This is one of three essentially identical opinions involving all the same issues. See 1 Thomas A. Rabatin, Individually and as Personal Represe ntative of the Estate of Maria Rabatin, Dec eased, Tony Chacon and A ndres Chacon v. G enaro Vazquez, M .D. , 0 8- 07 -0 01 38 -C V (Tex.App.--El Paso Oc tober 23, 2008, no pe t.h.) and Thomas A. Rabatin, Individually and as Personal Repre

sentative of the Estate of Maria Rabatin, Dec eased, Tony Chacon and A ndres Chacon v. J

oseph Kidd, M.D., Haroutioun Shahinian, M.D., and Neil Grieshop, M.D. , 08-07- 00137-CV (Te x .App.--E l Paso October 23, 2008, no pe t.h.). C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS
THOMAS A. RAB ATI

N, I NDIVI DUAL L Y AND A S PER SONAL REPR ESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MA RI A RABA TI

N, DECEASED, TONY CHACONAND AN DRES CHACON, Ap pe lla nts , v.
AL FON SO CHAVEZ , M.D., Appellee
. § § § § § § § § No . 0 8- 07 -0 01 39 -C V

Appea l from the County Court at L aw Numbe r Thre e of El Pa so County , T e xas (TC# 2007-1078)

O P I N I O N This is an appea l from a summary judgme nt based on the statute of limit ations of the Texas Medical L iability

Act. Appellants mailed the notice and medica l authorization form as 1
re qu ir e d to tol l th e statut e of lim itatio ns , b ut t

he a uth or izatio n f

or m w a s d e fe c tiv e . We re ve rs e and re mand. F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND Mari a Ra batin wa s a dmi tte d to Sie rr a

Me dic a l Ce nte r o n Jan

ua ry 4, 20 04 , b y

Dr . A lf on so Chavez. She passed a

way on J anuar

y 11, 2004, due to a pe rfor ated blood vesse l during the-2-

ins e rt ion of a c e ntr a l li ne . App e lla

nts se nt a no tic e le tte r w itha

me dic a l a

uth or izatio n f

or m to Dr. Gr ieshop on Octobe r 7, 2005. The a uthorization form ex cluded Dr . Chavez’s and a ll other doctors’ r ecor ds that were listed as havingtreated Mrs. Rabatin within a five -y ear period be fore the tr e atme nt t

hat w a s th e ba sis of

the c la im a

nd did no t g ive the date s o f t

re atme nt. Ap pe lla

nts sent notice letter s with medical authorizations forms to all defe ndants on Dec ember 29, 2005. This form ag ain excluded the doctor s’ re cords who ha d treated Mrs. Rabatin within five y ear s’ of the treatment that was the ba sis of the claim, did not g ive the date s of treatment, and did not provide who c ould acc ess the re cords. The medical a uthorization form acc ompanying the Dec ember

letter wa s held to be statutorily noncompliant by

the trial cour

t. Defe ndants argue that the me dic a l a

uth or izatio n f

or m se nt w iththe Oc tob e r n oti c e le tte r w a s li ke wi se statut or ily noncompliant. Howeve r, Dr. Shahinian’ s attorney was a ble to use the De cembe r medica l authorization form to obtain Mrs. Rabatin’s re cords f rom Sierra

Medica l Center. Appellants filed suit on Marc h 20, 2006, more than two year s’ af ter Mar ia Rabatin’s death. On June 8, 2006, Appellants provide d a statutory compliant medical r ecor ds authorization form. On July

13, 2006, the trial cour

t gr anted De fenda

nts’ motions t o abate for sixt y day s from the re ceipt of the compliant authorization form. The tria l court g rante d the Def endants’ motions fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt. Ap pe lla nts ra ise s thre e iss ue s o n a pp e a l. A pp e lla nts c on te nd

that th e tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d in g rantingthe motion for summary judgme nt beca

use the suit was timely

filed, the medic al authorization form violates the He alth Insuranc e Portability and Ac countability

