### NUM BER 13-07- 0060 8-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 CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
DOCTORS HOSP ITA L A T REN A ISSA NC E, L TD ., A pp ellan t,
v. ELIDA RA M IREZ, INDIV IDUA LLY, A ND AS REPRES ENTA

TIVE OF TH E ESTATE OF ENR IQUE TA

GOMEZ, ETA L., A pp ellees . On ap pe al f rom th e C ou nty C ou rt atL aw N o. 4 of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza Appel lan t, Doc tors H ospi tal at Ren ais sanc e, Ltd. (“ Doc tors Hos pit al” ), appeal s from a ju d gm e n td is m is s in g a h e a lt h ca re li a b il it y cl a im b r o u g h t b y a p p e ll e e s , E li d a Ra m ir e z, ind iv idu all y , and as r epr esent ati v e of the est ate o f Enri q ueta Gomez , C ru zGomez , D ian aO r i gi nal l y , R am i r ez br ought sui t aga i nst El Pat i o Adul t D ay C ar e, I nc. , but l at er j oi ned R et am a M anor 1 N ur si ng Cent er , Sout h T exas H eal t h Sy st em d/ b/ a M cAl l en M edi cal C ent er , D oct or s H ospi t al at R enai ssance, L td . ( “ D o c to r s H o s p ita l” ) , a n d L if e C a r e H o s p ita ls o fS o u th T e x a s , I n c
. O n ly D o c to r s H o s p ita l is a p a r ty t o th is a p p e a l. 2 Co n t re ra s , G u a d a lu p e S a la za r, Jo e G o m e z, Jo s e fa G o m e z, Ju a n G o m e z , L e o G o m e z, Manu ela G. Reyna, Pa blo G o m e z, Ped ro Gom ez, and Virginia Gonzalez(collectiv ely “Ramirez”) . Specif ically , Doctors Hospita l takes issue wi th th e trial co urt’s f ailure to a w ard itatt or ney ’s fees upo n the di smi ss al of Rami re z ’s cl aim. By one is sue, D oct ors H ospi tal cont end s thatthe trial court ab used its discretion in ref using t o a w ard it reason able attor ney ’s fees pursuantto sec ti on 74. 351 of the ci v il pract ic e and re m e d ies co de. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN . § 74.351( b) ( Ver non Su pp. 2 007)

. W e r ev erse and
rema nd to the trial court to dete rmine the ap prop riate am oun t of atto rney’s fees. I. F A CT UA L A ND P ROC EDURA L B A CKGRO UND T h e u n d e rl yin g a c t io n a ro s e f ro m a sl ip a n d f a ll a c c id e n twh e re E n ri qu e t a G o m e z, now dec eased , s ust ain ed a hip frac ture , whic h i mmobil iz ed her and all eg edl y

l ed to her death. O n Mar ch 30, 2 007, Rami re zfil ed th eir se cond amended or ig ina l peti ti on as ser ti ng 1 cl aims for, among othe r thi ng s, pr emis es li abi li ty bas ed i n n e glige n ce, neg li g ence under th e Tex as M ed i c al Li ab i l i ty a nd I ns uran c e Im prov em en t Ac t ( “ M LI IA ” ) , l os s o f c on s or ti um , w rongf ul d e a t h , a nd a surv iv al action . Doctors Hospital respo nde d by filing a plea in abatementand an or ig ina l answ er on M ay 3, 2 0 0 7

. I n thi s fil ing , D oct ors H ospi tal cont end ed th at R am irezfailed to provi de it w ith no tice an d au tho riz ation of their hea lth care li abi li ty clai m as req uired bysecti ons 74.051 and 74 .052 of the c iv il pract ic e and re medies code, see id. §§ 74. 051 , 74. 052 (Ve rnon 2 005 ), a nd it d enie d all o f Ra mirez’s allegation s. On Ma y 16, 2007, Rami re z prov ide d Doc tors Hos pit al w it h noti ce of thei r int ent t o file the e x per

t repor t of R ober

t M ontg omery , M .D

. See i d. § 74.351( a)

. On J uly 27, 2007,O n ap peal , R am i rez argues t hat t he t r i al cour t i m pr oper l y gr ant ed t he m ot i on t o di sm i ss f i l ed b y 2 D oct or s H ospi t al beca use Doct o r s Ho s p i t al wai v ed t he a ppl i cat i on o ft he T exas M edi cal Li abi l i t y and I nsur ance Im p ro v e m e n t A c t (“ M L IIA ”) a n d i ts 1 2 0 -d a y e x p e rt re p o rt re q u i re m e n t. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74

