Court Opinion

ID: 9680816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:39:09.162168+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:30.684481
License: Public Domain

CATHERINE STONE, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority holds that Doades’ attorney did not tender any evidence to support an extension of time under section 13.01(g). In order to be entitled to a section 13.01(g) extension, the Doades had the burden to show some excuse of accident or mistake in order to establish that they did not act “intentionally” or with “conscious indifference.” De Leon v. Vela, 70 S.W.3d 194, 200 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2001, pet. denied).
The Doades’ attorney, William B. Curtis, stated in his affidavit that he was aware of Texas law and believed the expert report satisfied the Act’s requirements. Curtis further noted that he filed the expert report within 90 days of filing the lawsuit, and defense counsel never complained that the report was inadequate; therefore, Curtis believed that defense counsel shared his belief that the expert report was sufficient.
The basis for the majority’s holding is that Curtis “nowhere states in his affidavit the nature of his ‘mistake or accident’ ” or claims “ ‘mistake or accident’ as the reason for filing a noncomplying report.” Three of our sister courts have concluded that evidence that an attorney mistakenly believed an expert report complied with the Act is sufficient to establish mistake and to negate conscious indifference. Whitworth v. Blumenthal, 59 S.W.3d 393, 401-02 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001, pet. dism’d by agr.); Gutierrez v. Walker, 50 S.W.3d 61, 65-66 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi, pet. granted); Horsley-Layman v. Angeles, 968 S.W.2d *675533, 536-37 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1998, no pet.). The fact that Curtis stated that he “believed” the report complied with the act, as opposed to stating that he “mistakenly believed” the report complied the act cannot be the basis for denying a section 13.01(g) request. Such a position elevates form over substance, and a trial court should focus on the substance of an affidavit not certain “catch” words. If an attorney “believes” an expert report is sufficient, and the expert report is not, then the attorney’s belief is necessarily mistaken.
Although an attorney may be negligent in failing to ensure that an expert report satisfies the Act’s requirements, negligence does not equate to conscious indifference. See Perry v. Stanley, 83 S.W.3d 819, 2002 WL 1430409, at *6 (Tex.App.-Texarkana Jul.3, 2002, no pet. h.); see also Roberts v. Medical City Dallas Hosp., Inc., 988 S.W.2d 398, 403 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1999, pet. denied) (failure to read statute only negligent not conscious indifference). This is particularly true under the circumstances in this case where Curtis filed the report 90 days prior to the deadline, and the defendants waited until the 180-day deadline had passed to complain. Because Curtis’s affidavit negating conscious indifference was uncontroverted, the trial court abused its discretion in denying the section 13.01(g) extension. See Whitworth, 59 S.W.3d at 401 (holding trial court abuses its discretion in denying extension if plaintiffs evidence negating conscious indifference is uncontroverted); Landry v. Ringer, 44 S.W.3d 271, 275 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (same).
Because the majority holds otherwise, I respectfully dissent.