## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 8 - 3 5 7 - CV TYL ER SCO RES BY, M . D. AN D APPE L L AN TS YA DR ANK O DU CI C, M . D. V . C A TA RI N O SA N TI LL A N , A PPELL EE I ND I VI DU ALL Y AN D A S N EX T FRI EN D O F SA M U EL S ANT I L L AN, A MI NOR

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

FR O M THE 96TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

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

### OPI NI ON

----- ----- -- I. I NTR ODUC TI ON I n t h e s e a c c e l e r a t e d , i n t e r l o c u t o r ya p p e a l s , Ap p e l l a n t s T y l e rSc o r e s b y, M . D . and Y ad ran k o D uci c, M . D . ( col l ect i vel y, “A ppel l ant s”) appeal t he t r i al cou rt ’ s or derde nyi ng t hei rm ot i onst o di sm i sst he hea l t h c ar e l i abi l i t y cl ai m s of A ppe l l eeCat ar i no San t i l l an, i ndi vi dua l l y a nd a s nex t f r i end of Sam uel Sant i l l an,1 ... S a n ti l l a n a l so s u e d T a rr a n t C o u n ty H o sp i tal D i stri c t, a/k /a J P S H e a l th

N e tw o rk , d /b /a J o h n P e te r S m i th (“J P S ” ). 2 a m i n o r. S ee T e x . C i v . P ra c . & R e m . C o d e A n n . § 5 1 .0 1 4 (9 ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 8 ). I n t hr eei ss ues , D r . Scor es by a r gue s t hatt he t r i al co urtha d no di scret i on bu t t o di sm i ss Sant i l l an’ s heal t h car e l i abi l i t y cl ai m s because Santi l l an’ s t ender ed c iv il p r a c t ic e a n d re m e d ie s c o d e s e c t io n 7 4 .3 5 1 (a ) e x p e rtre p o rtis s o w o e f u lly def i ci entas t o const i t ut e “no r eport ” and because S ant i l l an di d not serve a cur r i cul um vi t ae oft he expertw ho author ed t he r eportbef or e the 12 0- day s ta tu to ryd e a d l i n e h a d e x p i re d . S e eid . § 7 4 .3 5 1 (a ), (b ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ). D r . D u c ic ra is e s t h e s a m e a r g u m e n t s in t h r e eis s u e s , a d d it io n a llys p e c if ic a lly con t end i ng t hatthe tr i al co urtab us ed i t s di sc r et i on bygr ant i ng San t i l l an a se ct i on 74. 351 ( c) t hi rt y- dayext ens i on. W e d i sm i ssbot h a ppe al s f orw antof j ur i sd i ct i on. II . F ACTUA LAN DP ROCEDURALB AC KG ROUND S a n ti l l a n file d h i s o ri g i n a l p e ti ti o n o n J a n u a ry 1 7 , 2 0 0 8 , a l l e g i n g h e a l th car e l i abi l i t y cl ai m s agai nstD r . Sco r esby and D r . D uci c. 1 Santi l l an al l eged t hat Sam uel w asad m i t t ed t o JPS undert he ca r e o fD r . Scor es by a nd Dr . D uci c a nd
w i t h a p r e op e r a t i ved i a gn os i s o fm a xi l l a r y s i nu s n e op l a s m . O n Ja nu a r y 17, 200 6, Sam uel unde r w ent a “l eft m edi om axi l l ec t om y, exc i si on of neo pl as m of t he m axi l l a, ca l var i al bonegr ow t h and r ec ons t r uct i on oft he m axi l l a a nd e xci si on3

