1 ... S eeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 2 - 0 7 - 1 0 1 - CV
J E R R Y GUR K OF F , D. O. AP P E L L ANT V . RO SEM A RY JERSA K A PPELL EE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 348TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

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

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- T h e q u e sti o n i n this ca se is w h e t h e r t h e tr i a l co u rterred b yrefu sing to
a w a rd a tto rn e y ’s fe e sto a d o c to r w h e n i t d i s m i s s e d h i s fo rm e r p a ti e n t’s
m edi cal m al pr act i ce cl ai m af t ershe f ai l ed t o f i l e an expertr epor tunderf or m er art i cl e 45 90 i . The qu est i on i s com pl i cat ed by sever al f act s: The pati entdi ed bef or e t he t r i al courtdi sm i ssed h e r c la im s ; herest at e w as notpr obated; her2 ... S eeA c tofM ay 5, 1995 , 74t h L eg. , R. S. , ch . 140, § 1, 1995 Tex.

G e n . L a w s 9 8 5 , 9 8 5 -8 7 , repeal ed by A ct of June 2, 2003 , 78t h L eg. , R. S. , ch . 2 0 4 , § 1 0 .0 9 , 2 0 0 3 T e x . G e n . L a w s 8 4 7 , 8 8 4 ( c u rr e n t ve rsi o n at T EX . C IV . P RA C . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 7 4. 35 1 ( V er non S upp . 20 07 ) ) . A l l sect i on r ef er ences in t h is o p in io n a r e t o t h e 1 9 9 5 v e r s io n o f T e x a s R e v is e d C iv il S t a t u t e s a rt ic le 45 90 i , w hi ch w as i n ef f ect at t he t i m e t hi s sui tw as f i l ed and w i l l be r ef er r ed t o a s t h e “ 1 9 9 5 v e r s i o n ” o r“ f o r me rv e r s i o n . ” R o s e ma r yf i l e d h e ro r i g i nal p e ti ti o n th re e d a y s b e fo re th e c u rre n t v e rs i o n to o ke ffe c t. 2 hei r s di d not pr osecut e her cl ai m s and di d not opp ose di sm i ssal w i t h pr ej udi ce; and t he doc t orul t i m at el y a ban done d hi s cl ai m f oratt or ney ’ s f ee s aga i ns tt he p a ti e n t’s e s ta te a n d s o u g h t a n a w a rd o f fe e s f r o m h e r a tto rn e y s o n l y . W e a f f i r m. P ro c e d u ra lH i s to ry J e rryG u rk o ff, D .O . p e rfo rm e d s u rg e ry o n a fi n g e r o f R o s e m a ryJ e rs a k ’s
r i ght h a n d in Febr uar y 20 02 . Rosem ar y l at ersi gned a cont r actf orl egal
s e r v i c e s w it h G r e yP ie r s o n o ft h e P ie r s o n B e h rla w f ir m a n d s u e d G u r k o f fin A ugu st20 03 , al l egi ng t hat he had oper at ed on t he w r ong f i nger . G ur kof ff i l ed
a ti m e l ya n s w e r. I n M a rch 2 0 0 4 , G u rko ff fi l e d a m o ti o n to d i sm i ss R o se m a ry’s c l a i m s w i th p rej u d i c e b e c a u se sh e h a d n o t fi l e d an ex p e rtrep o rtu n d e r t h e M e d i c a l Liab i l i ty
a n d In s u ra n c e Im p ro v e m e n t A c t (“ M L II A ” o r “ a rti c l e 4 5 9 0 i ” ). Rosem ar y f i l ed 2
a re s p o n s e , a rg u i n g th a t G u rk o ff’s o w n e x p e rt re p o rts s a ti s fi e d th e s ta tu to ry3