. 351( a) ( Ver non Supp. 200 7)

. Speci f i cal l y , R am i r ez al l eges t hat D oct or s H ospi t al wi l l f ul l y , knowi ngl y , and in te n tio n a lly f a ile d t o p r o v id e m e d ic a l r e c o r d s o n f o u r o c c a s io n s w h ic h p r e v e n te d th e m f r o m p r o d u c in g th e ir exper t r epor t s w i t hi n 120 day s offi l i ng sui t

. H owev er , we ne ed n ot add r ess t hi s cont ent i on b ecause R am i r ez d id n o t f ile a n o tic e o fc r o s s - a p p e a l ta k in g is s u e w ith th e p r o p r ie ty o ft h e t r ia l c o u r t’s g r a n t o fD o c to r s H o s p ita l’s m o ti o n to d i s m i s s
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25. 1( c) ( “ A par t y who seeks t o al t er t he t r i al cour t ’ s j udgm ent or ot her ap pe al ab l e o rde r m us t fi l e a no t i c e of ap pe al

. ”)

. T he s ol e i s s ue i n t hi s c as e pe rt ai ns t o t he t ri al co urt ’ s aw ard ofat t or ney ’ s f ees. 3 Rami re zfil ed anot her

noti ce of i ntent to file a sec ond ex per t repor t c ompil ed by

D ar ry l L. Sti nson, M .D

. See i

d. Doctors H ospi tal obj ect ed to both noti ces
. Rami re zdi d notfil e an
ex per t repor t. Doctors Hospita l subseque ntly f iled a m otion to dism iss Ramirez’ s suit on Au gust 1, 200 7. I n its mo tion to dismiss, Docto rs Hospital cont end ed th at Ram irezfailed to comp ly
w it h the 120- day

st atuto ry

per iod for p ro duci ng ex per t repor ts. See id

. T h e t rial court condu cte d a hear ing on Aug ust 15, 2007, and ult imat ely g ra nted Doc tors H ospi tal ’s moti on to di smi ss on S eptember 10, 2007. In g ra nti ng Doc tors Hos pit al’ s moti on to dis mis s, the

2 tr ial co urt aw arded $5, 000 i n att or ney ’s fees for a s ucc ess ful appea l in thi s Cou rt , $3, 000 in attor ney ’s fees i f a peti ti on for re v iew i s fil ed w it h the T ex as Supr eme Cour t, and $4, 000 in attor ney ’s fees i f the Tex as Supreme C our t g ra nts the peti ti on for re v iew

. How ev er , t he tr ial co urt di d not aw ar d re asona ble and neces sar y attor ney ’s fees for handl ing the mat ter up to dis mis sal

. The tr ial co urt al so sev er ed al l caus es of acti on as ser ted b y R amirezand Doctors Hospita l into a sep arate cause num ber an d explicitly note d tha t the orde r w as a “fin al appl ic abl e [s ic ] order .” Doc tors H ospi tal ti mely fil ed i ts noti ce of appeal on O cto ber 5, 20 07. II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW W e rev iew

the tr ial cour

t’ s or der dis mis si ng Rami re z ’s heal th care li abi li ty cl aims and4

re fusing to g ra nt D oct ors H ospi tal att or ney ’s fees und er an a buse of dis creti on s tandard. See A m . T

ra nsiti onal Car e Ctr s. of Tex., Inc. v. Pal

aci os , 46 S. W .3d 873 , 875 (Tex. 2001 );
s ee al s o D ai l v. Couch , 99 S.W .3d 3 90, 3 91 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, no p et.) (n oti ng thatan a w ard of atto rn ey ’s fees i s g ener all y rev iew ed under an abuse of di sc re ti on s t a n d a rd ). A t ri a l c o u rta b u s e s it s d is c re t io n wh e n ita c t s a r b i t ra ri ly a n d u n re a s o n a b ly,
w it hout re ferenc e t o gu id ing r ule s o r pr inc ipl es, or mis appl ies the law

to the e sta bli shed facts of the c ase. Dow

ner v. Aqu am arine Op erato rs, Inc. , 7 0 1 S

. W

. 2 d 2 3 8 , 2 4 1 -4 2 (T e x. 198 5). III . A N AL Y S IS By i ts sol e i ss u e o n a p peal , D oct ors H ospi tal co ntends thatthe tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on by

