Opinion ID: 2831405
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Timeliness of the Reports

Text: Union Carbide argues that the trial court erred by considering any of the Emmites’ reports other than the two reports filed before the September 14, 2007 hearing. We disagree. Union Carbide does not dispute the timeliness of the physician reports of Dr. Kradin, attached to the Emmites’ original petition, or the initial report of Dr. Britton, served in response to 9 “Asbestos-related injury” means personal injury or death allegedly caused, in whole or in part, by inhalation or ingestion of asbestos. Id. § 90.001(2). 14 Union Carbide’s initial motion to dismiss. Rather, it argues that any further reports were untimely because they were filed more than fifteen days after the motion to dismiss was filed, and the Emmites never moved for an extension of time. See id. §§ 90.007(b), (e). Union Carbide’s initial motion to dismiss was premised on the lack of a report meeting section 90.003(a)’s requirements. As previously noted, the trial court orally denied the motion, but did not sign a written order. And because the court ruled in their favor, the Emmites had no reason to move for an extension of time or to supplement their physician reports. In its motion for reconsideration, Union Carbide argued, among other things, that the absence of references to pulmonary function testing in the Emmites’ physician reports made them noncompliant with both section 90.003 and the alternative safety valve requirements of section 90.010(f)—the section the pretrial court relied upon when it orally denied Union Carbide’s motion to dismiss. At the November 2007 hearing on Union Carbide’s motion to reconsider, the Emmites asserted they were still proceeding under section 90.003, reiterated their contention that the pulmonary function testing requirements of Chapter 90 were inapplicable in a death case, and notified the court that they were attempting to have Joseph’s death certificate amended so asbestosis would be listed as a cause of death. The court granted them six weeks to do so, and indicated that it would make its ruling on Union Carbide’s motion to reconsider and the underlying motion to dismiss based on the outcome of the Emmites’ attempt to have the death certificate amended. The Emmites argue, and the en banc court of appeals held, that the Emmites’ request for leave to seek amendment of Joseph’s death certificate amounted to a motion to extend Chapter 90’s time limits for serving reports. 386 S.W.3d at 290; see TEX . CIV . PRAC. & REM . CODE § 90.007(e). 15 The en banc court held that the pretrial court necessarily inferred both such a motion and good cause to support the extension by allowing the Emmites six weeks to seek the amendment. 386 S.W.3d at 290-91. Union Carbide responds that no motion was made, good cause could not have been shown because the reports were incurable under section 90.003(a)(2)(D)’s pulmonary function testing requirement, and the trial court erred in allowing the Emmites additional time. We need not address the question of whether a motion to extend time existed and whether it was supported by good cause because Union Carbide did not secure a written ruling on either its motion for reconsideration or the underlying motion to dismiss, nor did it object to the trial court’s failure to sign a written order. Thus, both motions remained pending before the MDL court. In January 2008, while Union Carbide’s motion to reconsider was still awaiting resolution, the Emmites again served Union Carbide with Dr. Britton’s report and for the first time affirmatively invoked the safety valve provisions of section 90.010(f)(1). Then, at the January 18, 2008 hearing, the Emmites asserted that Dr. Britton’s report complied with the safety valve requirements and requested the full evidentiary hearing required by section 90.010(g). As we explain below, because the Emmites elected to proceed under section 90.010(f) at a time when the court had not ruled on Union Carbide’s motions to dismiss and for reconsideration, and because the timing requirements that apply to a section 90.003 report do not apply to a section 90.010(f) report, the trial court did not err by considering the Emmites’ 90.010(f) reports and other evidence it later offered. In construing a statute our primary objective is to ascertain the Legislature’s intent, and we do that, if possible, through the words the Legislature selected. City of Rockwall v. Hughes, 246 S.W.3d 621, 625 (Tex. 2008). We derive the Legislature’s intent from the statute as a whole, not 16 by reading individual provisions in isolation. Tex. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ruttiger, 381 S.W.3d 430, 454 (Tex. 2012). Section 90.007(a) outlines the procedure for moving for dismissal for failure to timely serve a report that complies with section 90.003. TEX . CIV . PRAC. & REM . CODE § 90.007(a). That provision invokes the timing requirements of section 90.006, but makes no reference to reports filed pursuant to the safety valve provisions in section 90.010(f)(1). See id. The timing requirements outlined in section 90.006 refer to reports served pursuant to section 90.003, but similarly to the dismissal provisions in section 90.007, do not make reference to reports served under the safety valve provisions in section 90.010(f)(1). See id. § 90.006. If the trial court finds a section 90.007(a) motion to dismiss to be meritorious, it must dismiss the claim “except as provided by” section 90.010(e). Id. § 90.007(c). Section 90.010(e) mandates dismissal unless the claimant serves a report that complies with section 90.010(f)(1) and the court, on motion and after a hearing, makes the findings required by section 90.010(f)(2). Id. § 90.010(e). Thus, section 90.010(e) necessarily contemplates that a section 90.003 compliant report has not been served on the defendant, and at the same time provides a method for a claimant to avoid dismissal of the claim by serving a report that complies with the alternative safety valve requirements, which in turn requires an evidentiary hearing and factual findings by the court. See id. § 90.010(e). Section 90.010(e) does not mention a timing requirement for the hearing or findings. See id. Among the findings a court must make under section 90.010(f)(2) is that the exposed person has impairment comparable to the impairment criteria set forth in section 90.003. See id. § 90.010(f)(2)(c). Section 90.010(g) further requires the section 90.010(f)(2) findings to be made 17 after an evidentiary hearing at which both parties may offer evidence and also requires a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery before that hearing. Id. § 90.010(g). Section 90.010 thus necessarily expands the MDL court’s inquiry beyond the issue of whether a report that complies with section 90.003 has been timely served on the defendant. And although Union Carbide argues that a two-year discovery period is not reasonable and defeats the purposes of Chapter 90, the factual situation here explains the delay. It follows that because the Emmites invoked the safety valve provisions of section 90.010(f) at a time when the court was still considering Union Carbide’s motion for reconsideration and motion to dismiss, they could introduce additional evidence and reports for the trial court to consider. Accordingly, the MDL court did not abuse its discretion by considering all of the Emmites’ physician reports and evidence. We now turn to the issue of whether Dr. Prince’s report complied with the safety valve requirements of section 90.010(f)(1).