Act of 1996 (H I PAA ), and

the re wa s a

g e nu ine iss ue of

mate ri a l f

a c t. DI SCU SSIO N-3-

In Appellants’ f

irst issue, they

argue that summary

judgme nt was improper ly g rante d beca use the statute of

limit ations was tolled. Summary judgme nt is reviewe d de novo to deter mine whether

a par ty ’s rig ht to prevail is established as a matter of la

w. Capitan Enterprises, Inc. v . Jack

son , 903 S.W .2d 772, 775 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1994, wr it denied). A defe ndant moving f

or summary

judgme nt on the aff

irmative def

ense of limit ations has the burde n to conclusively

establish that defe nse. Torres v. GSC Enterprises, Inc. , 242 S.W .3d 553, 561 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2007, no pet.) , citing KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison County Housing Finance Corp. , 988 S.W .2d 746, 748 (Tex. 1999). The de fenda nt must conclusively

prove when the ca use of a ction acc rued a

nd neg ate the disc overy

rule if it applies a

nd has bee n pled or otherwise r aised. Torres , 242 S.W .3d at 561. I f the movant e stablishes that the statute of l i m i t at i o n s b ar s th e a ct i o n , th e n o n -m o v an tmu s tth en ad d u ce s u m m ary

j u d gm en tp ro o f r ai s i n g a fac t issue in avoidance of the statutes of limitations. Id
. There is a two-y ear

statute of limitations on health care liability claims, which star

ts from the oc c ur re nc e of the br e a c h o r t or

t or fr om t he date the me dic a l or

he a lthc are tr e atme nt t

hat is the subject of the claim or the hospitalization for which the c laim is made is completed. T EX .C IV .P R AC .&R EM .C ODE ANN . § 74.251 (Ve rnon 2005). The medical liability statute’s notice pr ov isi on , in

pe rt ine nt p art s, state s: (a ) Any

pe rs on or his a uth or ize d a g e nt a sse rt inga he a lthc are lia

bil ity c la im shall g ive written notice of such c laim by cer tified mail, return r ece ipt reque sted, to eac h phy sician or he alth car e provide r ag ainst whom such claim is beingmade at least 60 day s befor e the f iling of a suit in any

court of this state based upon a health ca re liability

claim. The notice must be a c c omp anie d b y

the a uth or izatio n f

or m f or re le a se of

pr ote c te d h e a lth information as re quired unde r Section 74.052.

. . .-4-

(c) Notice g iven as provide d in this chapter sha ll toll the applica ble statute of limit ations to and includinga per iod of 75 day s following the g iving of the no tic e , a nd thi s to lli ngsh a ll a

pp ly to a ll p a rt ie s a nd po te nti a l pa

rt ie s. T EX .C IV .P R AC .&R EM .C ODE ANN . § 74.051(a) , (c)
. Se c tio n 7 4. 05 2 s tate s: (a) Notice of

a hea lth care claim under Section 74.051 must be acc ompanied by a me dic a l a

uth or izatio n in

the fo rm sp e c if ie d b y thi s se c tio n. F a ilure to pr ov ide thi s a

uth or izatio n a lon gwi th t

he no tic e of

he a lthc are c la im s ha ll abate all further

proce eding s ag ainst the phy sician or he alth car e provide r rec eivingthe notice until 60 day s following r ece ipt by the phy sician or health ca re pr ovider of the require d authorization. (b) I f the a

uthorization required by

this section is modi fied or r evoked, the phy sician or he alth car e provide r to whom the authorization has bee n g i v e ns h a l l h av e th e o p t i o nt o a b at e a l l f urth e r p r o c e e d i n g s un t i l 6 0 d ays following rec eipt of a r eplac ement author ization t hat must comply with the form spec ified by

this section. T EX .C IV .P R AC .&R EM .C ODE ANN . § 74.052(a) , (b). Appellants ar g ue that the statute of limit ations was tolled by their sendingof a notice letter to Dr. G reishop on Oc tober 7, 2005 a nd to the other doc tors on Dec ember 29, 2005. Appellee argues that the attached me dical author ization form was defe ctive, and a s such, Ap pe lla nts c ou ld n ot r e c e ive the be ne fi t of tol lin gthe statut e of

lim itatio ns . Statutory construction dema

nds that we c arr

y out the “collec tive” leg islative intent or purpose. State v. Sanche

z , 135 S.W .3d 698, 699 (Tex.App.--Da llas 2003), aff’d , 138 S.W .3d 324 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004). We look first to the langua g e in the statutory text
. Lexington Ins. Co. v. Stray ho rn , 209 S.W .3d 83, 85 (Tex. 2006). We rely on the plain meaningof the text unless such a construc tion leads to absurd re sults. City of Rockwall v. Hughes , 246 S.W .3d 621, 625-26 (Tex. 2008). When a statute is unambiguous, it is i nappropr iate to re sort to rules of c onstruction-5-

or extrinsic aids to construe the languag e. Id . at 626. In construingleg islative intent, we may consider, inter

alia, the leg islative history , former statutory provisions, and the conse quence s of a particula r construc tion. Sid