r efusing to aw ar d i t reason abl e and neces sar y att or ney ’s fees for handl ing the mat ter

up to the date of

dismi ss al. Spec ific all y , Doc tors Hos pit al arg ues that sec ti on 74. 351 of

the civi l practice an d rem edie s code m a n d a t e s t hat the trial court award
re as on ab l e at to r ne y ’ s fee s an d c os ts of c ou rt i nc ur r ed by th e ph y s i c i an or he al th care prov ide r in conj unc tion w it h the di smi ss al of the heal th c ar e l iab il it y cl aim for fail ur e to compl y w it h the ex per

t re p o rt r e quirement s. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN . § 74.351; see als o T

ony Gul lo Mo tors I, L.P. v. C hapa , 212 S.W .3d 2 99, 3 10 ( Tex . 200 6) (h old ing thatw it h few

ex cept ion s, a par

ty ca nnot re cov er

att or ney ’s fees unles s p er mitt ed by st atute or

co ntract ). Conversely , Ramirez asserts that Doctors H ospita l did not prove that a ny atto rney’s f e e s were ow ed or

thati t w as enti tl ed to att or ney ’s fees und er the Ander

son t e s t. Se e Ar thur Ander son & C o. v. Per

ry Equip. Cor

p. , 945 S.W .2d 8 12, 8 18 ( Tex . 199 7)

. Rami re zO n ap peal , R am i r ez adm i t s t hat “ t hi s que st i on ( whi ch pr ocedur al v ehi cl e i s best used t o di sm i ss a 3 M L IIA c l a i m ) i s n o t w e l l p re s e n te d h e re , a n d i n d e e d i s m o o t w i th i n th e c u rr e n t c o n te x t b e c a u s e n e i th e r p a rty t o t hi s app eal cont est s t he di sm i ssal of D oct or s’ [ si c] H ospi t al

. ” Not wi t hst andi ng Ram i r ez ’ s cl ai m , t he T exas S u p re m e C o u rt h a s re c o g n i ze d th e u s e o f a m o ti o n to d i s m i s s i n th i s c o n te x t. S ee Le w is v. F un de rbu rk , N o. 06
- 05 18 , 200 8 T ex
. LEX I S 312 , at * * 9- 10 ( T ex
. Apr

. 1 1, 2 00 8) ( O ’ N ei l l , J

. , c on cu r r i ng )

. Fu r t he r m or e, a s we hav e pr ev i ousl y not ed, R am i r ez has not f i l ed a not i ce ofcr oss- appea l t aki ng i ssue wi t h t he p r opr i et y of t he t r i al c o u rt’ s g ra n ti n g o f D o c to rs H o s p i ta l ’ s m o ti o n to d i s m i s s
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 2 5 .1 (c ).

T he p ar t i es do not di sput e t hat t he under l y i ng cl ai m s wer e heal t h car e l i abi l i t y cl ai m s or t hat sect i on 4 7 4 .3 5 1 a p p l i e s i n c o n s i d e rin g th e tri a l c o u rt’ s a w a rd o f a tto rn e y ’ s fe e s
. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. §§ 7 4. 001( a) ( 13) ( Ver non 2005) , 74. 351.
5 also argues th at alth ough th e MLIIAcalls fo r the dism issal of a claim for failure to co mp ly wit h t h e e xp e rt re p o rt re qu ir e m e n t s , t h e T e xa s Ru le s o f Ci vil P ro c e d u re d o e s n o ta u t h o ri ze the d is mis sal of a c lai m by a “ moti on to di smi ss .” 3 a. A pp licab le L aw Sect ion 74.351( a) prov ide s t hat: [i ]n a heal thc ar e l iab il it y cl aim, a cl aimant shal l, not lat er than the 1 20th day af ter the date the original petitio n w as f iled, serv e on each party or the p arty’ s atto rney one or mo re expert reports, w ith a curriculum v itae o f each ex pert li ste d i n the r epor

t for each phy si ci an 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. 4 T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 74.351( a)