r equi r em entand t hatt he doctr i ne ofr es i psa l oqu i t urobvi at ed t he need f oran e x p e rt re p o rt. Th e t r i a l c ou rt he a r d t he m ot i on t o di s m i s s on M a y 6, 2004. On M a y 7, th e tr i a l co u rtn o ti fi e d co u n se l b yl e tter t h a t it w a s g ran ti n g the m o ti o n to di sm i s s . T h e t r i a l c o u rta l s o n o t e d t h a tt i me h a d n o tp e r mi t t e d t e s t i mony r egar di ng at t or ney’ s f ees att he hear i ng and r equest ed t hatt he part i es conf er a n d a tte m p t to re a c h a n a g re e m e n t re g a rd i n g fe e s . O n J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 0 4 , R o s e m a r yf ile d a m o t io n f o rre c o n s id e r a t io n , a g a in
a s s e rti n g th a t th e d o c tri n e o f re s i p s a l o q u i tu r o b v i a te d th e n e e d fo r a n e x p e rt
r epo rt . The t r i al co urthe ar d t he m ot i on on Sept em ber2, 200 4, an d s t at ed on t he r ecor d, “I ’ m gr ant i ng t he m ot i on f orr econsi der at i on, and I w antt o l ook at al l t he ca se s t hat [ Rose m ar y’ s cou ns el ] han ded m e and t he br i ef , and I ’ l l i ss ue a l et t err ul i ng [ on G ur kof f ’ s m ot i on t o di sm i ss ] . . . . I ’ m gr ant i ng t he m ot i on f or r e c on s i de r a t i on . I ’ m r e c on s i de r i ng m y r ul i ng . ” Th e n, o n Se pt e m be r7, 2004 , th e tri a l c o u rt re fe rre d th e c a s e to m e d i a ti o n . Ros e m a r y di e d f r om c a us e s u nr e l a t e d t o t hes ur ge r y on Oct ob e r16, 2 0 0 4 , a n d h e ra t t o r n e y s f i l e d a s u g gest i on ofd e a t h o n Oc t o b e r2 2 . On Febr uar y 10 , 20 05 , G ur kof ff i l ed an appl i cat i on f ort he i ssuance ofsci r e f aci as. R osem ar y’ s husband, G eor ge Jer sak, f i l ed an “O r i gi nal A nsw er t o S ci r e Faci as”
o n M a y1 6 , 2 0 0 5 , st a ti n g th a t th e p ri m a ry a s s e ts o f R o s e m a ry ’s e s ta te w e re4

hercom m uni t y shar e oft he m ar i t al hom e and hercl ai m agai nstG ur kof f ; t hat G eor ge had no des i r e t o pur su e t he i ns t antl i t i gat i on; an d t hathe di d noti nt end to i n i ti a te p ro b a te p ro c e e d i n g s . M eanw hi l e, G ur kof ff i l ed an obj ect i on t o t he t r i al cour t ’ s m edi at i on r ef er r al
a nd a s up pl e m e nt a l m ot i on t o di s m i s s a nd f ora t t or ne y’ s f e e s . On J un e 10, 2 0 0 5 , G e o rg e fi l e d a m o ti o n to e x te n d t h e d e a d l i n e to fi l e a n e x p e rt re p o rt
u n d e r 4 5 9 0 i s e c ti o n 1 3 .0 1 (g ). S eeT EX . R EV . C IV . S T AT . A NN . a rt . 4 5 9 0 i, § 1 3 .0 1 (d) ( 1 9 9 5 v e rsi o n ). H e also fi l e d a re sp o n se to G u rko ff’ s o b j e c ti o n to
m e d ia t io n a n d s u p p le m e n t a l m o t io n t o d is m is s , a s s e rt in g t h a tt h e t r ia l c o u rtd id not have j ur i sdi ctio n o vert he m at t erbecause G ur kof fhad not f ul l y com pl i ed
w i t h r ul e o fci vi l pr oce dur e 151 and pr es ent ed evi den ce t hatno a dm i ni st r at i on ofRose m ar y’ s es t at e w aspe ndi ng orne ce ss ary. The t r i al cou rt hel d a h ea r i ng on J une 15, 200 5, butde cl i ned t o he art he m er i t s ofan y m ot i ons t hatda y a nd i ndi ca t ed t hatt he part i ess houl d pr oce ed t o m edi at i on un dert he cou rt ’ s pr i or o rd e r. Fol l ow i ng an un successf ul m edi at i on, G ur ko f ff i l ed a second supp l em ent al
m o t i o n t o d i s mi s s a n d r e q u e s t f o r a t t o r n e y ’ s f e e s , t h i s t i me a s k i n g t h e t r i al
cour tt o a w a rd at t or ney’ s f ees agai nstRo sem ar y’ s at t or neys onl y. The t r i al
cour thear d t he m ot i on on Januar y 6, 2 0 0 6 . A t t he hear i ng, G eor ge ar gued th a t t h e tr i a l c o u rt d i d n o t h a v e j u ri sd i c ti o n to rule o n G u rko ff’ s m o ti o n . G u rko ff5

