Court Opinion

ID: 9401805
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-14 06:08:44.211732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:55.334967
License: Public Domain

AFFIRM; Opinion Filed June 7, 2023

                                       In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-22-01351-CV

                     MARK HARSHANY, M.D., Appellant
                                V.
                     KIMBERLY ANN FOGLE, Appellee

                On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-16911

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                Before Justices Pedersen, III, Garcia, and Kennedy
                           Opinion by Justice Kennedy
      In this accelerated appeal, Mark Harshany, M.D. appeals the trial court’s order

denying his motion to dismiss appellee Kimberly Ann Fogle’s claims against him

for her alleged failure to timely serve him an expert report pursuant to Chapter 74 of

the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. In a single issue, Dr. Harshany argues

Fogle did not properly serve him any expert report before the statutory deadline. We

affirm the trial court’s order. Because all issues are settled in law, we issue this

memorandum opinion. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
                                      BACKGROUND

      On November 17, 2019, Fogle visited an urgent care facility, complaining of

significant pain in her mouth and jaw. Earlier that morning, she had fallen hard on

concrete steps, severely striking her face, mouth, and jaw. A physician’s assistant,

Kandace O. Tulk, examined and treated Fogle by suturing a laceration on her chin.

Fogle returned later that evening complaining of bleeding in her left ear canal and

expressed her belief that her jaw may have been broken. Tulk again examined Fogle

and prescribed an antibiotic and eardrops to Fogle before discharging her. But, Tulk

later called Fogle and asked her to return for x-rays to be taken. Fogle returned, and

the urgent care center’s radiology technician obtained radiographic images. Before

discharging Fogle for a third time, Tulk informed her that she did not see any

fractures but that a radiologist would review the images. Dr. Harshany reviewed the

images and reported his findings that Fogle’s mandible was intact.

      Two days later, on November 19, Fogle visited dentist Douglas Fonville,

advising him of her fall and that she could barely open her mouth or properly move

her jaw. Dr. Fonville took x-rays of Fogle’s jaw, but neither he nor anyone at his

office informed Fogle of any fractures. After reporting that she continued to

experience severe pain and difficulty moving her jaw, Fogle returned to see Dr.

Fonville, who took additional x-rays of her teeth and repaired and smoothed certain

fractured teeth. On December 5, Fogle called Dr. Fonville’s office to report more

                                         –2–
blood in her left ear canal, at which time his assistant communicated to her Dr.

Fonville’s advice to see an oral surgeon.

        Ultimately, on December 11, Fogle saw oral surgeon, Dr. John Wallace, who

diagnosed Fogle with three factures in her mandible. Dr. Wallace advised Fogle that

the fractures had fused in malalignment that would require surgery to correct.

        On November 17, 2021, Fogle filed suit against multiple defendants,

including Tulk, Dr. Fonville, and Dr. Harshany for alleged medical and dental

negligence in their treatment of her injuries. On May 9, 2022, Dr. Harshany filed

his answer. On October 31, 2022, Dr. Harshany filed a motion to dismiss the claims

against him, asserting no expert report had been served on him to date and that the

statutory deadline to do so had passed, thus requiring dismissal of her suit against

him.1 Fogle responded that Dr. Harshany was timely served with an expert report

by email on June 6, 2022, within 28 days of filing his original answer.

        The trial court conducted a hearing on Dr. Harshany’s motion to dismiss, at

the conclusion of which the judge orally denied the motion and, later that same day,

signed an order in which “the Court finds that Defendant’s motion should be and is

hereby DENIED.” Dr. Harshany timely filed this appeal.

    1
     Dr. Harshany’s motion to dismiss also asserted that “the expert report [Fogle had] served on another
defendant prior to his appearance in the case [was] insufficient in terms of the expert’s qualifications as to
Dr. Harshany” and that “the flaws and inadequacies of the report” were such that it was “not a good faith
attempt to comply with the law as to Dr. Harshany and [was] tantamount to not filing any report at all.”
However, he does not continue to urge these arguments on appeal and thus we do not address them.
                                                    –3–
                                       DISCUSSION

      In his sole issue, Dr. Harshany argues the trial court erred by denying his

motion to dismiss, urging Fogle did not properly serve him any expert report before

the statutory deadline.

      Chapter 74 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, also known as the Texas

Medical Liability Act (“TMLA”), requires health care liability claimants to serve an

expert report upon each defendant not later than 120 days after that defendant’s

answer is filed. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 74.351(a). The purpose of the

expert report requirement is to weed out frivolous malpractice claims in the early

stages of litigation, not to dispose of potentially meritorious claims. See Abshire v.

Christus Health Se. Tex., 563 S.W.3d 219, 223 (Tex. 2018) (citing Loaisiga v.