. Sect ion 74.3 51( b) st ates thati n the ev ent that a pl ain ti ff

does not compl y

w it h the 120- day

ti me per iod , t he tr ial co urt, on th e moti on of t he aff ect ed phy si ci an or heal th c ar e prov ide r, “ shall . . . enter an order tha t: (1) awards to t he af fec ted p hys ician or

health c ar

e pr ovi der re asona ble attor

ney’ s f ees and c ost

s o f
cour t inc ur re d by the p hys ician or

health c ar

e pr ovi der ; and ( 2) di smi ss es the c lai m . .
. w it h prejud ice to the ref iling of the claim .” Id. § 74 .351( b) ( emphasi s a dded)

. b. Discus sion As previously

men tione d, th e trial court failed to aw ard Docto rs Hospital atto rney’s fe e s fo r s e rvi c e s p ro vide d up to th e po in t o f di sm iss a l. Atth e Au gus t 1 5 , 2 0 0 7 he a rin g,6

Rona ld Hole, cou nsel for Doctors H ospita l, testif ied as to the issue of atto rney’s fees. Hole tes ti fied th at he w as fam il iar w it h the usual and cust omary terms and fees ass oci ated w it h h a n d l i n g me d i c a l n e g l i g e n c e c a s e s i n H i d a l g o C o u n t y , Te x a s
. H o l e fu rt h e r t e s t i fi ed th at he p erson ally

w orked on this case f rom the b eginning a nd th at a rea sona ble an d ne cessary fee for han dling the case up to th e po int of dismissal w as $9 ,84 0

. Ho le n o t ed th at in der iv ing thi s f igu re , he charg ed $200 per hour for for ty -n ine hours o f w or k. In addi ti on, Hol e s tated that : (1 ) if the cas e w as to b e a p p e a le d to thi s C our t, a reason abl e and
neces sar

y fee wou ld b e $ 1 0 ,000; ( 2) i f a peti ti on for re v iew w as filed w it h the Tex as Supreme C our

t, then a r e a so n abl e and neces sar y fee w oul d be $6,000; and (3 ) if the pet ition w as grant ed by the T exas Su prem e Court, a reaso nab le and nece ssaryfee would be $ 8 , 0 0 0

. R a mi r e zn e i t h e r c ro s s - e x a mi n e d H o l e n o r p r e s e n t e d a n y

t e sti mony cont rov erting his attorne y ’s fe e calcula tions. In Ar thur Ander son & C o. , t h e T ex as Supr eme C our t i nti mated ei g ht fact ors t o
con sid er w hen det er mini ng the re asona ble ness of attor ney ’s fees. 945 S.W .2d a t 818

. These fact ors a re : (1 ) the t ime and l abor

r eq uired, the nov elt y

and difficul ty

of the q uest ion s in vo lve d , a n d t h e sk il l r e qu ir e d t o p e rf o rm t h e le ga l s e rvi c e p ro p e rl y; (2) the likelihoo d .

. . thatthe acce pta nce o f the pa rticular emp loymentw ill pr ecl ude ot her

empl oy ment by

the lawy er ; (3) the fee cu stom arily

charged in the localityfor similar legal serv ices; (4 ) the a mount i nv olv ed and the resul ts obtai ned; (5) the tim e limitat ions imp osed bythe client or by the circum stan ces; (6 ) the n ature and len g th of the professi onal r ela ti onshi p w it h the cl ien t;7

(7 ) the ex per ien ce, reputat ion , and abili ty of the lawy er

or l awy ers p er

forming the s er v ic es; and (8 ) w hether

the fee is fix ed or cont ing ent on re sul ts obtai ned or unc ertai nty of col lec ti on befor e the l eg al ser v ic es hav e been re nder ed. Id. C ontrar

y to Rami re z ’s ass erti ons, Hol e’s tes ti mony es tabl is hed s ev er al of the Ander son prong s, inc lud ing : (1 ) the t ime and l abor r eq uired; ( 2) the fee c ust omari ly charg ed in the loc ali ty for s imi lar

l eg al ser

v ic es; and (3 ) amount inv olv ed and resul ts obtai ned. See id. ; see als o F

all s C ounty Water C ontr

ol & Im pr ovem ent Di

st. No. 1 v. Haa k , 220 S.W .3d 9 2, 9 4 (T e x. A p p
. – W a c o 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t