pr e s e nt e d e vi de nc e o fh i s a t t or ne y’ s f e e s a nd c os t s . O n Fe br ua r y 22, 2006 , t h e t r ia l c o u rts e n tt h e p a rt ie s a le t t e rs t a t in g t h a tG u r k o f fh a d n o tf u lf ille d ru le
o f c i vi l pr oce dur e 151’ s r equ i r em ent s and t hati tco ul d notr ul e o n Gurk o ff’s
m o ti o n u n ti l th o s e re q u i re m e n ts w e re s a ti s fi e d . G ur kof ff i l e d a n appl i cat i on f ori ssuance ofsci r e f aci as agai nst R osem ar y’ s onl y chi l dr en, Br i an Jer sak and Br enda C ook. Sci r e f aci as i ssued and w as ser ved on Br i an and B r enda, butnei t herf i l ed an answ erorot her w i se appear ed i n t he case. T h e tr i a l co u rth e l d an o th e r an d fi n a l h e a ri n g o n G u rk o ff’ s m o ti o n to di sm i sson J anu ar y 11, 2007 . Bef or e t he h e a ri n g , G e or ge Jer sa k m adet he f ol l ow i ng s t i pul at i ons t o a voi d ha vi ng t o a ppe aran d t es t i f y: 1. G eor ge w asm ar r i ed t o Ros em ary a tt he t i m e o fhe rde at h; 2. R osem ar y had t w o sur vi vi ng chi l dr en, Br i an and B r enda; 3. N o a dm i ni st r at i on f orRose m ary’ s es t at e h ad bee n f i l ed or w aspe ndi ng; 4. N o pe r so nal r epr es en tat i ve had be en app oi nt ed f or R osem ar y’ s est at e; 5. To G eor ge’ s know l edge, no cour t h ad appo i nt ed an adm i ni st r at orf orRo sem ar y’ s est at e; 6. A doc um entatt ac hed t o t he st i pul at i ons w asa cop y of Rose m ar y’ s w i l l ; an d6

7. R osem ar y’ s si gnatur e appear ed on t he contr act f or le g al s e rv i c e s b e tw e e n h e r a n d th e P i e rs o n B e h r l a w fi rm . A tt he hea r i ng, t he part i espr es ent ed add i t i ona l ar gum ent s on j ur i sd i ct i on, an d D r. G u rk o ff p re s e n te d m o re e v i d e n c e o f h i s a tto rn e y ’s fe e s . O n J a n u a r y 2 3 , 2 0 0 7 , t h e t r ia l ju d g e is s u e d a le t t e r e x p la in in g t h a titd id not have j ur i sdi ct i on ov er R osem ar y’ s est at e and, t her ef or e, coul d not asses s a tto rn e y ’s fe e s a g a i n s t th e e s ta te . B u t w i th re g a rd to d i s m i s s a l , th e tri a l c o u rt
a s k e d w h e t h e r t h e r e w a s a n yo b je c t io n t o t h e d is m is s a l o fR o s e m a r y ’s c la im s
w i th p rej u d i c e . G r e yP ie r s o n s u b m it t e d a l e t t e r t o t h e c o u rts t a t in g t h a tn e it h e rh e , h is f i r m , nor G eor ge obj ect ed t o t he di sm i ssal ofRo sem ar y’ s cl ai m s w i t h pr ej udi ce. G ur kof f ’ s at t or ney subm i t t ed a l et t er br i ef obj ect i ng t o t he di sm i ssal of t he case
w i t houtan aw ar d ofatt or ney ’ s f ee s, as se rt i n g t hatt he t r i al co urtdi d ha ve j u ri sd i c ti o n to a ss e ss fee s; arg u i n g tha t G u rko ff w a s e n ti tl e d to s e l e c t t h e p a rt y a g a in s tw h o m t h e c o u rt a s s e s s e d f e e s ; a n d id e n t if y in g G r e yP ie r s o n , h is
as so ci at e J ef f r ey Pos t er , an d t he Pi er so n Behrf i r m ast he part i es aga i ns tw hom t he t r i al courtshoul d assessf ees. O n F e b ru a ry2 2 , 2 0 0 7 , th e tri a l c o u rt s i g n e d a n o rd e r g ra n ti n g G u rk o ff’s
m ot i on t o di sm i ss , di sm i ss i ng Ros em ary’scl ai m s w i t h pr ej udi ce , an d de nyi ng G u r k o f f ’s re q u e s tf o ra t t o r n e y ’s f e e s . G u r k o f ff ile d t h is a p p e a l.7

