Source: http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/1stCoA-2009-Morris-MD-v-Umberson-by-Jennings-HCLC-ILA-appeal-dismissed-premature-extension-to-file-expert-report.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 09:55:18+00:00

Document:
interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
denying his motion to dismiss the health care liability claim of appellee, Mary Umberson. In two issues, Dr.
We dismiss the interlocutory appeal.
curriculum vitae, but she did not serve it on Dr. Morris, who still had not answered.
May 11, 2009, Umberson served Dr. Morris the expert report of Dr. Ahsan Ali and his curriculum vitae.
taken from an order granting an extension under Section 74.351.
served, failing which all objections are waived.
Id. § 74.351(a)–(c) (Vernon 2008).
court may then grant one thirty-day extension to cure defects. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(c).
granting such an extension. Id.
served on him, the trial court did not have discretion to grant Umberson an extension.
Umberson’s expert report. Univ. of Tex. Health Sci. Ctr. at Houston v. Gutierrez, 237 S.W.3d 869, 871 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied).
actually filed his answer, May 7, 2009. In support of her argument, Umberson relies on Gardner v. U.S.
Imaging, Inc., 274 S.W.3d 669, 671–72 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam).
trial court granted the default judgment on December 14, 2006, and severed the suit against the facility. Id.
asserting that the report was non-compliant. Id. The trial court denied the motion, and the facility appealed. Id.
of appeals should also have remanded to have the trial court consider granting a thirty-day extension to cure.
Id. at 671. The motion was denied. Id.
serving [the facility] with an expert report was tolled until such time as [the facility] made an appearance.” Id.
an expert report on March 20, well within the remaining statutory period.” Id. (emphasis added).
was timely served on Dr. Morris on May 11, 2009.
We overrule Dr. Morris’s first issue.
discretion to grant Umberson a thirty-day extension to cure. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351.
extension under section 74.351(c). Id. at 335.
being cured at the trial court level, an illogical and wasteful result.
doctors appealed an order granting an extension and made such an argument. 266 S.W.3d 451, 454 (Tex.
their motions to dismiss included an order granting an extension. Id. at 455.
report did not address causation and was not merely deficient but no report at all. 243 S.W.3d 848, 851 (Tex.
App.—Tyler 2008) (opinion on rehearing), rev’d on other grounds, In re Buster, 275 S.W.3d 475 (Tex. 2008).
content of the report . . . the report is deficient, but the deficiency does not render it ‘no report at all.’” Id.
the interlocutory appeal. Id. at 851–52.
reports that healthcare defendants assert are “no report” as to them. Baylor Coll. of Med. v. Pokluda, 283 S.
causation as to appellant and granted extension).
Garcia v. Marichalar, 185 S.W.3d 70, 74 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2005, no pet.); Maxwell v. Siefert, 237 S.W.
substantially different from the instant case.
served as to the healthcare defendant. Id. at 74.
correctly denied the plaintiff an extension. Id.
were ineligible for an extension. Id. at 369.
denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss as to the plaintiff’s direct liability theory. Id.; see also Univ. of Tex.
no discretion to grant extension but only to dismiss).
served reports failed to even mention the healthcare defendants in the capacity in which they were sued.
standard of care, explained how Dr. Morris’s actions breached that standard, and addressed causation.
trial court found the report to be deficient as to causation.
short of a good faith effort as to the essential element of causation.” However, Dr. Ali’s report implicated Dr.
Morris’s conduct, and, thus, it was not, as in Rivenes, “no report” as to Dr. Morris.
to no report at all and thus ineligible for any section 74.315(c) extension.
overrule Dr. Morris’s second issue.
with Umberson that Dr. Morris’s appeal is premature and hold that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.
Accordingly, we dismiss Dr. Morris’s interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

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