ofa t um orofpt erygop al at i n s t r uct ur es . ” D ur i ng t he pr oce dur e, “ an i nci si on w as m ade i n t he r i ght par i et al r egi on i n a cor ona l f as hi on and ca r r i ed dow n t he per i cran i u m .” A ccor di ng t o S ant i l l an, as a r esul toft he sur ger y, Sam uel suf f er ed a “cort i cal l acer at i on w i t h act i ve bl eedi ng f r om sever al m edi um - si zed
v e s s e ls in t h e a r e a ,” w h ic h re s u lt e d in “ r ig h th e m ip a r e s is a n d s ig n if ic a n tb r a in dam age. ” Sant i l l an t i m el y s erved A ppe l l ant s w i t h t he pur port ed exp ertr epo rtof C h a r le s D . M a r a b le , M .D . T h e re p o rtis d a t e d A u g u s t3 , 2 0 0 7 . S a n t illa n d id nots erve A ppe l l ant s w i t h Dr . M ar abl e’ s cur r i cul um vi t ae w i t hi n 120 daysoft he d a t e t h a tS a n t illa n f ile d t h e o r ig in a l p e t it io n . B o t h D r . S c o r e s b ya n d D r . D u c ic fi l e d o bj e c ti o n s to th e re p o r ta n d m o v e d to d i s m i s s S a n ti l l a n ’s h e a l th c a re l i abi l i t y cl ai m s, co nt endi ng, am ong o t herthi ngs, thatD r . M ar abl e’ s r eportw as, in e f f e c t , “ n o re p o rt ” a ta ll. O n J u l y1 7 , 2 0 0 8 , th e d a te s c h e d u l e d fo r th e h e a ri n g o n th e m o ti o n s to di sm i ss , S ant i l l an f i l ed and se r ved D r . M ar abl e’ s “Am end ed M edi ca l Reportan d c u rri c u l u m ” v i ta e . A t th e h e a ri n g o n th e m o ti o n s to d i s m i s s , th e tri a l c o u rt con f i r m ed t hatt he onl y do cum entt hatw asbef or e i tand r el eva ntt o i t s r ul i ng w as Dr . M a r a bl e ’ s Augu s t 3, 2007 r e po rt , w hi c h w a s t he on l y r e po rtser ved2 ... The t r i al courtt husdi d notco ns i derD r . M ar abl e’ s am end ed r epo rtan d

cur r i cul um vi t ae.

3 ... Th e t r i al courtgr ant ed JPS ’ s m ot i on t o di sm i ss. 4 ... See I

n re W atki ns , N o. 06- 065 3, 2009 W L 153251 , at*3 ( Tex. Ja n. 2 3 , 2 0 0 9 ) (o ri g . p ro c e e d i n g ) (W i l l e tt, J ., c o n c u rri n g ). 4 be f or e t hee xp i r a t i on o f120 da ysf r om J a nuar y 17, 2008 . 2T h e tri a l c o u rt deni ed both D r . Sco r esby’ s and D r . D u c i c ’s m ot i ons t o di sm i ss and gr ant ed S a n ti l l a n a th i rty -d a ye x te n s i o n “ to c u re a n y d e fi c i e n c i e s i n h i s e x p e rt re p o rt.” 3 Thes e a ppe al s f ol l ow ed. I I I . “N OR E PORTv . D E FI CI E NTR E PORT ” D r . Scor es by i n hi s f i r stand sec ond i ss uesand D r . D uci c i n hi s f i r sti ss ue ar g u e t h a t Dr . M a r a b l e ’ s t i m e l y s e r v e d r e p o rt i s s o w o e f u l l y d e f i c i entan d l ac ki ng i n c ont ai ni ng t he el em ent s nec es sa r y t o c ons t i t ut e a ci vi l pr ac t i cean d r em edi es cod e sect i on 74 . 35 1( r ) ( 6) ex pertreportthatt he r eporti s no r eportat a l l . B u i l d i n g o n the i r a rgu m e n t th a t D r. M a rab l e ’s rep o rt i s ac tu a l l yn o rep o rt , A ppe l l ant s con t end t hatSant i l l an ac cor di ngl y f ai l ed t o pr ovi de a s t at ut or yc o m p lia n te x p e rt re p o rt w i th i n 1 2 0 d a y s o f fi l i n g s u i t. H e n c e , th e tri a l c o u rt w asp r o h i b i t e d f r o m g r a n t i n g Sa n t i l l a n a t h i rt y - d a ye x t e n s i o n t o c u r e an y de f i c i e nc i e s i n t he r e po rt , a nd t he t r i a l c ou rt ha d no di s c r e t i on bu t t o di sm i ss S a n ti l l a n ’s h e a l th c a re l i a b i l i tyc l a i m s . T h u s , A p p e l l a n ts b o th ra i s e a “ n o re p o rt v . d e fi c i e n t r e p o rt ” 4 i ssue. A ppel l ant s ask us t o adop tt he l i ne ofr easoni ng t hat5