N o a p p e l l a te b ri e f w a s fi l e d o n b e h a l f o f th e n a m e d a p p e l l e e , R o s e m a ry Jer sak. I nst ead, G r ey Pi er son f i l ed a br i efi n hi s per sonal capac ity , “ n o tas a nam ed ap p e ll e e and not on behal fof[ R osem ar y] , ” because G ur kof fseeks at t or ney’ s f ees notf r om R osem ar y, her est at e, or her hei r s, butonl y f r om her fo rm e r a tto rn e y s . D i sc us si on I n a s i ngl e i ss ue, G ur kof f ar gue s t hatt he t r i al co urtab us ed i t s di sc r et i on by r ef usi ng t o aw ar d hi m at t or ney’ s f ees agai nstat t or neys Pi er son and P ost er and t he P ie rson B ehrl aw f i r m because t he aw ar d off ees i s m andatory und er t he r el evant pr ovi si ons of art i cl e 45 90 i . I n r epl y, Pi er son ar gues t hatt he t r i al
cou rtl ac ke d j ur i sd i ct i on t o a ss es s f ee s bec aus e Gur kof fdi d notco m pl y w i t h t he
r equi r em ent s ofr ul e 15 1; art i cl e 4 59 0i does notm andate t he aw ar d off ees sol el y agai nsta cl ai m ant ’ s at t or neys; and art i cl e 45 90 i does notgi ve a d e f e n d a n tt h e rig h tt o c h o o s e t h e p a rt ya g a in s t w h o m t h e t r ia l c o u rts h o u ld
aw ar d f ees. O rd i n a ri l y , d i s m i s s a l o f th e p l a i n ti ff’s c l a i m s a n d a n a w a rd o f a tto rn e y ’s f ees t o t he def enda n tdoct orar e m andatory sanct i ons w hen a m edi cal
m al pr act i ce cl ai m antf ai l s t o f i l e a t i m el y expertr epor t . A rt i cl e 45 90 i pr ovi des t hata cl ai m anti n a heal t hcar e l i abili ty c l ai m m ust , w i t h r egar d t o each physi ci an orheal t hcar e pr ovi deragai nstw hom a cl ai m i s assert ed, ei t herf i l e an8

exp ert r epo rtorvol unt ar i l y no ns ui tt he ac t i on a gai ns tt he phys i ci an or h e a l th c a re p ro v i d e r. T EX . R EV . C IV . S T AT . A NN . a rt . 4590 i , § 13 . 01( d) ( 1995
v e rsi o n ). T h e tr i a l c o u rt m a y e x ten d th e 1 8 0 -da yd e a d l i n e o n c e b yu p to th i rt y d a y s , a n d th e p a rti e s m a y a g re e to e x te n d th e d e a d l i n e . Id. § 1 3 .0 1 (f ), (h ). If
a clai m a n t f a i l s to fi l e a ti m e l yrep o rt , t h e co u rt sh a ll, on t he m ot i on of t he a f f e c t e d ph ys i c i a n orh e a l th car e pr ovi der , ente r a n or deraw ar di ng as sanct i ons agai ns tthe cl ai m antor the cl ai m ant ’ s attor ney : ( 1) t he r ea so nab l e a tt or ney ’ s f ee s and co st s ofco urti ncu r r ed by t hatde f end ant ; [ and ]

