Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351

Section 74.351(s) stays discovery until the claimant serves the required expert report, but a claimant may still have adequate time for discovery when substantial time remains after the stay ends.

Glenda Sayles, Individually and as a Representative of the Estate of Roy Broadwell v. Senior Care Resources, Inc. D/B/A · filed 2021-01-07(s)

After doing so, we do not agree that the procedural stays required by Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Ann. Section 74.351(s) prevented Sayles from having adequate time to conduct discovery. Rather, while there were some stays, there was still ample time to engage in discovery.

Section 74.351(s) stays parties’ oral depositions until the claimant serves the expert report and curriculum vitae; subsection (u) does not permit depositions barred by that stay.

in Re Barry R. Miller · filed 2004-04-08(s), (u)

We conclude any oral depositions stayed under subsection (s) are not authorized by subsection (u).

Section 74.351(s) limits discovery before service of the expert report to specified types, and subsection (u) allows all claimants collectively no more than two depositions of those types during the stay.

In Re Huag · filed 2005-09-28(s), (u)

Accordingly, we hold that subsection 74.351(s) of the TMLA defines the types of permissible discovery excepted from the stay imposed prior to service of the expert’s report and that subsection 74.351(u) restricts all claimants collectively to taking not more than two depositions of the types permitted by subsection 74.351(s) during the stay.

Section 74.351 prevents a medical malpractice plaintiff from deposing a defendant until she serves the required expert report and curriculum vitae.

in Re: Lyle D. Weeks, M. D. · filed 2006-04-27(a), (s)

Because the Plaintiff/Real Party in Interest has since filed a medical malpractice suit against Relator, the Real Party in Interest is precluded by statute from taking Relator’s deposition until after she has served the expert report and curriculum vitae required by Section 74.351(a).

Section 74.351 bars an oral deposition of a health care provider before the claimant serves an expert report addressing direct-liability claims against that provider.

in Re: Knapp Medical Center Hospital · filed 2009-07-31(s)

The language of section 74.351 precludes real parties in interest from taking the deposition of Knapp's corporate representative before the filing of an expert report pertaining to Knapp.

Section 74.351(s) stays discovery beyond its three listed exceptions until the claimant serves an adequate expert report.

Karen Scruggs Simmons, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Brandon Scruggs v. Texoma Medical Center · filed 2010-11-30(s)

Thus, the question presented is whether Section 74.351(s) stays all discovery, other than the three enumerated exceptions, in a health care liability cause of action until an "adequate" expert report is served. We conclude that it does.

Section 74.351(a) permits service of an expert report on a defendant named in a filed petition before that defendant is served with process.

Zanchi v. Lane · filed 2011-09-01(a)

We conclude that, under the common law and under the statutory scheme, one is a "party" if so named in a pleading, whether or not yet served.

A defendant named in a filed pleading is a party who may be served with an expert report before being served with process.

Michael A. Zanchi, M.D. v. Lane · filed 2011-09-01(a)

We conclude that, under the common law and under the statutory scheme, one is a ―party‖ if so named in a pleading, whether or not yet served.

Section 74.351(b) does not permit dismissal of a health care liability claim before the 120-day expert-report window closes.

Christus Santa Rosa Health Care Corporation v. Vasquez · filed 2014-02-05(b)

The trial court could not, however, grant or deny the motion to dismiss the cause of action during the 120-day window.

Section 74.351(s) stays a deposition sought to investigate a health care liability claim against a healthcare provider until the provider receives an expert report, even if the provider has not been sued.

in Re PRG Dallas ASC. L.P. · filed 2018-06-29(s)

That discovery concerns a healthcare liability claim, and relator may not be ordered to appear for a deposition before receiving a Chapter 74 expert report.

Section 74.351(s) permits a claimant to obtain information related to the patient’s health care through written discovery, depositions on written questions, and discovery from nonparties before expert reports are served.