a r epo rt , t hough t i m el y s erved , m ay none t hel es s be s o de f i ci enti n m ee t i ng s t a t u t o r yre q u ir e m e n t s t h a tt h e f ilin g is n o r e p o rta ta ll. A p p e lla n t s a d d it io n a lly e a c h co n ten d tha t D r. M a rab l e ’s re p o rtis n o rep o rtb e c a u se S a n ti l l a n fai l e d to se r ve A ppe l l ant s w i t h Dr . M ar abl e’ s cur r i cul um vi t ae w i t hi n 120 days o ft he d a te th a t S a n ti l l a n fi l e d su i t an d t h a t th e tri a l co u rth a d n o d i sc reti o n b u t t o di sm i sst he ca sef ort hatr ea so n. 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 p r ov i de s t ha t , w i t hi n 120 day s off i 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 or heal t h car e pr ovi deragai nstw hom a l i abi l i t y cl ai m i s assert ed. Tex. C i v. Pr ac. & Rem . C ode A nn. § 7 4. 35 1( a) . A n expertr eporti s a w r i t t en r eportby an exp ertt hatpr ovi desa f ai rs um m ary oft he exp ert ’ s opi ni onsr ega r di ng t he app l i ca bl e s t and ar d ofca r e, the m anneri 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 eett he st andar d, a n d the causal 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 t h e in 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 ); se e al soW atki ns , 2 0 0 9 W L1 5 3 2 5 1 , a t * 2 (J o h n s o n , J ., co nc urr i ng) ( r ea so ni ng t hats ec t i on 74. 351 ( r ) ( 6) r equ i r est hatf ora doc um ent to q u a l i fy a s a s tatu to ry e x p e rtre p o rt , i t m u st d e m o n strate ( 1 ) so m e o n e w i th r e le v a n te x p e rt is e (2 ) h a s a n o p in io n ( 3 ) t h a tt h e d e f e n d a n tw a s p r o f e s s io n a lly negl i gent and t her eby har m ed t he pl ai nt i f f ) . A l t hou gh a reportn eed not m ar shal al l ofa cl ai m ant ’ s pr oof , i tm us ti ncl ude t he e xp ert ’ s opi ni on on ea ch oft he6

e l e m e n ts i d e n ti fi e d i n s e c ti o n 7 4 .3 5 1 . A m . T ransiti onal Care C tr

s. o f Tex. , I nc. v. Pal aci os , 46 S. W . 3d 87 3, 87 8 ( Tex . 20 01 ) . I f an expertr eporthas notbeen served w i t hi n t he 1 20

- day per i od, t he cour t , on t he m oti o n o f th e af f ect ed p h y s i c i a n o r h e a l th c a re p ro v i d e r, sh a l l

— s u bj e c t to a n e x te n s i o n o f ti m e fo r a def i ci entr e p o rt
— e n t e ra n o r d e rt h a t( 1) a w a r d s t o t h e a f f e c t e d p h y s i c i a n or hea l t h c ar e p r ovi derr ea so nab l e a t t or ney ’ s f ee s and co st s ofco urt i ncu r r ed by t h e p h y s ic ia n o rh e a lt h c a r e p r o v id e ra n d (2 ) d is m is s e s w it h p r eju d ic e t h e c la im
w i t h r espectt o t he phy si ci an orh eal t h car e pr ovi der . Tex. C i v. Pr ac. & Rem . C o d e A n n . § 7 4 .3 5 1 (b ), (c); Badi ga v. Lopez , 274 S . W . 3d 681, 683 ( Tex. 200 9) . Sec t i on 74. 351 ( b) m ak escl ea rt hatdi sm i ss al i s m and at or y a nd ext ens i onsar e p r ohi bi t ed i fno r epo rt
— asoppo se d t o a m er el y de f i ci ent re p o rt— i s s e rv e d w i th i n th e 1 2 0 -d a yd e a d l i n e im p o s e d b ys e c ti o n 7 4 .3 5 1 (a ). T e x . C i v . P ra c . & R e m . C o d e A n n . § 7 4 .3 5 1 (b ); Ogletree v. Ma tth e ws , 262 S. W . 3d 316, 319– 20 ( Tex. 2007 ) . I fa t i m el y s erved doc um enti nt end ed by a cl ai m antt o be an expertr epo rti s det er m i ned by t he t r i al co urtt o bede f i ci ent i n c om pl yi ng w i t h s t at ut or y r equ i r em ent s, t he t r i al co urtm ay gr antonet hi rt yday ext ensi on t o t he cl ai m ant i n or der t o cur e t he def i ci ency. Tex. C i v. Pr ac. & R e m . C o d e A n n . § 7 4 .3 5 1 (c ). A tt he t i m e o fthi s w r i t i ng, the S upr em e C ourto fT exas h as no thad an o p p o rtu n i tyto s q u a re l ya d d re s s th i s “ re c u rri n g a n d e l u s i v e ” “ n o re p o rt7