. . . . ( 3) t he di sm i ssal oft he act i on of t he cl ai m ant a g a in s tt hat def end antw i t h pr ej udi ce t o t he cl ai m ’ s r ef i l i ng. Id. § 1 3 .0 1 (e ) (e m p h a s i s a d d e d ). St at ut espr ovi di ng t hata part y “s hal l ” be aw ar ded att or ney ’ s f ee s ar e n ot di sc r et i ona r y. Bocquet v. Her r i ng , 9 7 2 S .W .2 d 1 9 , 2 0 (T e x . 1 9 9 8 ); D oadesv. Syed, 94 S. W . 3d 664, 674 ( Tex. A pp. — San Ant oni o 2002 , no pe t . ) . I ft he
r equi r em e n ts ofart i cl e 45 90 i , sect i on 1 3. 01 ( d) ar e notm et , t he cour tm ust “e nt eran or der. . . ass anc ti o n s ” d i s m i ss i ng t he ca sean d gr ant i ng t he def endan ti t s cost s and at t or ney’ s f ees. T EX . R EV . C IV . S T AT . A NN . a rt . 4 5 9 0 i, § 1 3 .0 1 (e ) (1 9 9 5 v e rs i o n ); A m . Transiti ona l Care C tr

s. of Tex. , I nc. v. Pal

aci os , 4 6 S .W .3 d 8 7 3 , 8 7 7 (T e x . 2 0 0 1 ); Moseley v. Beh r i nger, 184 S. W . 3d 829, 8339

(T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t. ) (ho l d i n g t h a t w h e n a p l a i n ti ff fai l s to t i m el y f i l e an expertr epo rt , t he t r i al courthas no di scr et i on bu tt o or der di sm i ssal ) . A t r i al courtabuses i t s di scr et i on w hen i tdi sm i ssesa cl ai m under
s e c ti o n 1 3 .0 1 (e ) w i th o u t a w a rd i n g a tto rn e y ’s fe e s to th e d e fe n d a n t. A bi lene D i agn os tic Cl

i n ic v. D owni

ng, 233 S . W . 3d 532, 535 ( Tex. A pp. — Eas t l and 2 0 0 7 , p e t. d e n i e d ); s e eE s trel lo v. E l b o a r, 965 S. W . 2 d 7 5 4 , 759 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 1998, no pet . ) ( “Se ct i on 13. 01( e) ( 1) m and at est hat , upon a pl ai nt i f f ’ s f ai l ur e t o c om pl y w i t h 13. 01( d) , t he t r i al co u rt s h a l l aw ar d t he
su cc es sf ul de f end antr ea so nab l e a t t or ney s’ f ee s and co st s of c o u rt.” ) . The
am ountoff ee s aw a rd e d i s w i t hi n t he t r i al co urt ’ s di sc r et i on, buti tca nnot
c o m p l e te l y re fu s e to a w a rd fe e s . Trevi no v. Car

r i zal es , No . 1 3

- 0 5
- 0 0 5 5 6

- CV , 2 0 0 6 W L2 3 7 1 3 5 0 , a t * 1 (T e x . A p p .— C o rp u s C h ri s ti A u g . 1 7 , 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t.) (m e m . o p .). W h i l e the aw a rd o f atto rne y ’s fee s i s m a n d a to ry i n the ap p ro p ri a te
c i rcu m sta n c e s, se c ti o n 1 3 .0 1 (e) g i v e s th e tr i a l co u rtthe ch o i c e o f w h e th e r t o a w a rd fe e s “ a g a i n st th e clai m a n t or th e c l a i m a n t’s a tto rn e y .” T EX . R EV . C IV . S T AT . A NN . a rt . 4 5 9 0 i, § 1 3 .0 1 ( e ) ( 1 9 9 5 v e r s io n ) ( e m p h a s isa d d e d ). T h is choi ce necessar i l y i nvol ves t he exer ci se ofdi scr et i on; t hus, w het hert o assess f ees agai nstt he cl ai m antoragai nstt he cl ai m ant ’ s at t or ney i s w i t hi n t he t r i al
c o u rt’s d i s c re ti o n . S e ei d.3 ... Th e at t or neys w ho r epr esent ed R o s e m a ry befor e she di ed ar e her

“f or m er ” at t or ney s bec aus e t he at t or ney - cl i ent r el at i ons hi p t er m i nat esupon t he c l i e n t’s d e a th . S ee Mur phy v. Mur

phy , 2 1 S .W .3 d 7 9 7 , 7 9 8 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 2 0 0 0 , n o p e t.).

