Source: http://texas-opinions.com/08-Leland-DDS-v-Brandal-Tex-2008-by-ONeill-HCLC-30-day-extension-to-file-adequate-expert-report.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:50:50+00:00

Document:
The San Antonio Court of Appeals’ judgment is affirmed .
Justice Wainwright, Justice Medina, Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett joined.
that it would be more consistent with the Legislature's purposes in curtailing medical malpractice litigation.
remanding the case to the trial court to consider whether to grant a thirty-day extension.
George Brandal was a patient of Dr. John Leland, a dentist, for the purpose of obtaining dentures.
consultation to stop taking his anticoagulant medication, which he had been taking since 1994.
under section 74.351(c). Id. at 64–65.
report is deficient. We disagree with both points.
against whom a liability claim is asserted.
2005) (current version at Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.351(a)).
provider against whom a claim will be made at least sixty days written notice before filing suit.
the 120-day period and the trial court erred in considering them.
statute’s language is unambiguous, its plain meaning will prevail. McIntyre v. Ramirez, 109 S.W.
3d 741, 745 (Tex. 2003).
meet that standard, and the causal relationship between that failure and the plaintiff’s injury. Tex.
may challenge that ruling by interlocutory appeal. Id. § 51.014(a)(9); Lewis v. Funderburk, ___ S.
W.3d ___, ___ (Tex. 2008).
when the court of appeals finds deficient a report that the trial court considered adequate.
claimant in order to cure the deficiency.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.351(c).
“elements of the report are found deficient,” and does not confine that review to a particular court.
trial court,” which we decline to do. See Lee v. City of Houston, 807 S.W.2d 290, 294–95 (Tex.
extension issue to the trial court.
did not err in considering them.
Legislature was aware of this and intended the provisions to be interpreted together. See Acker v.
claimant’s rights,” Act of June 2, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 204, § 10.11(b)(3), 2003 Tex. Gen.
side of the equation, contrary to the statutory language.
discuss them. Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals’ judgment.
§ 1, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 1590.
 See Austin Heart, P.A. v. Webb, 228 S.W.3d 276, 284–85 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, no pet.); Murphy v.
Mendoza, 234 S.W.3d 23, 30 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.); Valley Baptist Med. Ctr. v. Gonzales, No.
Tex. App. LEXIS 2505, at *9, *10 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Mar. 30, 2006, no pet.).

References: § 74
 v. 
 § 51
 v. 
 § 74
 v. 
 v.

 § 10

§ 1
 v. 
 v.

 v.