v . d e fi c i e n t re p o rt” i s s u e . See W atki ns , 2 0 0 9 W L1 5 3 2 5 1 , a t * 3 (W i l l e tt, J ., con cur r i ng ) . T he i ss ue hasonl y be en add r es se d bya f ew m em ber s oft he su pr em e c ourti n c onc ur r i ng op i ni ons . I n hi s con cur r i ng op i ni on i n Ogletree , Jus t i ceW i l l ettobs erved t hat t he cou rt had app ar ent l y “l i m i t [ ed] t he uni ver seof pos si bl e r epo rt s”t o ( 1) ab se ntr epo rt s, w hi ch h av e notbe en f i l ed atal l an d r e q u ir e d is m is s a l o f t h e c a s e , a n d (2 ) d e f ic ie n tre p o rt s , w h ic h h a v e b e e n t im e ly fi l e d a n d m a yre c e i v e a n e x te n s i o n . Ogletree , 2 6 2 S .W .3 d a t 3 2 3 (W i l l e tt, J ., c o n c u rri n g ). H ee x p l a i n e d t h a t th e c o u rt’s c l a s s i fi c a ti o n “ o f a l l p u rp o rte d e x p e rt re p o rts a s e i th e r a b s e n t o r d e fi c i e n t m a yp ro v e i n a p p o s i te i n ra re c a s e s — w h e re t he cl ai m ed ‘ r epo rt ’ i s ac t ual l y no s uch t hi ng— and i nad vert ent l y e xp an d t he av ai l abi l i t y oft he t hi rt y- dayex t ens i on pr ovi ded by se ct i on 74. 351 ( c) be yond
w h a t t he Legi sl at ur e i nt ended . ” Id . a t 3 2 2 . I n h i s v i e w , th e re e x i s ts a th i rd cat egor y ofpossi bl e r eport s: “a docu m entso utt er l y l acki ng that , no m at t er h o w c h a r it a b lyv ie w e d , its im p lyc a n n o tb e d e e m e d a n ‘e x p e rtre p o rt ’ a ta ll, even a def i ci entone. ” Id . a t 3 2 3 . A tr i a l co u rtrev i e w i n g su c h a “ rep o rt ” sh oul d det er m i ne t hat a r epo rt “h as not bee n se r ved ” f or pur pos es ofsec t i on 7 4 .3 5 1 (b ) a n d d i s m i s s th e c l a i m . Id . a t324. Ref er enc i ng t he t hi r d ca t ego r y of pos si bl e r epo rt s di sc us se d i n Ogletree , Jus t i ceW i l l ettexpl ai ned i n hi s con cur r i ng op i ni on i n L e wi sv. F un derb urkt hat t hec a s e p r e s e nt e d t hec ou rt“ w i t h a n a c t ua l si ght i ng o ft hi s r a r e b i r d. ” 2535 ... D r . W at ki ns c hal l eng ed t he pur port ed exp ertr epo rts erved by t he

