i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 40 8- CV Ra ul AR I ZPE , I ndividually , and Alver a D. Ar izpe, I ndividually

and as Guardia

n of L inda Diane Arizpe, Ap pe lla nts
v . Geor g e WI LC OX , M.D., Carrie Cooper, M.D., a nd Vijay Kodali, M.D., Appellee s Fr om the 57th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2006 CI08843 Honora ble J anet L ittlejohn, J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: April 28, 2010 REVERSED AND REMANDED Raul Arizpe, i n d i v i d u ally , and Alver a D. Ar izpe, indivi dually and as Guardia

n of L inda D ia n e A r iz p e , a

p p e a l t h e tr ia l c o u rt’ s o r d e r

g r an ti n g th e mo ti o n s to d is mi s s f il e d b y G e o r g e Wi lc o x, M. D., Car

ri e Coo pe r, M. D. , a

nd Vi jay Ko da li, M. D. Th e Ar izpe s c on te nd the tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d in dismiss ing the ir hea lth care liability claims bec ause the y timely serve d their expert re port within 12004

- 09

- 00 40 8- CV

- 2- day s after

they filed t h ei r ame nded orig inal petition adding Wilcox, C ooper, a nd Kodali as de fe nd ants . We re ve rs e the tr ia l c ourt ’s or de r a nd re mand the c a us e fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s. B ACKG ROUND This is th e s e c o n d a

p p e a l r e g ar d in g an e xp e rt r e p o rt inv o lv in g th e A r iz p e s , Wi lc ox , and Cooper. See Coope r v. Arizpe , No. 04 -0 7- 00 73 4- CV , 200 8 WL 94 04 90 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio Apr. 9, 2008, pe t. denied) ( Arizpe I ). Th e fa c tua l and pr ior pr oc e dura l ba c kg ro un d is de ta iled in A r iz p e I
. Se e id . at *1. In Arizpe I , this court held the expert re port with reg ard to Wilcox and Cooper wa s deficie nt beca use “the entire s t an d ar d of ca re a nd brea ch ther eof [was] continge nt on the ED [emerg ency

depar t m en t ] ch ar t and Dr . Skeete’ s prog ress notes be ing inc luded in the floor char t and ava ilable for r eview by Cooper and Wilcox.” Id . at *4. The ex pert re port stated that the ED cha rt and Dr . Skeete’ s notes “shoul d h av e b ee n ” wi t h the floor c hart. Id . at *3. We held the repor t was def icient bec ause the assumption that the ED char t a nd Dr. Skeete’ s notes wer e with the floor chart m ade the expert’s opinion, based on this assumpti on, speculative. Id . at *4. B eca use the tr ia l c ourt c ou ld g ra

nt an e xten sio n of tim e to c ur e the de fi c ie nc y , h ow e ve r, we re mand e d th e c a us e to the trial court f

or fur ther proc eeding s. Id . at *5. On re mand, the Ar izpes filed an amende d motion for extension of tim e to cur e their e x pert
re po rt . T he mot ion

no te d th e pr oc e dura l hi sto ry of the c a se , in c lud inga

qu otatio n f

ro m Arizpe I reg ardingthe def

iciency this court held t o ex ist. The motion requested a n extension t o cure the defic iency

our cour t held to exi st in Arizpe I an d n o t ed that the Arizpes had a lrea dy serve d the de fe nd ants wi th a

n a dd e nd um r e po rt
. Wil cox, Cooper, a

nd Kodali ea ch filed a

second motion to dismis s. I n her motion, Cooper
asser ted the Ari z p es did not tim ely serve their expert re port. Althoug h Cooper conc eded that the04

- 09

- 00 40 8- CV

- 3- e xpe rt re po rt wa s se rv e d w ith in 120 da y s af te r the a me nd e d pe tit ion wa s file d ad din g Coo pe r as a defe n d an t, Cooper ar g ued the e x pert re port was r equire d to be serve d within 120 day s after the
or ig ina l pe tit ion

wa s f ile d. I n a dd iti on to re qu e sti ng the tr ia l c ourt to gra nt h e r m oti on

to d ism iss , Coo pe r a lso ass ert e d th a t th e tr ia l c ourt sh ou ld d e ny

the e xten sio n to c ur e the de fi c ie nc y be c a us e Cooper should have been na med in the orig inal petition, and the Arizpes’ lac k of dilige nce in naming h e r i n t h e o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n s h o u l d n o t b e r e w a r d e d b y g r an t i n g a d i s c r e t i o n ar y e xt e n s i o n . I n h is motion, W ilcox asser

