw it h his ex per t repor ts w it hin the 120- day

deadl ine pr esc ri bed in sec ti on 74. 351( a)

. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN . § 74.351( a)

. Ins tead, M il ler
ser v ed hi s e x per

t repor ts on Ly de under the a ss umpti on th at Ly de repr esent ed th e H ospi tal15

in th is c ase, ev en th oug h he act ual ly r epr esent ed th e H ospi tal i n an unr ela ted medi cal
ma lpractice case

. Clearly , Mill er failed to comp ly w ith rule 8 an d, in turn , did no t com ply
w it h s ect ion 74.3 51( a)

. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 8; see als o T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74. 351( a)

. W e the re fore c oncl ude that the tr ial cour t abuse d it s dis creti on in deny ing the Hospita l’s motion to dism iss. Section 74. 351 (b) requires tha t the trial court dismiss Miller’ s cl aims as to the Hos pit al w it h prej udi ce and aw ard the H ospi tal att or ney ’s fees and co sts of cour t. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C O DE
. § 74.351( b)

. Acc ordin g ly , w e s ust ain the Hospita l’s sole issue on ap pea l.

V. H E NRI CHS ON ’ S M OT I ON TO D I S MI S S F OR L A CK OF J URI S DI CT I ON In hi s appel lat e br ief, Ful p named Mi ll er ’s couns el, Pr est on Hen ri chs on, a s a par ty to t he appe al. O n D ecember 1, 2008 , Hen ri chs on fil ed a moti on to di smi ss for l ack of jur is dic ti on. In hi s mot ion , H enr ic hson notes thatthi s C our t doe s n ot hav e j ur is dic ti on ov er him becau se he w as not a par ty to the u nder ly ing proceed ing s. In his r espon se, Fulp re li es heav il y on t he prev iou s v ersi on of the medic al li abi li ty ac t, former

ar ti cl e 4590i , s ect ion 1 3 .0 1( e)

. See Ac t of M ay 5, 1995, 74th Leg ., R. S., ch. 140, § 13 .01( e) , 199 5 Tex . G en. Law s 9 85, 9 86 ( former T E X R EV
. C IV
. S T AT
. art. 4590i , § 13.01( e) ), repe aled by Act of June 2, 20 03, 7 8th L eg ., R. S., ch. 204, § 10.09, 2003 Tex . G en. L aw s 8 47, 8 84. For mer sec ti on 13. 01(e ) prov ided thatif an ex pert rep ort is not tim ely f iled or a p h ys ic ia n o r health care provider is not v olun tarily non -suited , the court sha ll: enter an or der aw ar din g as sa nct ion s a g ain st the cla i ma n t o r t h e cla i ma n t ’s attor ney : (1 ) the rea sonab le atto rn ey ’s f ees and cost s of cour t i ncur re d by

that defendant; (2) th e f orfeiture of

any cost bond respectin g the claiman t’s claim16 ag ain st the defendant to the extent neces sar y to pay the aw ard; an d (3 ) the d is mis sal of the a cti on of t he cl aimantag ain st that defendant with preju d ice to th e cla im ’s re f ili n g. Id. ( emphasi s a dded)

. How ev er , t he cor re spond ing sec ti on of t he cur re nt v ersi on of the medic al li abi li ty

ac t, sec ti on 74. 351( b) , doe s n ot pro v ide thatthe aff ect ed phy si ci an or heal th car e prov ide r may obtain attor ney ’s f ees from the cl aimant ’s att or ney . See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74. 351 (b) (Verno n S u p p . 2 0 0 8); se e al so Scho tt v. Lei

ss ner , 659 S. W .2d 7 52, 7 54 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1983, w ri t ref’d n. r. e.) ( “W hen t he leg is lat ur e amends a l aw , i t i s p re sumed that iti ntends to c h a n ge th e l aw .” ); Cr ites , 215 S.W .3d a t 927

. Fu lp al so re li es on th e San Antoni o C our t of Appea ls ’ deci si on i n Loe ffler v. Lytle Indepen dent Scho ol Di str ic t, to suppo rthi s c ontent ion thatH enr ic hson shou ld be l iab le for attor ney ’s fees co ncur re ntl y w it h M il ler

. See 211 S .W .3d 3 31, 3 48 (Te x . App .–S an An ton io 2006, pet. deni ed)

. How ev er , t he Lyt le cour t, in addr ess ing a de cl ar ator y j udg ment ac ti on involv ing dispute d prop erty, stated tha t the t rial cou rt has the discretion to aw ard att orne y ’s fees as a s anct ion w hen a par ty fil es a c lai m thati s g ro u n d le ss , broug ht i n bad faith, or broug ht for

the pur pose of haras sment. Id. In our rev iew of the re cord, w e c annot say that Mi ll er ’s su itw as bro ug ht in bad f ait h, groundl ess , or brou g ht for the pur pose of haras sment. Therefor e, F ulp has not prov ide d any re lev ant a uthor it y j ust ify ing hi s c ontent ion that Hen ri chs on s houl d al so be li abl e for at tor ney ’s fees. F urther more, w e not e tha t H enr ic hson
w as nev er

a named par

ty i n the tr ial co urt proceed ing ; F ulp mer ely named H enr ic hson a par ty on t he c ov er

of his appel lat e br ief i n order to ensure tha t at tor ney ’s fees w oul d be paid . Moreover, F ulp’s no tice of app eal na me d on ly

Mil ler as app ellee. Becau se17

Hen ri chs on w as nev e r a p a rty to the p ro ceedi ng s a nd w as not i ncl uded i n the noti ce of appeal , w e g ra nt hi s mot ion to dis mis s for l ack of jur is dic ti on. VI. C ONCL US I ON Base d on the for eg oin g , w e rev erse the o rd ers o f the tri al cour t deny ing F ulp ’s and the H ospi tal ’s moti ons to di smi ss . W it h respec t t o F ulp , we re m a n d f or the tr ial co urt t o det ermin e w het her to grant Miller one thirty -day exten sion to f ile a com pliant ex pert rep ort
as re q uired by

the ci v il pract ic e and re me d ie s co d e . See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 74. 351( a) , ( c) , Lel and , 2 5 7 S

. W

. 3 d a t2 0 6 -0 8

. W it h re s p e c tt o t h e H o s p i t a l, we re mand for the t ri al cour t to dismi ss Mil ler ’s case ag ain st the Hos pit al w it h preju dic e and
ass ess r eason abl e att or ney ’s fees and co sts of cour t ag ain st Mi ll er

i n ac cordance w it h
sec ti on 74. 351( b) of the c iv il pract ic e and re medies co de. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74 .35 1(b).

DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Opinio n de liv ered and f iled this the 2 2nd day

of Janua ry , 200 9.