p l a i n ti ff, b u t th e t ri a l c o u rt g ra n te d a t h i rty -d a ye x te n s i o n . W atki ns , 2 0 0 9 WL 15 32 51, a t*1. Dr . W a t k i nsf i l e d a n i nt e r l oc ut ory a pp e a l a nd a n or i gi nal p roceedi ng i n t he cour tofappeal s ass ert i ng t hatt he t r i al courtabused i ts d i s c re ti o n b yg ra n ti n g a n e x te n s i o n . Id . The cou rtofap peal s di sm i ss ed t he i n te rl o c u to rya p p e a l fo r w a n t o f j u ri s d i c ti o n a n d d e n i e d m a n d a m u s re l i e f. Id . D r. W a tk i n s s o u g h t re v i e w o f o n lyth e m a n d a m u s d e n i a l . Id . T h e c o u rt r ea so ned t hat “[ t ] he se par at e w r i t i ngs j oi n i ss ue aga i n t oda y on t he qu esti on w het hert he i t em served w as a def i ci entr eportorno r eportatal l . ” Id . H ow ever , i tdi d not m at t er ; “[ i ] fno r eportw as served, i nt er l ocutory appeal w as a v a i l a b le , so m a n d a m u s i s u n n e c e ss a ry. I f t h e rep o rtw a s m e rel yd e fi c i e n t, t hen an i nt er l ocutory appeal w as pr ohi bi t ed, and gr ant i ng m andam us t o r evi ew i tw oul d subvertt he Legi sl at ur e’ s l i m i ton such r evi ew . ” Id . 8 S . W . 3d 20 4, 20 9 ( Tex . 20 08 ) ( W i l l et t , J. , concu rr i n g ). H e opi ned t hat Fund er bur k’ s i ni t i al “ r epo rt ”— a “ t han k- you- f or - your - r ef er r al l ett er ”— w asno re p o rt a t a l l . Id . at 210 –11 . The def end ant , how eve r , di d not t i m el y a ppe al t he “no r eporti ssue. ” Id . a t2 0 8 , 2 1 0 (“ T o d a yis n o tt h e d a yf o rre s o lu t io n o ft h is i m port antques t i on, buti tco ul d ha ve bee n, ha d Dr . Le w i s t i m el y a ppe al ed t he t r i a l c o u rt ’ s r u l i n g o n F u n d e r b u r k ’ s f i r s te x p e rtr e p o rt , w h i c h i m p l i c a t e s no p ro v i d e r’sc o n d u c t.” ). The s upr em e c ourtdi d notr es ol ve t he “n o r epo rtv. de f i ci entr epo rt ” i ss ue i n W atki ns . 5 J u s ti c e J o h n s o n fi l e d a c o n c u rri n g o p i n i o n j o i n i n g th e c o u rt’s j udg m enti n den y i ng m andam us r el i efbutaddi t i onal l y r easoni ng i n partas f ol l ow s: T h e d o c u m e n t r e ferred to in th i s c a se a s a n e x p e rtre p o rti s n o t a de fi ci en t s ta tu to rye x p e rt re p o rt; i t i s n o t a s ta tu to rye x p e rt re p o rt9

a ta ll. W hi l e t he docu m enti s aut hor ed by a phy si ci an, i tdoe s not sh ow t hatasoft he dat e o ft he r epo rtt he aut horhe l d a ny o pi ni on ast o ( 1) ap pl i ca bl e s t and ar ds ofca r e f ort he t r ea t m enti n que st i on, ( 2) t he m anneri n w hi ch car e render ed by t he def endan tphysi ci an f ai l ed t o m eet t he st andar ds, or ( 3) t he causal r el at i onshi p bet w een t hatf ai l ur e a nd t he har m cl ai m ed. W atki ns , 2 0 0 9 W L1 5 3 2 5 1 , a t * 2 (J o h n s o n , J ., c o n c u rri n g ). Just i ce W i l l et tf i l ed a concurr i ng op i ni on agr eei ng t hatD r . W at ki ns w as n o t e n ti tl e d to m a n d a m u s re l i e f. Id . at*3 –6 . H e a l so agr eed w i t h Just i ce J o h n s o n t h a tt h e re p o rtw a s n o ta s t a t u t o r ye x p e r tr e p o rta ta ll, s u c c in c t ly st at i ng t he sp ec i f i c i ss ue asf ol l ow s: “ w het hera nar r at i ve t hatf ai l s t o i ncl ude a n ye x p e rto p in io n o n t h e s t a n d a r d o fc a r e , b r e a c h , o rc a u s a t i o n is m e r e ly def i ci entan d t husel i gi bl e f oran unr evi ew abl e e xt ens i on ort ant am ountt o no re p o rt a t a l l a n d th u s i n e l i g i b l e fo r anyext ensi on. ” Id . a t*5. A ppe l l ant s di r ec tust o sev er al opi ni onsf r om oursi st ercourt s det er m i ni ng th a t a ti m e l yse rve d d o c u m e n t pu rpo rt i n g to b e an ex p e rt rep o rtw a s n o t a s ta tu to ry -c o m p l i a n t e x p e rt re p o rt. S ee, e. g ., Bog ar v. Esp arza , 257 S. W . 3d 354 , 364 –69 , 373 ( Tex. A pp. — A us t i n 200 8, no pet . ) ( con cl udi ng t hatt he pur port ed expertr eportati ssue w as no reportas t o appel l antb ecause i tf ai l ed to i d e n ti fy a p p e l l a n t, fai l e d to d e sc ri b e the ap p l i c a b l e sta n d a rd o f ca re, f a i l e d to des c r i b e h o w a p p e l l a n t m a y h a v e b r e a c h e d t h e s t a n d a r d o f c a r e , an d, c o n s e q u e n tl y , fa i l e d t o im p l i c a te a n yp e rs o n ’s c o n d u c t); Rivenes v. Holden , 25710

