Opinion ID: 894924
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Deficient Reports

Text: Dr. Ogletree argues that as a radiologist, Dr. Karsh may not opine on a urologist's standard of care and, therefore, no report was served that met the statutory definition of an expert report. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE § 74.401. Because no report was served, he contends the trial court had no discretion to grant a thirty day extension, and that its denial of the motion to dismiss should therefore be immediately appealable. That is not how the Legislature drafted the statute, however. As the court of appeals noted, the predecessor statute allowed a discretionary thirty day extension for good cause and a mandatory thirty day grace period upon a showing that the failure to file a conforming report was due to accident or mistake and was not intentional or due to conscious indifference. 212 S.W.3d at 333 n. 4 (citing former TEX. REV.CIV. STAT. art. 4590i, § 13.01). The 2003 amendments, on the other hand, created a statute-of-limitations-type deadline within which expert reports must be served. If no report is served within the 120 day deadline provided by 74.3 51(a), the Legislature denied trial courts the discretion to deny motions to dismiss or grant extensions, and a trial court's refusal to dismiss may be immediately appealed. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE § 74.351(b) (stating that a trial court shall dismiss a claim when expert reports are not served within 120 days); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a)(9) (authorizing interlocutory appeal of the denial of a motion to dismiss filed under 74.351(b)). This strict 120 day deadline can lead to seemingly harsh results. See, e.g., Thoyakulathu v. Brennan, 192 S.W.3d 849, 856 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2006, no pet.) (holding that expert report had not been served when plaintiff filed the report but failed to serve it on the doctor due to facsimile error); Garcia v. Marichalar, 185 S.W.3d 70, 73 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2005, no pet.) (finding that plaintiff's expert report that mentioned other providers but not Garcia was in effect no report as to Garcia and concluding that an extension was, therefore, improper). Nonetheless, the Legislature imposed the deadline as part of its effort to reduce excessive frequency . . . of health care liability claims. Act of June 2, 2003, 78th Leg., R. S., ch. 204, § 10.11(b)(3), 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws 847, 884. But while the 2003 amendments were intended to decrease claims, they do not mandate dismissal for deficient, but curable, reports. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 74.351(c)(stating that [i]f an expert report has not been served within [120 days] because elements of the report are found deficient, the court may grant one 30-day extension to the claimant in order to cure the deficiency); Act of June 2, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 204, § 10.11(b)(1), (3), 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws 847, 884 (amendment's goal was to reduce claims but to do so in a manner that will not unduly restrict a claimant's rights any more than necessary to deal with the crisis). Indeed, the Legislature recognized that not all initial timely served reports would satisfy each of the statutory criteria. As a result, the amendments explicitly give trial courts discretion to grant a thirty day extension so that parties may, where possible, cure deficient reports. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE § 74.351(c). In this important respect, a deficient report differs from an absent report. [2] Thus, even when a report is deemed not served because it is deficient, the trial court retains discretion to grant a thirty day extension, and the Legislature explicitly stated that such orders are not appealable. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§ 74.351(c); 51.014(a)(9); see also In re Woman's Hosp. of Texas, Inc., 141 S.W.3d 144, 149 (Tex.2004) (Owen, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part to denial of mandamus) (noting that the 2003 amendments made it plausible, even likely. . . that the Legislature intended to narrow existing law in order to eliminate interlocutory review when a trial court granted a 30-day extension). This prohibition is both logical and practical. If Dr. Ogletree's position were correct, a defendant would be entitled to immediately appeal a trial court's order denying dismissal any time a report failed to meet strict statutory guidelines, even though the statute permits a plaintiff to cure defects of that nature. We decline to read section 74.351 so narrowly. If a defendant could immediately (and prematurely) appeal, the court of appeals would address the report's sufficiency while its deficiencies were presumably being cured at the trial court level, an illogical and wasteful result. Moreover, because the Legislature authorized a single, thirty day extension for deficient reports, health care providers face only a minimal delay before a report's sufficiency may again be challenged and the case dismissed, if warranted. Thus, if a deficient report is served and the trial court grants a thirty day extension, that decisioneven if coupled with a denial of a motion to dismissis not subject to appellate review. That is precisely the situation we face here. Dr. Ogletree urges that the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss and the order granting an extension are severable and that he is appealing only the denial of his motion to dismiss. We disagree. Like the court of appeals, we conclude that, when a report has been served, the actions denying the motion to dismiss and granting an extension are inseparable. 212 S.W.3d at 334. The statute plainly prohibits interlocutory appeals of orders granting extensions, and if a defendant could separate an order granting an extension from an order denying the motion to dismiss when a report has been served, section 51.014(a)(9)'s ban on interlocutory appeals for extensions would be meaningless. We do not think the Legislature contemplated severing the order denying the motion to dismiss from the order granting the extension when it expressly provided that orders granting extensions were not appealable on an interlocutory basis. Because a report that implicated Dr. Ogletree's conduct was served and the trial court granted an extension, the court of appeals could not reach the merits of the motion to dismiss. We conclude that the court of appeals correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction over Dr. Ogletree's appeal. B