Opinion ID: 895143
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: An expert report is a means to determine quickly if the claim has arguable merit.

Text: In cases involving health care liability claims, the expert report serves as a screening mechanism to weed out frivolous suits. The report is not admissible in evidence; may not be used in a deposition, trial, or other proceeding; and may not even be referred to by any party during the course of the action for any purpose. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE § 74.351(k). If a trial court denies a provider's motion to dismiss, the Legislature authorized a narrow window of interlocutory review; once that review is complete, parties know what, if anything, remains at stake. Cf. Gary, 188 F.3d at 893 (discussing Fed. R.Civ.P. 23(f) interlocutory review of orders involving class certification and noting that it permit[s] the parties to proceed in confidence about the scope and stakes of the case thereafter). Our precedent contemplates an interlocutory resolution of these matters. See, e.g., Leland v. Brandal, 257 S.W.3d 204, 205 (Tex.2008) (holding that when elements of expert report are deficient, either by trial court or on appeal, an appellate court may remand the case so that the trial court can consider whether to grant a thirty-day extension to cure the deficiency). The number of cases decided on interlocutory appealboth affirming and reversing a trial court's refusal to dismissis testimony to the fact that providers are utilizing this remedy and that it is working as intended. [3] See id. at 210 (Brister, J., dissenting) (noting that a substantial part of the state's appellate resources are already being expended reviewing preliminary expert reports). When a claim lacking merit is immediately dismissed, and the claimant obliged to pay attorney's fees, future such claims are deterred. It is shortsighted, then, to think that the Legislature was concerned only about particular cases. The larger goal, revealed time and again in legislative findings and statutory amendments, is to muster not only claimants and defendants, but also trial and appellate courts, in a war against the crisis that ensues when the system allows frivolous cases to fester. The motive to bring these cases to fruition right away is lost if postponed until damage to the health care system has already been realized. It is no less myopic to presume that the Legislature built a one-way ratchet to protect only the health care industry. The Legislature's directive that the civil justice system repel weak claims stands alongside its insistence that malpractice be penalized. The issue is one of incentives. The claimant is encouraged to bring only those claims that have merit because not only will those found lacking be dismissed, but the claimant and his attorney will be saddled with attorney's fees and costs for bringing a meritless claim. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE § 74.351(b)(1). The defendant has reason to seek dismissal the moment an expert report reveals its deficiency, or risk the costs of trial and potential defeat at the hands of a jury and judge. IV