ted the same basis for dismissing the la wsuit, i.e., the repor

t w as untimely , and
a lso a sse rt e d the same op po sit ion to t he tr ia l c ourt

g ra nti ng the e xten sio n. I n h is m oti on , K od a li o nly soug ht a dismissal based on the re port beinguntimely filed. Al mos t one month af

te r fi lin g he r s e c on d mo tio n to dis mis s, Coo pe r f ile d a su pp le me nt t o her se cond motion to dism iss. The supplem ent does not asse rt any additional g rounds for a dismiss al, but s i m p l y

states, “Pursuant to Te x as Rules of Civil P roce dure 193.7, D efe ndant Dr. Coo pe r g ive s n oti c e to a ll p art ie s th a t th e do c ume nts pr od uc e d by any

pa rt y to t his c a se in r e sp on se to written discover

y in this case will be used in a ny pretria l proce eding s or at the tria l of this case.” The supplement further state s, “De fenda nt Dr. Cooper spe cifica lly supplements her Sec ond Motion t o Di s m i s s p en d i n g o nt h e C o u rt ’s d o ck et wi t ht h e f o l l o wi n g: 1. Report of Joseph Varon, M.D. dated J une 28, 2007; 2. Report of Joseph Varon, M.D. dated August 31, 2008; 3. Ex cer

pted deposition testimony of Jos eph Va

ron, M.D. date d October

10, 2008; 4. Corresponde nce be tween Plaintiffs’ c ounsel and Joseph Varon, M.D.; 5
. Coo

pe r v [. ] Arizpe , 2008 WL 940490 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008); and 6
. Me tho dis t Cha rlton Me dic al C e nte r v [. ] Ste e le , 2[74] S.W .3d 47 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008).” I n their re sponse t o the motions to di smiss, t he Ar izpes asserted that the e x pert re port was timely serve d within 120 day s after the amended petit ion was filed. The Ar izpes further r esponded04

- 09

- 00 40 8- CV

- 4- that th e y ame nd e d th e ir

pe tit ion to a dd the c la ims a g a ins t Coo pe r and Wilc ox wi thi n th e a pp lic a ble statute of limit ations period and nothing require d them to name Cooper a nd Wil cox in t he orig inal pe tit ion . T he tr ia l c ourt

sig ne d a n o rd e r a s f

oll ow s:

I N TE R PR ET A TIO N O F T R I A L C OURT ’ S O R D ER Be fore addre ssing the merits of the issues raise d on appea l, we must first examine the trial court’s ruling
. Cooper argues that the order does not state the rea sons f or the dismissal; therefor e, in t he a bs e nc e of fi nd ing s o f f

a c t and c on c lus ion s o f l aw, Coo pe r pos its that w e mus t a ff ir m “ un le ss this Court can imag ine no leg al theory on which the or der c an be suppor ted by the implied rec ord in this case.” Coope r ar g ues that t he burden on the Ariz pes i s “to disprove e very leg al theory

that04

- 09

- 00 40 8- CV

- 5- a re asonable jurist could have a pplied to support the trial co u rt’s orde r.” We disag ree for se vera l
re a so ns . First, we construe the trial court’ s order as g rantingthe motions to dismiss without ruling on the Ar izpe s’ mot ion

fo r e xten sio n o f t ime . I f t he tr ia l co urt had int e nd e d to de ny the Ar izpe s’ mot ion , th e tr ia l c ourt

wo uld sim ply have str ic ke n thro ug h the ty pe wr itt e n “ GR

AN TE D” in i te m 1 and inserte d the word “ DENI ED” a s it did for each of the ot her rulings. I nstead, the trial court struc k throug h the entire ty

pewr itten ruling a

nd made no indication as to whether it would have grante d or denied the motion. B eca use the g rantingof the motions to dism iss disposed of the c ase, the trial
c o u rtr i g h t l y d e t e r

m i n e d t h a ta r u l i n g o nt h e m o t i o nf

o r e x t e n s i o n

o f t i m e w a s n o tn e c e s s ar

y. We also disag ree with Cooper’s asse rtion that the Arizpes’ b u rd en would be to disprove
ever y leg al theory that could pot entially support the t rial court’s order
. I n this contex t, the scope of
a pp e llate re vie w fr om a tri a l court ’s or de r that gr ants a mot ion to d ism iss wi tho ut s tatin g the sp e c if ic g ro un d o n w hic h the or de r wa s g ra nte d is limite d to the argume nts ra ise d in the mot ion