S. W . 3d 332, 338– 39 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 14t h Di st . ] 2008 , pe t . de ni ed) (d e te rm i n i n g th a t a ti m e l ys e rv e d d o c u m e n t p u rp o r t in g t o b e a n e x p e rt re p o rt d i d n o t i m p l i c a te a p p e l l a n t’s c o n d u c t a n d w a s n o t a s ta tu to ry -c o m p l i a n t e x p e rt re p o rt a s to a p p e l l a n t b e c a u s e i t o ffe re d n o o p i n i o n s c o n c e rn i n g a p p e l l a n t’s cond uct , i tf ai l ed t o di scuss how t he car e r ender ed by app el l antf ai l ed t o m eet th e a p p l i c a b l e s ta n d a rd o f c a re , a n d i t fa i l e d to s e t fo rth h o w a p p e l l a n t’s fa i l u re t o m ee tt he st and ar d ofca r e c aus ed pl ai nt i f ft o s uf f eri nj ur y, ha r m , or d a m a g e s ); A po da c a v. Russo , 2 2 8 S .W .3 d 2 5 2 , 2 5 5

– 5 8 (T e x . A p p .— A u s t in 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t. ) (ho l d i n g tha t t i m e l yse rve d ex p e rtrep o rtw a s n o rep o rtas to app el l eebe ca us e i tf ai l ed t o m ent i on appe l l ee and i tf ai l ed t o di sc us s how t he ca r e r end er ed by app el l ee di d not m ee tt he app l i ca bl e s t and ar d ofca r e o rhow appel l ee’ s f ai l ur e caused t he pat i ent t o suf f eri nj ur y, har m , ordam ages) . U nl i ke t hese cases, som e ofourot hersi st ercourts h a v e r ej ect ed ar gum ent s t hatan e x p e rt re p o rt w a s s o d e fi c i e n t th a t i t w a s n o re p o rt a t a l l . S ee , e. g. , Ten et Ho sp ., L td. v. G o m ez, 276 S. W . 3d 9, 12–1 3 ( Tex. A pp. — El Pas o 2008, no p e t.); Co o kv. S

p e a rs , 275 S. W . 3d 577 , 580 –82 ( Tex. A pp. — D al l as2008 , no p e t.). W e do not r esol ve t hi s i ssue i n f avorofA ppel l ant s because Ogletree— t he l at es topi ni on byt he su pr em e co urtt hati s r el eva ntt o t he sp ec i f i c i ss ue her e— f or ec l os est hei rar gum ent s. I n Ogletree , th e p l a i n ti ffs as se rt e d h e a l th11

c a r e l i a b i l i t yc l a i ms a g a i n s tDr . Og l e t r e e a n d He a rtHo s p i t a l o fAu s t i n . 262 S. W . 3d at317. The pl ai nt i f f s t i m el y f i l ed exp ert r epo rt s f r om a r adi ol ogi stan d t hree n u rs e s . Id . D r. O g l e tr e e ti m e l yo bj e c ted to th e rep o rt s a n d m o v e d to d i s m i s s th e c a s e . Id . at318. The t r i al co urtdeni ed hi s m ot i on a nd gr ant ed t he p la in t if f s a t h irt y -d a ye x t e n s io n t o c u r e d e f ic ie n c ie s , a n d t h e c o u rto fa p p e a ls hel d t hati tl ac ke d j ur i sd i ct i on ov erhi s app ea l be ca us e t he t r i al co urt ’ s den i al of hi s m ot i on t o di sm i ssw asco upl ed w i t h t he gr antofan ex t ens i on t o cur e t he d e fi c i e n t re p o rts . Id . S i m i l art o t he ar gum ent s t hat A ppel l ant s m ake i n t hi s case, D r . O gl et r ee ar gue d be f or e t he su pr em e c ourtt hat“ asa r adi ol ogi st , D r . Kar sh m ay notopi ne o n a u ro l o g i s t’s s ta n d a rd o f c a re a n d , th e re fo re , no reportwas served thatm et th es ta tu to ryde fi