. ) ( h o ld in g t h a tt h e t ri a l c o u rt is n o tre qu ir e d t o re c e ive
ev ide nce on all eig ht fact ors o utl ine d i n Ar thur Ander

son & C o. and that the t ri al cour t may als o c onsi der

the enti re r ecord, t he ev ide nce pr esent ed on r eason abl eness , t he amount in cont ro v ersy , the common know led g e of the par ti ci pants as l awy ers a nd j udg es, and the
re lat iv e s ucc ess of the part ies in determi nin g the is sue of attor ney ’s fees) ; Hay s &M ar ti n, L.L.P . v . U bin as- Br ache , 192 S.W .3d 631 , 636 (T e x. A p p
. –Dallas 20 06, pet. den ied). Base d on the foregoing, w e con clude thatthe trial court ha d suf f icient evidence b efore it to de ter mine re asona ble att or ney ’s fees w it hin the cont ext of s ect ion 74.351. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74. 351( b)

. W here an expert repo rt does not satisfy the statu tory requireme nts, th e trial court has n o discretion but to (1) g rant th e dism issal of the la wsuit, an d (2) aw ard reaso nab le attor ney ’s fees and co sts

. See Pala ci os , 46 S.W .3d at 877 (“ if the pla int iff f ail s w it hin the ti me al low ed eit her to prov ide the ex per t repor ts and c ur ri cul um v it ae, o r to no nsui t .

. . t he tr ial co urt mus t s anct ion the pl ain ti ff bydismi ss ing the cas e w it h preju dic e, aw ardin g co sts and at tor ney ’s fees t o the defendant

. . . .” ) (a nal y z ing the pr edece ss or to the c ur re nt8

v ers i on of th e M LI IA , for me r ar ti c l e 45 90 i , s ec ti on 13 .0 1( d) of th e Tex as R evised Civ il Stat utes ); see als o T

re vi no v . C ar ri zale s , No. 13- 05- 556- CV , 2006 T ex . App. LEX IS 7 236, at * 1 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti Aug

. 1 7 , 2006, no pet.) ( “A lt houg h the tr ial co urt has discretion to set th e am oun t of reason able a ttorn ey’s fees, the cou rt may not, in circumsta nces su ch as the se, com plete ly d eny a duly f iled mo tion for atto rney’s fee’s [sic] and c ost s o f cour

t.” ( Inter nal cita ti ons omit ted.) ). Mo re ov er , sect ion 74.3 51( b) prov ide s t hat the t ri al cour

t “ shal l

. . . ente r an order ” aw ardin g “ re asona ble att or ney ’s fees and co sts of court incurred by the physici an o r health care provider . . . .” T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 74. 351( b)

. The ter m “ shal l” i mposes a mandator y duty on the tr ial cour

t. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. § 311. 016( 2) ( Ver non 199 8) ; see a lso Mitchell v. Hancock , 196 S.W . 694 , 700 ( Tex

. Ci v . App.–F ort W orth 1917, no w ri t) (“ [T]he ordin ar y meanin g of ‘s hal l’ or

‘ must’ is of m and ato ry

e f fect

. . . .”). T here fore, the t rial cou rt was not pe rmitte d to de ny Doctors Hos pit al attor ney ’s fees for handl ing the matter up t o the poi nt of dis mis sal

. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74. 351( b)

. Beca use Hol e tes ti fied as to the reason abl eness of attor ney ’s fees i n thi s mat ter and becau se sec ti on 74. 351 mandat es re asona ble att or ney ’s f ees upon a failu re to compl y w it h the ex pe rt r ep or

t r eq ui r em en ts , w e c on c l ud e th at th e tr i al c ou rt ab us ed i ts di s c r et i on in
re fusing to aw ar d Doct ors H ospi tal att or ney ’s fees for handl ing the matter up t o the poi nt of dis mis sal

. See i

d. § 74. 351( b) ; see a lso Van derwerff v. Bea tha rd , 239 S. W .3d 4 06, 4 09 (Tex . App.–D all as 2007, no pet.) (“ Atto rn ey ’s fees and co sts of cour t are mandat or

y under the MLIIA w hen a claima nt f ails to f ile an exp e rt r e p o rt o n a he alth ca re liability claim.”). Acc ordin g ly , w e s ust ain D octo rs Hospi tal ’s so le is sue and remand to the tr ial co urt t o9

det ermin e reaso nab le atto rney’s fees u p to th e time of dismissal. IV. C ONCL US I ON W e re ve rs e t h e ju d gm e n to f t h e t ri a l c o u rt a s itp e rt a in s t o a t t o rn e y’s fe e s , a n d we rema nd to the trial court to dete rmine the ap prop riate am oun t of atto rney’s fees.

_________

_________

_________

___ DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 10t h day

of Jul y , 200 8.