Source: http://texas-opinions.com/08-In-Re-Buster-Tex-2008-PC-mandamus-HCLC-expert-report-appeal.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:25:16+00:00

Document:
deficiency. See id. § 74.351(c).
853–54. Brewer then sought mandamus relief in this Court.
faith effort sufficient to justify a 30-day extension. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.351(l); see, e.
whether expert report by anesthesiologist about cardiologist’s care constituted good-faith effort).
report from a new expert, the court of appeals erred in concluding otherwise.
Finally, the court of appeals also ordered the trial court to dismiss Brewer’s case within ten days.
jurisdiction. Thus, these proceedings are not moot.
dismissing these proceedings as moot, and to deny Oak Manor’s petition for writ of mandamus.
We are confident the court will comply and our writ will issue only if it does not.
Brewer’s estate. Real Party in Interest is Nexion Health at Oak Manor, Inc., d/b/a Oak Manor Nursing Home.
CV are hereby withdrawn, and the following opinion and corresponding order are substituted therefor.
want of jurisdiction and conditionally grant its petition for writ of mandamus.
stairs, he had several injuries requiring medical treatment.
expert report relating to causation must be from a physician.
order. We consolidate the two proceedings for purposes of this opinion.
In a health care liability claim, the claimant must serve an expert report on each party within 120 days after filing suit. Tex.
claimed.” Id. § 74.351(r)(6). The plaintiff may use more than one expert to address the necessary elements of the report.
reports must be by a physician. Id. § 74.351(r)(5)(C), (6).
concludes, the report was not merely “deficient,” but was no report at all and Brewer was not entitled to an extension of time.
Brewer counters that a report was timely served. Id. § 74.351(c).
would satisfy each of the statutory criteria.”).
an ‘expert report’ because it has one or more deficiencies in its contents.” See, e.g., Valley Baptist Med. Ctr. v. Agua, 198 S.
Ogletree, 2007 Tex. LEXIS 1028, at *10.
whether interlocutory appeal or mandamus is the appropriate avenue for review.
exception to the general rule that only final judgments are appealable. Thoyakulathu, 192 S.W.3d at 851 n.2.
Oak Manor argues that we have jurisdiction over its interlocutory appeal because the trial court denied its motion to dismiss.
trial court’s order by mandamus.
prejudicial error of law.” Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (citing Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.
2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 6655, at *14 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 21, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.); De La Vergne v.
Danos v. Rittger, No. 01-06-00350-CV, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 1568, at *11 (Tex. App.– Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 1, 2007, pet.
the other two courts reached the same conclusion. See Cuellar, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 8974, at *11; Thomas, 2007 Tex. App.
LEXIS 6655, at *12; De La Vergne, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 4393, at *3.
s motion to dismiss, it abused its discretion.
Ltd., 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 591, at *9; Low v. King, 867 S.W.2d 141, 142 (Tex. App.–Beaumont 1993, orig. proceeding).
not timely served on a medical malpractice defendant, a remedy by direct appeal is inadequate. Highland Pines, 2004 Tex.
the trial court, Oak Manor has no adequate remedy by appeal.
for compliance with this court’s opinion and order, a certified copy of its order evidencing such compliance.
Opinion delivered January 16, 2008.
1 The Honorable Campbell Cox II, Judge of the 145th Judicial District Court, Nacogdoches County, Texas is the respondent.
shall grant a grace period of 30 days to permit the claimant to comply with that subsection.
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code) (current version at Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(c)).
to cure the deficiency.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(c).

References: § 74
 § 74
 § 74
 § 74
 § 74
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 § 74
 § 74