n iti o no f a n‘exp ert rep o rt . ’” Id . a t 3 1 9 (e m p h a s i s a d d e d ). J u s t l i k e A p p e l l a n ts i n th i s c a s e , D r. O g l e tre e c o n te n d e d th a t b e c a u s e n o re p o rt w ass erved , t he t r i al co urtha d no di sc r et i on t o gr anta t hi rt y- dayex t ens i on, an d th e d e n i a l o f h i s m o ti o n t o d is m is s w a sa p p e a l a b l e . Id . T h e s u p re m e c o u rt d i s a g re e d , s ta ti n g , “ T h a t i s n o t h o w th e L e g i s l a tu re d ra fte d th e s ta tu te . . . .” Id . I n te rp re ti n g s e c ti o n 7 4 .3 5 1 , t h e c o u rt n o te d th a t “ th e L e g i s l a tu re r ec og n i z e d t h a t n o t a l l i n i t i a l t i m e l y s e r v e d r e p o rt s w o u l d s a t i s f y e a c h oft he st at ut or y c r i t er i a”an d t ha t , “ [ a] s a r es ul t , t he am end m ent s exp l i ci t l y gi ve t he tri a l c o u rts d i s c re ti o n t o g ra n t a th i rtyd a ye x te n s i o n s o th a t p a rti e s m a y , w h e re6 ... I nde ed, Jus t i ce W i l l ett se em ed t o con cl ude s i m i l ar l y a cc or di ng t o t he

p o rti o n o f h is c o n c u rri n g o p i n i o n i n w h i c h h e re c o g n i z e d “ th e C o u rt’s c l a s s i fi c a ti o n o f a l l p u rp o rte d e x p e rt re p o rts a s e i th e r a b s e n t o r d e fi c i e n t.” Ogletree , 2 6 2 S .W .3 d a t 3 2 2 , (W i l l e tt, J ., c o n c u rri n g ). 12 possi bl e, cur e def i ci entr eport s. ” Id . at 32 0. Th us, “a de fi ci en t rep o rt d i ffe rs f r om an a b s en t rep o rt . ” Id . (e m p h a s i s a d d e d ). It i s w e l l e s ta b l i s h e d th a t a s a n i n te rm e d i a te a p p e l l a te c o u rt, w e a re b o u n d b y th e p ro n o u n c e m e n ts o f th e s u p re m e c o u rt. City o f Mi ssi o nv. Ca n tu , 8 9 S .W .3 d 7 9 5 , 8 0 9 n .2 1 (T e x . A p p .— C o rp u s C h ri s ti 2 0 0 2 , n o p e t.); D i ggsv. Bales , 6 6 7 S .W .2 d 9 1 6 , 9 1 8 (T e x . A p p .— D a lla s 1 9 8 4 , w r itre f ’d n .r .e .) . Itis not t he f uncti on of t he courtofappeal s t o abr ogate orm odi f y est a b l i sh ed p re c e d e n t; th a t fu n c ti o n l i e s s o l e l yw i th th e s u p re m e c o u rt. Lub bock County, Tex. v. Tram m el ’

s Lub bock Ba i

l Bonds , 8 0 S .W .3 d 5 8 0 , 5 8 5 (T e x . 2 0 0 2 ). W het herornott he courti n Ogletreei nt end ed t o “ l i m i t [ ] t he uni ver seof pos si bl e r epo rt s”t o a bs entr epo rt s and def i ci ent r epo rt s, t hat i s t he l i m i t at i on t hatw e r easonabl y const r ue f r om t he opi ni on’ s anal ysi s. 6 A t pr esent , nei t her Ogletree n o r a n yo th e r s u p re m e c o u rt o p i n i o n h o l d s t h a t a t i m e l ys e rv e d e x p e rt r epo rtco nt ai ni ng a n arr at i ve t hatf ai l s t o i ncl ude an y e xpe rtopi ni on on t he st and ar d ofca r e, br ea ch, or ca us at i on i s t ant am ount t o no r epo rtatal l an d t hus i nel i gi bl e f orany sect i on 7 4. 35 1( c) ext ensi on. U nt i l a m aj or i t y oft he supr em e c o u rtso h o l d s, su c h a d e term i n a ti o n b ythis co u rtw o u l d n e c e ss a ri l yco n sti tu te7 ... I n Mar i s v. Hendr