4 ... B e c a u s e G u r k o f f l i m i te d h i s re q u e s t fo r a tto rn e y ’s fe e s to a n a w a rd a g a i n s t R o s e m a ry ’s fo rm e r a tto rn e y s o n l y , w e n e e d n o t a d d r e s s P i e rs o n ’s ar gum entt hatt he t r i al courtl acked j ur i sdi ct i on t o aw ar d at t or ney’ s f ees agai nst R o s e m a ry ’s e s ta te . S ee T EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 1. 10 H er e, Rose m ar y f ai l ed t o f i l e t he exp ertr epo rtr eq u i re d b y s ec t i on 13 . 01 ( d) . G ur kof f f i l ed a m ot i on t o di sm i ss and a r equestf orat t or ney’ s f ees, and he off er ed evi dence of hi s at t or ney’ s f ees. U nder or di nar y ci r cum st ances, th e tri a l c o u rt w o u l d h a v e h a d th e s ta tu to ry d u ty to d i s m i s s th e c a s e a n d a w a rd G u rko ff so m e am o u n t of a ttorn e y ’s fee s “ a g a i n st th e clai m a n t or th e c l a i m a n t’s
a tto rn e y .” Id. (e m p h a s i s a d d e d ). Bu tas t he pr ocedu r al hi st or y oft he case show s, t he ci r cum st ances pr es ent ed her e are n o t or di nary. W hen Rose m ary’ s f or m eratt or ney s 3 chal l eng e d t he t r i al court ’ s j ur i sdi ct i on t o aw ar d at t or ney’ s f ees agai nst R o s e m a r y ’s e s t a t e , G u r k o f fa v o id e d t h e ju r is d ic t io n a l is s u e b ya m e n d in g h is
r equestf orat t or ney’ s f ees t o seek an aw ar d off ees f r om Ro sem ar y’ s f or m er at t or ney s onl y. 4 G u rko ff a rgu e s th a t t h e “o r” i n “a g a in st th e clai m a n t or th e c l a i m a n t’s at t or ney” “per m i t s t he m ovi ng par t y t o di ct at e t he part y agai nstw hom i tseeks11

t he m and at ed sa nct i ons . ” W e r ej ec tt hi s ar gum ent . Gur kof fco nce dest hatno case l aw suppor t s hi s cont ent i on, and nothi ng i n t he st at ut e i t sel fsuggest s t hat t he def end ant , asoppo se d t o t he t r i al co urt , i s ent i t l ed t o de ci de w het hert he cl ai m antort he cl ai m ant ’ s a tto rn e y m us tpa y t he at t or ney ’ s f ee s anc t i on. P u t t in g t h e c h o ic e in t h e h a n d s o ft h e d e f e n d a n tw o u ld ru n c o n t r a r yt o w e lles t abl i sh ed l aw r el ega t i ng sa nct i ons t o t he t r i al cou rt ’ s di sc r et i o n . Se eA m. Transiti onal Care C tr

s. , 46 S. W . 3d at877– 78 ( i den t i f yi ng a bus e o fdi sc r et i on ast he pr ope rs t and ar d ofr evi ew f ors ec t i on 13. 01( e) s anct i ons asi ti s f or s a n c ti o n s u n d e r o th e r s ta tu te s a n d ru l e s ). W hat , t hen , w as th e e f f ec tofG ur kof f ’ s am end ed r equ es ts ee ki ng at t or ney’ s f ees f r om Ro sem ar y’s fo rm erat t or neys onl y? Secti on 1 3. 01 ( e) pl ac est he pow ert o de ci de aga i ns tw hom t o or deratt or ney ’ s f ee s— aga i ns tt he
c l a i m a n t o r th e c l a i m a n t’s a tto rn e y — i n th e h a n d s o f th e tri a l c o u rt. G u rk o ff’s
a m e n d e d re q u e s t d id n o tre m o v e t h a tp o w e rf r o m t h e t r ia l c o u rt ; in s t e a d , h is
am end ed r equ es tef f ec t i vel y w ai ved an y a t t or ney ’ s f ee s t he t r i al co urt m i ght
aw ar d a gai ns tRose m ar y’ s es t at e. The netr e s u l toft hi s w ai verope ned t he doorf ort he t r i al co urtt o e xer ci sei t s di sc r et i on byde nyi ng t he r equ es tf or at t or ney ’ s f ee s al t oge t her . I n ot herw or ds , t he tri a l c o urtal w aysha d t he di scr et i on t o decl i ne t o aw ar d at t or ney’ s f ees agai nst R osem ar y’ s at t or neys. G ur kof f ’ s w ai verof f ee s aga i ns t t he cl ai m ant di d not dep r i ve t he t r i al co urtof12

