Opinion ID: 2831405
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 90

Text: As noted previously, Chapter 90 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code was enacted by the 79th Legislature in 2005, signed by the Governor in May 2005, and became effective on September 1 of that year. Act of May 16, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 97, § 1, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 169; see TEX . CIV . PRAC. & REM . CODE §§ 90.001–012. By enacting Chapter 90, the Legislature sought to address an asbestos litigation crisis which it found was “costly to employers, employees, 8 litigants, and the court system.” Act of May 16, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 97, § 1(d), (h), 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 169. The Legislature’s stated purpose in enacting the legislation was to protect the right of people with impairing asbestos-related . . . injuries to pursue their claims for compensation in a fair and efficient manner through the Texas court system, while at the same time preventing scarce judicial and litigant resources from being misdirected by the claims of individuals who have been exposed to asbestos . . . but have no function or physical impairment from asbestos-related . . . disease. Id. § 1(n). To accomplish its purpose, the Legislature (1) adopt[ed] medically accepted standards for differentiating between individuals with nonmalignant asbestos-related . . . disease causing functional impairment and individuals with no functional impairment; (2) provided a method to obtain the dismissal of lawsuits in which the exposed person has no functional impairment, while at the same time protecting a person’s right to bring suit on discovering an impairing asbestos-related . . . injury; and (3) creat[ed] an extended period before limitations begin to run in which to bring claims for injuries caused by the inhalation or ingestion of asbestos . . . to preserve the right of those who have been exposed to asbestos . . . but are not yet impaired to bring a claim later in the event that they develop an impairing asbestos-related . . . injury. Id. Chapter 90 created physician report requirements for claimants. TEX . CIV . PRAC. & REM . CODE §§ 90.003, 90.010(f)(1). Section 90.003 requires claimants suing for non-cancerous, asbestosrelated injuries to serve each defendant with a detailed occupational and exposure history, a detailed medical and smoking history of the exposed person, and a physician’s report which includes a verification that the physician conducted a detailed physical examination. Id. §§ 90.003(a)(2)(A), 90.003(b).7 The report must include the details of those histories and verify that ten years have 7 Section 90.003(a)(2) requires a claimant asserting a non-cancerous, asbestos-related injury claim to serve each defendant with (2) a report by a physician who is board certified in pulmonary medicine, internal medicine, or 9 elapsed between the initial exposure and the physician’s diagnosis. Id. § 90.003(a)(2)(B). Section 90.003 also requires the physician’s report to verify that the exposed person has a statutorily occupational medicine and whose license and certification were not on inactive status at the time the report was made that: (A) verifies that the physician or a medical professional employed by and under the direct supervision and control of the physician: (i) performed a physical examination of the exposed person, or if the exposed person is deceased, reviewed available records relating to the exposed person’s medical condition; (ii) took a detailed occupational and exposure history from the exposed person or, if the exposed person is deceased, from a person knowledgeable about the alleged exposure or exposures that form the basis of the action; and (iii) took a detailed medical and smoking history that includes a thorough review of the exposed person’s past and present medical problems and their most probable cause; (B) sets out the details of the exposed person’s occupational, exposure, medical, and smoking history and verifies that at least 10 years have elapsed between the exposed person’s first exposure to asbestos and the date of diagnosis; (C) verifies that the exposed person has: (i) a quality 1 or 2 chest x-ray that has been read by a certified B-reader according to the ILO system of classification as showing: (a) bilateral small irregular opacities (s, t, or u) with a profusion grading of 1/1 or higher, for an action filed on or after May 1, 2005; (b) bilateral small irregular opacities (s, t, or u) with a profusion grading of 1/0 or higher, for an action filed before May 1, 2005; or (c) bilateral diffuse pleural thickening graded b2 or higher including blunting of the costophrenic angle; or (ii) pathological asbestosis graded 1(B) or higher under the criteria published in “Asbestos-Associated Diseases,” 106 Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine 11, Appendix 3 (October 8, 1982); (D) verifies that the exposed person has asbestos-related pulmonary impairment as demonstrated by pulmonary function testing showing: (i) forced vital capacity below the lower limit of normal or below 80 percent of predicted and FEV1/FVC ratio (using actual values) at or above the lower limit of normal or at or above 65 percent; or (ii) total lung capacity, by plethysmography or timed gas dilution, below the lower limit of normal or below 80 percent of predicted; (E) verifies that the physician has concluded that the exposed person’s medical findings and impairment were not more probably the result of causes other than asbestos exposure revealed by the exposed person’s occupational, exposure, medical, and smoking history; and (F) is accompanied by copies of all ILO classifications, pulmonary function tests, including printouts of all data, flow volume loops, and other information demonstrating compliance with the equipment, quality, interpretation, and reporting standards set out in this chapter, lung volume tests, diagnostic imaging of the chest, pathology reports, or other testing reviewed by the physician in reaching the physician’s conclusions. T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C O D E § 90.003(a)(2). 