Case Name: Cecelia LEDESMA, Appellant v. George L. SHASHOUA, M.D.; Oakwood Women's Cenre, P.A. at Round Rock; Joseph Eddings; B. Johns, CRNA; and Round Rock Medical Center, Appellees
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 2008-05-23
Citations: 440 S.W.3d 638
Docket Number: No. 03-05-00454-CV
Parties: Cecelia LEDESMA, Appellant v. George L. SHASHOUA, M.D.; Oakwood Women’s Cenre, P.A. at Round Rock; Joseph Eddings; B. Johns, CRNA; and Round Rock Medical Center, Appellees.
Judges: Before Chief Justice LAW, Justices PATTERSON, PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, WALDROP and HENSON.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 440
Pages: 638–642

Head Matter:
Cecelia LEDESMA, Appellant v. George L. SHASHOUA, M.D.; Oakwood Women’s Cenre, P.A. at Round Rock; Joseph Eddings; B. Johns, CRNA; and Round Rock Medical Center, Appellees.
No. 03-05-00454-CV.
Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin.
May 23, 2008.
Carolyn M. Barnes, Legal Guidance, Carolyn Barnes, PC, Round Rock, TX, for Appellant.
Brett David Timmons, Michelle E. Roberson, Cooper & Scully, PC, Dallas, TX, for Appellees.
Before Chief Justice LAW, Justices PATTERSON, PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, WALDROP and HENSON.

Opinion:
ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION EN BANC
BOB PEMBERTON, Justice.
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION
Ms. Ledesma has filed a motion for reconsideration en banc. In addition to re-urging her arguments on original submission, Ledesma contends that her inability to obtain discovery befóte the 120-day expert-report deadline caused section 74.351 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code to operate unconstitutionally in her case and rendered the district court's refusal to grant her a 30-day extension under 74.351(c) an abuse of discretion. As we recently suggested on rehearing in Bo-gar v. Esparza, " 'we can certainly imagine a due process deprivation to a health care liability claimant pihned between a firm expert report deadline and a hypothetical absence of discovery tools.' " 257 S.W.3d 354 (Tex.App.-Austin 2008, no. pet. h.) (op. on reh'g) (quoting Thoyakulathu v. Brennan, 192 S.W.3d 849, 855 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2006, no pet.)). That case has not been presented to us here. Ledesma has not fully and effectively utilized the discovery methods that section 74.351(s) allows, nor preserved any complaints regarding deprivations of such discovery.
We overrule Ms. Ledesma's motion for reconsideration en banc.
DISSENTING OPINION