t hatdi sc r et i on. I ns t ea d, i t cha nge d t he ef f ec toft he t r i al co urt ’ s dec i si on no t t o aw ar d f ees agai nstt he cl ai m ant ’ s at t or neys f r om a m andatory aw ar d off ees a g a in s tt h e c la im a n tt o n o a w a r d a ta ll. B e c a u s e t h e t r i a l c o u rt a l wa y s h a d t h e d i s c r et i on t o notaw ar d f ees a g a in s tR o s e m a r y ’s f o r m e ra t t o r n e y s , t h e la s tq u e s t io n w e m u s ta d d r e s s is
w het hert he t r i al co urt a b u s e d t hatdi sc r et i on bys o de ci di ng. To de t er m i ne
w het hera t r i al courtabused i t s di scr et i on, w e m ustdeci de w h e th e r t he t r i al
cour tact ed w i t hou tr ef er ence t o any gui di ng r ul es or pr i nci pl es; i n ot herw or ds,
w e m u s t d e c i d e w h e th e r th e a c t w a s a rb i tra ryo r u n re a s o n a b l e . D owner v. A quam ar

i ne Operators, I

nc. , 7 0 1 S .W .2 d 2 3 8 , 2 4 1
- 4 2 ( T e x . 1 9 8 5 ), c ert. denied, 47 6 U . S . 11 59 ( 19 86 ) . M e re ly because a t r i al courtm ay deci de a
m a t t e rw it h in it s d is c r e t io n in a d if f e r e n tm a n n e rt h a n a n a p p e lla t e c o u rtw o u ld i n a si m i l arci r cum st ance does not dem onst r at e t hatan abuse ofdi scr et i on has
o c c u rre d . Id . Th e r evi ew i ng cour t m ust not subst i t ut e i t s j udg m entf ort he t r i al
cour t ’ s j udg m entunl ess t he t r i al court ’ s act i on w as so ar bi t r ar y t hati texceeded th e b o u n d s o f re a s o n a b l e d i s c re ti o n . Butnaruv. Ford Motor Co. , 84 S . W . 3d 1 9 8 , 2 1 1 (T e x . 2 0 0 2 ). I n t he t r i al court, R o sem ar y’ s at t or neys ar gued t hatt he doctr i ne ofr es i ps a l oqui t ur obvi at ed t he nee d t o f i l e a n e xpe rtr epo rtunde rart i cl e 4590i . The t r i al co urtt ook t hi s ar gum ents er i ous l y e nough t o gr antRose m ary’ s m ot i on f or13

r ec ons i der at i on. Ros em ar y di ed bef or e t he t r i al co urti ss ued an ot herr ul i ng, an d
m u c h o f t h e d e l a yan d p roc e d u ral w ran g l i n g th a t fo l l o w e d w a s rel a ted m o re to herde at h t han he ratt or ney s’ f ai l ur e t o f i l e a n e xpe rtr epo rt . And i tw as not unt i l Jul y 200 5— t en m ont hs aft ert he t r i al co urtgr ant ed Rose m ary’ s m ot i on f or r e c o n s id e r a t io n a n d n in e m o n t h s a f t e rh e rd e a t h

— t h a tt h e s u p r e m e c o u rth e ld th a t h e a l th c a re l i a b i l i tyc l a i m a n ts m u s t c o m p l yw i th 4 5 9 0 i ’s e x p e rt-re p o rt
r equi r em enteven i n cases w her e expert t est i m ony i s not r equi r ed t o est abl i sh l i a b i l i tya t tri a l , a s i n c a s e s w h e re re s i p s a l o q u i tu r a p p l i e s . Mur p h yv. Russ ell, 1 6 7 S .W .3 d 8 3 5 , 8 3 8 (T e x . 2 0 0 5 ). U n d e r th e c i rcu m sta n c e s, w e h o l d th a t th e tr i a l c o u rt d i d n o t a b u se its d i s c re ti o n b y d e n y i n g G u rk o ff’s re q u e s t fo r a tto rn e y ’s fe e s a g a i n s t R o s e m a ry ’s fo rm e r a tto rn e y s . W e o v e rru l e G u rk o ff’s s o l e i s s u e a n d a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.

A N N E GA RD N ER J U S T I C E PA N EL A : C A YC E, C. J. ; D A U PH I N O T and G A RD N ER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: Apr i l 10, 2008