10 specified threshold level of asbestos-related functional pulmonary impairment as demonstrated by pulmonary function testing. Id. § 90.003(a)(2)(D). The statute specifies a threshold level of impairment by requiring the pulmonary function testing to demonstrate that the exposed person has forced vital capacity below the lower limit of normal or below 80 percent of predicted and FEV1/FVC ratio (using actual values) at or above the lower limit of normal or at or above 65 percent; or total lung capacity, by plethysmography or timed gas dilution, below the lower limit of normal or below 80 percent of predicted. Id. § 90.003(a)(2)(D).8 Further, the report must verify that the medical findings and impairment were not more likely the result of causes other than asbestos exposure, as well as include copies of all the test results and other medical documents the physician relied upon in reaching the physician’s medical conclusions. Id. § 90.003(a)(2)(E)-(F). In the event a claimant’s pulmonary function test results do not meet the requirements of section 90.003(a)(2)(D)(i) or (ii), section 90.003(c) permits the required physician’s report to use different criteria for verifying that the exposed person has restrictive impairment from asbestosis. Id. § 90.003(c). But under that section the physician still must identify the specific pulmonary function test findings on which the physician relies to establish that the exposed person has restrictive functional impairment. Id. § 90.003(c)(3). Chapter 90 includes an alternative safety valve impairment provision for situations in which an exposed person can demonstrate asbestos-related impairment, but cannot satisfy the criteria in section 90.003. See id. § 90.010(f)(1),(j). The safety-valve provision applies “only in exceptional 8 “FEV1” means forced expiratory volume in the first second, which is the maximal volume of air expelled in one second during performance of simple spirometric tests. T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C O D E § 90.001(9). “FVC” means forced vital capacity, which is the maximal volume of air expired with maximum effort from a position of full inspiration. Id. § 90.001(10). “Plethysmography” means the test for determining lung volume, also known as “body plethysmography,” in which the subject of the test is enclosed in a chamber that is equipped to measure pressure, flow, or volume change. Id. § 90.001(22). 11 and limited circumstances.” Id. Section 90.010(f) mandates a physician report demonstrating the physician considered the individual physical, occupational, and medical history requirements of the person allegedly injured by asbestosis, and also requires the physician to rule out non-asbestos causes and include all appropriate documentation. Id. §§ 90.003(a), 90.010(f)(1)(A). A safety-valve physician report must also show that (i) the physician making the report has a physician-patient relationship with the exposed person; (ii) pulmonary function testing has been performed on the exposed person and the physician making the report has interpreted the pulmonary function testing; (iii) the physician making the report has concluded, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, that the person has radiographic, pathologic, or computed tomography evidence establishing bilateral pleural disease or bilateral parenchymal disease caused by exposure to asbestos or silica; and (iv) the physician has concluded that the exposed person has asbestos-related . . . physical impairment comparable to the impairment the exposed person would have had if the exposed person met the criteria set forth in Section 90.003. Id. § 90.010(f)(1)(B) (emphasis added). There are additional requirements for claimants proceeding under section 90.010(f): the MDL court must find that (A) the report and medical opinions offered by the claimant are reliable and credible; (B) due to unique or extraordinary physical or medical characteristics of the exposed person, the medical criteria set forth in Section[] 90.003 do[es] not adequately assess the exposed person’s physical impairment caused by exposure to asbestos . . . ; and (C) the claimant has produced sufficient credible evidence for a finder of fact to reasonably find that the exposed person is physically impaired as the result of exposure to asbestos . . . to a degree comparable to the impairment the exposed person would have had if the exposed person met the criteria set forth in Section 90.003. Id. § 90.010(f)(2). The MDL court must permit a reasonable time for discovery and conduct an evidentiary hearing before considering whether the requirements of section 90.010(f)(2) have been 12 met. Id. § 90.010(g). The court is required to make written findings and to specifically identify “(1) the unique or extraordinary physical or medical characteristics of the exposed person that justify the application of this section; and (2) the reasons the criteria set forth in Section[] 90.003 . . . do not adequately assess the exposed person’s physical impairment caused by exposure to asbestos.” Id. § 90.010(h). Chapter 90 imposes timing requirements for claimants to serve the required physician reports as well as a procedural structure for defendants to move for dismissal if a compliant report is not filed. A claimant proceeding under section 90.003 must serve the defendant with a compliant report not later than thirty days after the defendant’s answer or appearance. Id. § 90.006(a). If the claimant either fails to serve any report or serves a report that does not comply with section 90.003, a defendant may, within thirty days of being served (or if no report was served, within thirty days of the date the report was due), file a motion to dismiss. Id. § 90.007(a). A claimant may then respond within fifteen days by either filing a compliant report or amending a previously filed but noncompliant report. Id. § 90.007(b). If the court determines that the motion to dismiss is meritorious, dismissal by written order is mandatory, “except as provided by section 90.010(d) or (e).” Id. § 90.007(c). Section 90.010(e) in turn requires dismissal for failure to serve a report that complies with section 90.003 unless the claimant meets the safety valve provisions. Id. § 90.010(e). The court is also permitted, “on the motion of a party showing good cause,” to alter the timing requirements for serving motions, responses, or reports. Id. § 90.007(e). 13 As is readily apparent from the foregoing in Chapter 90, the Legislature focused on physical, functional impairment and sought to preserve resources for those persons who could demonstrate such impairment due to asbestos exposure. Act of May 16, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 97, § 1(n), 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 169, 170. To achieve this goal it adopted medically accepted standards for differentiating between individuals with nonmalignant asbestos-related disease causing functional pulmonary physical impairment and individuals exposed to asbestos but who did not have such impairment. Id. The Legislature selected functional pulmonary impairment as the dividing line between those who could pursue asbestos-related injury claims9 and those who could not. In order to establish an objectively determinable distinction between the two types of claimants, it mandated a “medically accepted standard”—pulmonary function testing—as a key component of the required physician report. See TEX . CIV . PRAC. & REM . CODE §§ 90.001(23), 90.003(a)(2)(D), 90.003(a)(2)(c), 90.010(f)(1)(B)(ii). Having reviewed the statutory construct, we move to the merits. We begin by considering whether the Emmites timely filed physician reports.