Cerda, 379 S.W.3d 248, 258 (Tex. 2012), and Am. Transitional Care Ctrs. of Tex.

v. Palacios, 46 S.W.3d 873, 877 (Tex. 2001)). In accordance with that purpose, the

Act provides a mechanism for dismissal of the claimant’s suit in the event of an

untimely or deficient report. See id. (citing CIV. PRAC. & REM. § 74.351(b)).

      We review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to dismiss under

section 74.351 for an abuse of discretion. Philipp v. Methodist Hosps. of Dallas,

No. 05-21-00350-CV, 2022 WL 2448118, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 6, 2022,

no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Palacios, 46 S.W.3d at 875, and Broxterman v. Carson,

309 S.W.3d 154, 157 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, pet. denied)). Under this standard,

we defer to a trial court’s factual determinations, but review de novo questions of

                                         –4–
law that involve statutory interpretation and constitutional challenges. Id. (citing

Stockton v. Offenbach, 336 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. 2011)). A trial court has no

discretion in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts. Id. (citing

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992), and Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch

at Galveston v. Callas, 497 S.W.3d 58, 62 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016,

pet. denied)). The trial court’s failure to analyze or apply the law correctly is an

abuse of discretion. Id.

      As noted above, Dr. Harshany filed his answer on May 9, 2022, such that

Fogle was required to serve on him an expert report no later than September 6, 2022.

The record includes Fogle’s evidence that she served Dr. Harshany with an expert

report by email on June 6, 2022, within 28 days of filing his original answer. Fogle

attached as exhibits to her response to Dr. Harshany’s motion to dismiss copies of

the June 6, 2022 emails sent to Dr. Harshany’s counsel’s paralegal Debbie Hull,

indicating the emails contained links to “the documents you requested” and that

“[t]he Ch. 74 reports and medical records are included in the document folders.”

      Several courts have interpreted the Legislature’s use of the word “serve” to

require compliance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21a. See Stockton, 336

S.W.3d at 615; see also CIV. PRAC. & REM. § 74.351(a) (“In a health care liability

claim, a claimant shall . . . serve on that party or the party’s attorney one or more

expert reports . . . .”).   Rule 21a authorizes service “in person, by mail, by

                                         –5–
commercial delivery service, by fax, by email, or by such other manner as the court

in its discretion may direct.” See TEX. R. CIV. P. 21a(a)(2) (emphasis added).

      Dr. Harshany argues Fogle’s email service of the expert report was

insufficient because “it was never directed to nor formally served on Dr. Harshany.”

But, he cites no authority, nor have we found any, to conclude Fogle’s email to his

counsel’s paralegal was insufficient to meet the requirements of Rule 21a or Section

74.351. To the contrary, at least one other court has held that, “[b]ecause Rule

21a(a)(2) provides for service via email, . . . [service of an expert report by email to

appellant’s counsel is] a permissible method of service.” See Callas, 497 S.W.3d at,

66; see also CIV. PRAC. & REM. § 74.351(a) (“In a health care liability claim, a

claimant shall . . . serve on that party or the party’s attorney one or more expert

reports . . . .”) (emphasis added). Further, we distinguish the authorities relied upon

by Dr. Harshany for his argument that email service is insufficient under Rule 21a

because all predate the latest changes to Rule 21a “to incorporate rules for electronic

service in accordance with the Supreme Court’s order . . . .” See TEX. R. CIV. P. 21a

cmt.—2013; Stockton, 336 S.W.3d at 615; Breiten v. Shatery, 365 S.W.3d 829, 832

(Tex. App.—El Paso 2012, no pet.); Quint v. Alexander, No. 03-04-00819-CV, 2005

WL 2805576, at *3 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 28, 2005, pet. denied) (mem. op.).

      Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by

denying Dr. Harshany’s motion to dismiss. We overrule Dr. Harshany’s sole issue.

                                          –6–
                                     CONCLUSION

      We affirm the trial court’s order denying Dr. Harshany’s motion to dismiss

appellee Fogle’s claims against him for her alleged failure to timely serve him an

expert report pursuant to Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

                                          /Nancy E. Kennedy/
221351f.p05                               NANCY KENNEDY
                                          JUSTICE

                                       –7–
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                   JUDGMENT

MARK HARSHANY, M.D.,                           On Appeal from the 14th Judicial
Appellant                                      District Court, Dallas County, Texas
                                               Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-16911.
No. 05-22-01351-CV           V.                Opinion delivered by Justice
                                               Kennedy. Justices Pedersen, III and
KIMBERLY ANN FOGLE,                            Garcia participating.
Appellee

       In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial
court is AFFIRMED.

       It is ORDERED that appellee KIMBERLY ANN FOGLE recover her costs
of this appeal from appellant MARK HARSHANY, M.D.

Judgment entered this 7th day of June 2023.

                                         –8–