Court Opinion

ID: 9716947
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:54:35.207029+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:50.228829
License: Public Domain

TOM GRAY, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
Hillcrest appeals the trial court’s denial of its motion to dismiss. We should reverse.
In Hillcrest’s first issue, it argues that Wade’s purported expert reports fail to provide a fair summary of the experts’ opinions of the manner in which Hillcrest’s care failed to meet the applicable standards of care. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(r)(6) (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005). Though addressing the alleged breaches by Hillcrest’s codefendants, the two reports by physicians do not address Hillcrest’s conduct, and in particular any causal relationship between Hillcrest’s conduct and the injury to Wade. See Taylor v. Christus Spohn Health System Corp., 169 S.W.3d 241, 242-44 (Tex.App.Corpus Christi 2004, no pet.). Moreover, the nurse who gave Wade’s other report is not qualified to render an expert opinion on causation. See Tex. Civ. PRAC. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.403(a) (Vernon Supp.2004-2005). The trial court abused its discretion in overruling Hillcrest’s motion. See id. § 75.351(l) (Vernon Supp.2004-2005); Taylor at 242-44. We should sustain Hill-crest’s first issue.
In Hillcrest’s second issue, it contends that the trial court should not grant Wade an extension of time to file a report. See Tex. Civ. PRAC. & Rem.Code Ann. § 74.351(c) (Vernon Supp.2004-2005). Since the trial court has neither granted nor denied Wade an extension, this issue is not ripe. See Tex. Const, art. V, § 6; McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Cortez, 66 S.W.3d 227, 231-34 (Tex.2001); Waco Ind. Sch. Dist. v. Gibson, 22 S.W.3d 849, 851-53 (Tex.2000). We should overrule Hillcrest’s second issue.
We should, after sustaining Hillcrest’s first issue, reverse and remand for further proceedings.