Source: http://texas-opinions.com/law-HCLC.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:31:07+00:00

Document:
costs of court. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(b)(1), (2) (West 2011).
“The date for serving the report may be extended by written agreement of the affected parties.” Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(a). No such agreement appears here.
trial court with instructions to dismiss Esparza's claims and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
have been performed or furnished" by St. David's during Esparza's "medical care, treatment, or confinement." Tex.
consistent with this opinion. See Tex. R. App. P. 59.1, 60.2(d).
served. The trial court and court of appeals held that they were not. We disagree.
Omaha’s request for attorney’s fees and costs.
reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
to dismiss the claim before the thirty-day period has expired.
court’s refusal to dismiss the case.
limitations when a plaintiff provides the required pre-suit notice without also providing the required medical authorization form.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and render judgment that the Marroquins take nothing.
but concluded the trial court abused its discretion by denying the requested extension. 282 S.W.3d 82, 91.
under these circumstances and was not unconstitutional as applied to her. 285 S.W.3d 517. We agree and affirm.
View Electronic Briefs in 09-0446 STOCKTON v. HOWARD A. OFFENBACH, M.D.
are subject to the TMLA and must be dismissed because no expert report was served.
affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
the trial court for further proceedings.
Act waives immunity from suit. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.
provisions conflict with other law. See id. §§ 74.251(a), 74.002(a).
the court of appeals’ judgment.
Mashburn's first issue in part.
appeal and affirm the trial court's order.
requirements in section 74.351 of the civil practices and remedies code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351 (West Supp.
practice and remedies code is unconstitutional. We affirm the district court's judgment.
08-0819 PEDRO P. HANI, M.D. v. ISABELLA JIMENEZ, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF REFUGIO P.
Rosner, M.D., appellants' expert. We affirm.
MARELYN MEDINA, M.D. v. MICHAEL B. HART; from Hidalgo County; 13th district (13-04-00436-CV, 240 SW3d 16, 07-05-07, pet.
did not probably cause the rendition of an improper judgment. Tex. R. App. P. 44.1(a). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
CYNTHIA HIEGER AND ROY C. HIEGER, BOTH INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF DAVID C. HIEGER, A MINOR v.
THOMAS, JR., M.D. v. ROBERT C. RENAUD; from Nueces County; 13th district (13-04-00524-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 04-20-06, pet.
motion to strike portions of the affidavit of Andrew Lehrman. We reverse and remand.
a motion to dismiss that challenged appellee's expert report. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(l) (Vernon Supp. 2006).
The trial court denied Hababag's motion to dismiss. We reverse and remand.
conclude the trial court properly dismissed Lee's claims. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. We affirm.
requested that the health care liability claim against Dr. Foster be dismissed because Margarita B. Zavala's expert, Alan C.
for Dr. Foster's estate filed this interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ' 51.014(a)(9) (Vernon Supp. 2006).
that she failed to provide a sufficient expert report as required by section 74.351 of the civil practice and remedies code. See Tex. Civ.
expert report was sufficient, we reverse the trial court's orders and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
appeals, the issues are sufficiently similar that they can be disposed of in one opinion. We reverse and remand to the trial court.
statutory expert report requirements. We affirm the trial court's order.
by Madelon Berry. In his sole issue, Spitzer argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss. We affirm.
MIRNA ACOSTA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND, NATURAL PARENT, AND LEGAL GUARDIAN OF DENIS ACOSTA, A MINOR v.
(collectively "Memorial Southwest"), and Greater Houston Anestheiology, P.A. ("GHA") asserting various health care liability claims.
which the trial court granted. We affirm.
claims of David and Juanita Elkins. We affirm.
Reed Grahan, Individually and as Surviving Spouse and Representative of the Estate of Lee Graham. We affirm.
PARENTS AND NEXT FRIENDS OF M.A.V., A MINOR; from Harris County; 14th district (14-06-00072-CV, 231 SW3d 1, 04-03-07, pet.
Practice and Remedies Code. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 74.001-.507 (entitled "Medical Liability").
challenges for cause to those individuals. We affirm.
issues for our review. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
care and the death of Magdalena Perez. Because the Abregos' expert reports are sufficient as to the issue of causation, we affirm.
MLIIA § 13.01(g) to file amended reports meeting the statutory requirements. We affirm in part and reverse in part and remand.
motion to dismiss the underlying medical malpractice suit against him. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court's order.

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

 v. 
 § 74
 v.

 § 13