es v . G ue v ara , 247 S.W .3d 293, 297 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2007, no pet.), citing Helena Chem ical Co. v. W ilkins , 4 7 S. W.3 d 4 86 , 4 93 (T e x. 20 01 ); T EX .G OV ’ T C ODE ANN . § 311.023 (Ve rnon 2005). T h e Legi s l ature ’s p urp o s e i nre qu i ri n g n o t i ce i na m ed i ca l l i ab i l i ty s u i ti s t o en co ura ge pre- suit neg otiations, settlement, and reduc e litigation costs. Hi ll v . R us se ll , 247 S.W .3d 356, 360 (Tex.App.--Austin 2008, no pet.), citing De Chec a v. Diagnostic Ctr. Hosp., Inc. , 852 S.W .2d 935, 938 (Tex. 1993). We are cog nizant of the holding in Hi ll v . R us se ll , which stated
on ly the no tic e le tte r i s r e qu ir e d to tol l th e statut e of lim itatio ns , b ut d o n ot a g re e wi th t his
rea ding of

the statute. Se e id . The pre vious statute require d only a notice le tter be se nt to rece ive the bene fit of the tolling statute. T EX .R EV .C IV .S TAT .ANN . art. 4590i, § 4.01(a ),(c ), repeale d by Act of June 2, 2003, 78th L eg . R.S., C h. 204, § 10.09, 2003 T EX .G EN .L AWS 84 7, 88 4. Ar tic le 4590i was re place d eff

ective Septe mber 1, 2003, with Section 74.051, and the L eg islature adde d the medica l authorization requireme nt to the notice sec tion. See T EX .C IV .P R AC .&R EM .C ODE ANN . § 74.051(a)
. In th is c a se , App e lla

nts se nt a no tic e le tte r a

nd a a uth or izatio n f

or m to Dr . G ri e sh op in October and to all the def

endants in De cembe r. Howe ver, the authorization forms excluded the do c tor s’ re c or ds wh o h a d tr e ate d h e r w ith in f ive y e ars of

the tr e atme nt l ist e d a s f

or min gthe ba sis of the c laim including Dr . Chavez, who had a dmitted her into the hospital, and the De cembe r form also ha d blank spac es as to who c ould acc ess the re cords. Ye t, Dr. Shahinian’s c ounsel was able to obtain re cords f

rom Sierra

Medica l Center on his beha lf using the Dec emberAp pe lla nts pr aye d f

or a c on so lid atio n o f t

he ir c a us e s o f a c tio n a g a ins t a ll A pp e lle e s into 2 Cause No. 2006- 1296 in County Court at L aw Numbe r Thre e, this reque st should be made to the trial court upon r emand. -6- a u th o r i z at i o nf

o r m . T h e s t atu t e c l e ar l y r e qu i r e s th atth e n o t i c e mu s tb e a c c o mp an i e d b y a medical a uthorization form in order to toll the limi tations period, which did happe n here
. T EX .C IV .P R AC .&R EM .C ODE ANN . § 74.051(a) , (c) . When notice is sent to any health ca re provider w ithin two y ear s of the cla im’s acc rual, the limitations period for a ll defenda nts is tol led for se venty -five da

y s. See D e Chec a , 8 52 S.W. 2d at 93 8; T EX .C IV .P R AC .&R EM .C ODE ANN . § 74.051(c) . Tolling the statute of limit ations when a

notice letter

and medica l authorization fo rm , a lbe it a

imp ro pe rl y

fi lle d o ut f

or m, g ive s f a ir wa rn ingof a c la im a nd an o pp or tun ity to abate the proc eeding s for ne g otiations and evaluation of the claim, which c arr ies out the L eg islature’s intent in ena ctingthe statute. Se e Hi ll , 247 S.W .3d at 360. We h old the no tic e le tte r s e nt w iththe me dic a l a uth or izatio n f

or m on Oc tob e r 7 , 2 00 5 to Dr
. Gr i es h o p wa s s u ff

i ci en tt o t o l l th e s t atu t e o f l i m i t at i o n s as t o al l th e d ef en d an t s th ro u gh constructive notice while the De cembe r 29, 2005 letter a nd authorization form provided a ctual notice to all the def

endants. T EX .C IV .P R AC .&R EM .C ODE ANN . § 74.051(c) ; Se e als o De Chec a , 85 2 S. W.2 d at 93 8. Ap pe lla nts ’ I ssu e On e is s us ta ine d, and a s su c h, we ne e d n ot a dd re ss Ap pe lla nts ’ r e ma ini ngtw o is su e s. Havingsustained Appellants’ I ssue One, w e re verse and re mand the ca se to the trial cour t fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s. 2 October 23, 2008 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice Be fo re C h ew , C
. J
. , M cC l ure , J
. , an d Ab l es , J u d ge Ab le s, Judg e (S itt ingby

As signme nt)