Court Opinion

ID: 9914405
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-31 09:11:16.298325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:12:35.835875
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 19, 2023.

                                       In The

                        Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                               NO. 14-22-00625-CV

                       JENNIFER LYN GRAY, Appellant
                                          V.

    ROBERT CHRISTIAN IVERSEN, MD, AND RIMA JOFFRION, NP,
                         Appellees

                    On Appeal from the 190th District Court
                            Harris County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. 2020-71087

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Jennifer Gray filed a pro se petition against Robert Iversen, a doctor, and Rima
Joffrion, a nurse practitioner (collectively, the “Providers”), alleging that they were
liable for damages arising out of their medical malpractice. The Providers filed
separate answers on the same day, and more than 120 days later, they jointly moved
to dismiss Gray’s suit because Gray had not served them with a medical expert
report, as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act. The trial court granted the
motion to dismiss, and this appeal followed.

      We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss for an abuse of
discretion. See Am. Transitional Care Ctrs. of Tex., Inc. v. Palacios, 46 S.W.3d 873,
875 (Tex. 2001) (applying this standard of review in a case arising under the
statutory predecessor of the Texas Medical Liability Act); Rinkle v. Graf, 658
S.W.3d 821, 824 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2022, no pet.) (applying this
standard of review in case arising under the Texas Medical Liability Act). Under this
standard, we defer to a trial court’s factual determinations, but we consider de novo
any questions of law. See Univ. of Tex. Health Sci. Ctr. at Houston v. Joplin, 525
S.W.3d 772, 776 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied).

      The Texas Medical Liability Act requires a claimant in a health care liability
claim to serve on a defendant a medical expert report no later than 120 days after the
date of the defendant’s original answer. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
§ 74.351(a). If the claimant does not serve the report within the specified period,
then the trial court must dismiss the claim on the defendant’s motion and award the
defendant reasonable attorney’s fees. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.351(b).

      The Providers asserted in their motion to dismiss that Gray had not served
them with a medical expert report. In her response, which was styled as a motion to
strike, Gray asserted that she had provided “medical, signed documents . . . within
the 120 days allotted time.” Gray did not attach a copy of these documents to her
response, nor did she identify the name of the expert who had allegedly signed them.

      In her brief on appeal, which was also filed pro se, Gray alludes to several
documents from Ronald Buczek, a doctor. She writes that Dr. Buczek “provided
what he thought was needed to fulfill the expert witness report by submitting an
affidavit and a short synopsis of Appellant’s/Plaintiff’s medical condition.” Gray has
                                          2
not identified where in the record these documents exist, even though that was her
burden. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i). Instead, Gray asserts that the trial judge rejected
these documents because they were “not to his standards or to the fullest.” Again,
Gray has not provided any record citations for this assertion. Our record does not
even contain a transcript of a hearing before the trial court.

      There are at least two sets of documents in the clerks record bearing the name
of Dr. Buczek. The first set is a collection of medical records kept in the ordinary
course and scope of his business. These records contain comprehensive medical
information, such as Gray’s vitals, her list of medications, and the treatments and
consultations provided by Dr. Buczek. These records are not in the form of a medical
expert report. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.351(r)(6) (“‘Expert report’
means a written report by an expert that provides a fair summary of the expert’s
opinions as of the date of the report regarding applicable standards of care, the
manner in which the care rendered by the physician or health care provider failed to
meet the standards, and the causal relationship between that failure and the injury,
harm, or damages claimed.”). They merely establish that Gray visited Dr. Buczek
after having already been treated by the Providers.

      The other set is an unsworn statement in which Dr. Buczek summarized
Gray’s injuries and the treatments he provided. This statement is not in the form of
a medical expert report either. It does not mention the Providers by name, nor contain
any opinion as to whether the Providers deviated from the standard of care.

      Because Gray has not shown that she served the Providers with a medical
expert report, as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act, we conclude that the
trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing her case.

      Gray suggests in her brief that the trial court should not have dismissed her
case because the Providers’ motion to dismiss was untimely. But there is no statutory
                                           3
deadline to file a motion to dismiss under the Texas Medical Liability Act. See
Jalaram Med Spa, Inc. v. Durbin, No. 14-21-00060-CV, 2023 WL 1460539, at *10
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 2, 2023, pet. denied) (mem. op.). And there
is nothing in the record to suggest that the Providers intentionally waived their right
to seek dismissal, considering that they filed their motion to dismiss 123 days after
filing their answer—a mere three days after they were eligible to do so. Cf. Jernigan
v. Langley, 111 S.W.3d 153, 157–58 (Tex. 2003) (per curiam) (concluding that a
doctor had not waived his right to seek dismissal, despite waiting more than 600
days after receiving inadequate expert reports).

      Gray also suggests that the case should not have been dismissed under Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but that premise is faulty. The trial
court dismissed the case under the Texas Medical Liability Act, not under the federal
rules, which have no application here.

      Gray finally suggests that the case should not have been dismissed for the
threshold reason that she did not assert a health care liability claim. This argument
is not fully explained in Gray’s brief, and it is contrary to the record. Gray’s pleading
was styled as a “motion for medical malpractice,” and her claim for damages was
largely based on allegations that, following a motor vehicle accident, the Providers
improperly stitched her face and finger, and they left shattered glass in her arm.
These allegations pertain to “treatment, lack of treatment, or other claimed departure
from accepted standards of medical care,” which is how a health care liability claim
is statutorily defined. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.001(a)(13). Gray even
stipulated in another part of her brief that “her claims arose from improper and
negligent course of medical attention/treatment.” We accordingly conclude that
Gray asserted a health care liability claim, and that her suit was subject to dismissal

                                           4
under the Texas Medical Liability Act because she failed to serve the Providers with
a medical expert report.

      For all of the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s order granting the motion to
dismiss is affirmed.

                                       /s/       Tracy Christopher
                                                 Chief Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Bourliot and Hassan.

                                             5