i cks , w e di d notad optJus t i ce W i l l ett ’ s r ea so ni ng th ata t hi r d cat egor y ofexpertr eport s exi st s; w e m er el y st at ed i n a f ootnote t hat w e w er e “m i ndf ul ofJus t i ceW i l l ett ’ s con cur r i ng op i ni on i n Ogletree . ” 262 S .W .3 d 3 7 9 , 3 8 5 n .5 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 8 , p e t. d e n i e d ). 13 a m odi f i ca t i on t o Ogletree’ s absento rd ef i ci entexpertr eportl i m i t at i on, w hi ch
w oul d bei m pr ope rbe ca us e w e a r e b ound asan i nt er m edi at e a ppe l l at e c ourtby su p rem e co u rtp rec e d e n t. I n Badi ga , t he su pr em e c ourthe l d t hatw hen an ex pertrep ortha s not been t i m el y served, b uta t r i al co urtdeni es a m ot i on t o di sm i ss and gr ant s an ext ens i on t o cur e, an i nt er l ocu t or y app ea l i s ava i l abl e t o cha l l eng e t he den i al of a m o ti o n to d i s m i s s . Badi ga , 2 7 4 S .W .3 d a t 6 8 4

– 8 5 ; se e al soW atki ns , 2009 W L 153251 , at*1 ( ci t i ng Badi ga and s t at i ng, “ I fno r epo rtw as served , i n terl o c u to ry ap p e a l w a s a v a i l a b l e .”). A p p e l l a n ts a rgu e d i n p res u b m i ss i o n b ri e fs t hatw e h avej ur i sd i ct i on ov ert hei rap pea l s bec aus e Dr . M ar abl e’ s r epo rti s no r eportatal l . H ow ever , i n l i ght ofbi ndi ng pr ecedent, w e have not r ecogn i zed th a t a th i rd c a te g o ryo f e x p e rt re p o rts e x i s ts i n w h i c h a t im e lys e rv e d e x p e rt r e p o rt(s u c h a s t h e o n e in t h is c a s e ) is , in e f f e c t , n o r e p o rta ta ll. 7 M o r e v e r , it i s u n d i sp u ted tha t S a n ti l l a n ti m e l y se rve d A p p e l l a n ts w i th D r. M a rab l e ’s rep o rt . Th us, t hi s i s notan absentr eportcase. C onse q u e n tl y , th i s i s nota “ Badi ga c a s e ” i n w h i c h w e m a y e n te rta i n a n i n te rl o c u to ry a p p e a l fro m th e tri a l c o u rt’s den i al ofa m ot i on t o di sm i ssbe ca us e n o r epo rtha s bee n s erved .8 ... W e w it h d r a w o u rS e p t e m b e r2 3 , 2 0 0 8 le t t e rin w h ic h w e p r e lim in a r ily

d e te rm i n e d th a t “ th i s c o u rt h a s j u ri s d i c ti o n o v e r [A ]p p e l l a n ts ’ a p p e a l s .” 14 W hen a r epo rtha s bee n s erved an d t he t r i al co urtbot h deni esa m ot i on to d i s m i s s a n d g ra n ts a n e x te n s i o n o f ti m e , th e tri a l c o u rt’s ru l i n g s a re i n s e p a ra b l e . Ogletree , 262 S . W . 3d at321. I fa def i ci ent r epo rti s se r ved an d th e tr i a l co u rtg ran ts a thirty-d a yex ten sion , th a t de c i sion

— e v e n ifc o u p l e d w i th th e d e n i a l o f a m o ti o n to d i s m i s s — i s n o t s u bj e c t to a p p e l l a te re v i e w . Id . H er e, t he t r i al cou rtd e n i ed A ppel l ant s’ m ot i ons t o di sm i ss, i tgr ant ed S a n t i l l a n a t h irt y -d a ye x t e n s io n t o c u r e a n yd e f ic ie n c ie s in t h e re p o rt , a n d it con si der ed Sant i l l an’ s f ai l ur e t o se r ve a cur r i cul um vi t ae as a d ef i ci enc y i n t he re p o rt. Ogletree di ct at es t hatw e do not have j ur i sdi ct i on ov ert hese appeal s. 8 S ee Ogletree , 262 S. W . 3d a t321. IV . C ONC L USI ON H a v i n g d e te rm i n e d t h a t w e d o n o t h a v e j u ri s d i c ti o n o v e r D r. S c o re s b y ’s appeal and t hatw e do not have j ur i sdi ct i on ov er D r . D uci c’ s appeal , w e di sm i ss D r . Sco r esby’ s appeal f or w ant of j ur i sdi ct i on and w e di sm i ss Dr. D uci c’ s appeal fo r w a n t o f j u ri s d i c ti o n . S ee T e x . R . A p p . P . 4 3 .2 (f). BI LLM EI ER J U S T I C E PA N EL: DA U PH I N O T, G A RD N ER, an d M EI ER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: Apr i l 30, 2009