to d ism iss
. Se e, e .g ., Gu illau mev . Ci ty of G re e nv ill e , 247 S.W .3d 457, 465 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.); Nic ho ls v . S

e da lc o Co ns tr. Se rv

s. , 228 S.W .3d 341, 342-43 (Tex. A pp.—Waco 2007, pet. denied) ; W illiams v. Nealon , 199 S.W .3d 46 2 , 4 6 4 -65 (Tex . App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. filed); McCauley v. Drum Serv . Co. , 7 72 S.W. 2d 13 5, 13 6- 37 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14 th D ist .] 19 89 , w ri t de nie d) ; Co untry Cupboard, Inc. v. Tex star Corp. , 570 S.W .2d 70, 75 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1978,
wr it r e f’ d n .r .e .) ; but see Hamilton v. W illiams , 298 S.W .3d 334, 340 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 2009, no pet.) (a ddressingg round not raise d in motion t o dismiss in inmate litigation). Finally , we construe the trial court’s order in this case as implicitl y stating the spec ific g round on which the tria l court’s ruling was based. The trial court gra nted all t hree motions t o dismiss . The04

- 09

- 00 40 8- CV

1 ... W i t h r ega r d t o t he ar gu ment t hat t he A r i zpes wer e r eq ui r ed t o name Co op er an d W i l cox i n t hei r ori gi nal p et i t i o n, we not e t hat t hi s co urt ’ s ho l d i ng i n O s onm a, r ecogn i zi ng t he t i mel i nes s of a r eport s er ved on a def endan t added i n an am end ed pe t i t i o n, ap p ears co nt rary t o t hi s argum ent
. W e al so no t e t hat requir i ng a p l ai nt i f f t o nam e al l heal t h care provi ders i nv ol ved i n hi s or her t r eat ment i n an ori gi nal pet i t i on i n order t o a voi d di s mi s s al coul d r un af oul of t he et hi cal o b l i gat i o n t hat T exas R ul e o f C i vi l P roce d ure 1 3 i s d esi gned t o p rom o t e. A p art y and hi s o r her at t o rney m ay no t be l i eve the y ha v e a go o d faith h e a lth c a re li a b ili ty cla im un til a n e x p e rt re v ie w s the m e d ic a l re c o rd s a n d o p ine s tha t t h e he a lth c a re p ro v id e r b re a c h e d the a p p lica b le sta n d a rd o f ca re re su lti n g in inj u rie s to the p la intiff
.

- 6- only g round asse rted in Koda li’s motion was that the expert report was require d to be served not later than the 120th day afte r t he original petiti on was filed. I n g ranting Kodali’s motion, the trial court
n ec es s ar i l y

agr ee d wi t h t h i s as s er t i o n , wh i ch t h er eb y s erv edas t h e b as i s fo r i t s ru l i n g. T IM EL INE SS OF RE P ORT This court has pr eviously addre ssed whethe r an e x pert re port is timely if serve d within 120 day s of the filing of

an ame nded petition addinga new defe ndant. Se e Os on ma v . S mi th , No. 04-08- 00 84 1- CV , 2 00 9 WL

19 00 40 4, a t *1- 2 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio July

1, 20 09 , p e t. d e nie d) (m e m. op .) . T his c ourt

he ld t hat if a pe tit ion is a me nd e d to a dd

ne w d e fe nd ants , th e e xpe rt re po rt is t ime ly
serve d if the re port addre ssing the ne w def endants i s s er ved within 120 day s of the filingof the amende d petition. Id. B e c a u s e th e A r iz p e s s e r

v e d th e ir e xp e rt r e p o rt a d dr e s s in g Co o p e r , Wi lc o x, and Koda li within 120 day s of the filing of their amende d petition a dding the m as defe ndants, the tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in g ra

nti ng the mot ion s to dis mis s. 1 Id
. We do note t he trial court signe d its order on April 20, 2009; theref

ore, the trial court did not have the benef it of our dec ision in Osonma when i tm ad e i t s ru l i n g. C ONCL US I ON The trial c ourt err ed in g ranting the motions to dismiss. According ly , the trial cour t’s order is reve rsed. Be cause the t rial court did not expressly rule on the A rizpes’ motion for extension of time and bec ause the trial court could g rant an extension of t ime to cure the report’s def iciency we04

- 09

- 00 40 8- CV

- 7- held to exis t in Arizpe I

, we r emand the c ause f

or fur ther proc eeding s consistent with this opi nion. See Coope r , 2008 WL 940490, at *5. Catherine Stone, Chief Justice