Melissa Wendt, Individually and as of the Estate of Donald Wendt, Decendent v. Milan K. Sheth, M.D. · filed 2018-07-26(s)

Moreover, although most discovery in a health care liability claim is stayed pending the service of expert reports, there is an exception for “acquisition by the claimant of information, including medical or hospital records or other documents or tangible things, related to the patient’s health care” through written discovery, depositions on written questions, and discovery from nonparties.

Section 74.351(s) supports a stay of proceedings, except the discovery it permits, while an interlocutory appeal determines whether the claims are health care liability claims.

Amanda Marie Coci and Heart of Texas EMS, Inc., D/B/A Heart of Texas EMS v. Dower · filed 2019-03-07(s)

Accordingly, we grant Appellants’ motion and order that all proceedings below—other than discovery permitted by Section 74.351(s)—are stayed until further order of this court or final disposition of the interlocutory appeal in this cause.

Section 74.351(s) permits discovery from a health care provider who has not received an expert report when the discovery is relevant to a claim against another provider who has received the required report, even if it may also reveal evidence for a potential claim against the witness.

in Re Comaneche Turner, as Natural Parent and Next Friend of M.T., a Minor · filed 2019-12-20(s)

Viewed in this context, section 74.351(s) allows Turner to obtain discovery from Dr. Sandate if it qualifies as discovery in Turner’s claim against the Hospital. ... Thus, to the extent discovery requests or deposition questions are reasonably calculated to discover information regarding Turner’s claims against the Hospital, it is no objection that they could also lead to information regarding potential claims against Dr. Sandate.

A claimant who participates in discovery can forfeit the benefit of § 74.351(s)’s discovery stay.

Maria Landa, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Elizabeth Landa v. Noe Lira, M.D. and Juan Caceras, M.D. · filed 2019-05-30(s)

Mrs. Landa clearly forfeited any benefit that the discovery stay might otherwise inure to her due to the § 74.351(s) stay.

Section 74.351(s) stays discovery in a health care liability claim until the expert report is served.

in Re Texas Children's Hospital · filed 2019-07-30(s)

Until the expert report is served, all discovery is stayed in a health care liability claim. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 74.351(s). The Legislature intended this procedure to preclude extensive discovery and prolonged litigation in frivolous cases.

Section 74.351(s) stays discovery, except a claimant’s discovery concerning the patient’s health care, until the required expert report is deemed served after a final determination of its adequacy.

in Re: John Lanier Burns, Jr., M.D. · filed 2020-02-24(s)

In a health care liability suit, discovery, other than discovery sought by the claimant concerning the patient’s health care, is stayed until the required threshold expert report is served. ... Here, relators seek relief from a discovery order that is currently stayed. That stay will remain in place until a final, judicial determination is made as to the adequacy of the expert report and the report is deemed served.

Section 74.351(b) permits dismissal for failure to serve an expert report only after the report deadline, including any valid extension, has passed.

Richard Kim M.D. v. Ramos · filed 2021-07-01(b)

A motion to dismiss for failure to timely serve an expert report cannot be granted until the deadline for filing the expert report has passed.

Section 74.351(s) stays discovery until the claimant serves an expert report, except for information specifically related to the patient’s health care; a facility’s general operating policies and procedures do not qualify.

in Re Lcs Sp, LLC D/B/A Signature Pointe Senior Living Community, Aspect Lcs Leasing Sp, LLC, and Lcs Dallas Operations, · filed 2022-02-25(s)

Section 74.351(s) stays most discovery in health-care liability cases until the claimant serves an expert report. Although general operating policies can be relevant to a health-care liability claim, and thus discoverable during the ordinary course of the suit, a defendant must produce only that information particularly “related to the patient’s health care” before the plaintiff serves an expert report.

Section 74.351(s) stays discovery until the claimant serves an expert report, except for information specifically related to the patient’s health care; a facility’s general operating policies do not qualify.

in Re: Kenneth Smith, on Behalf of the Donna Stevens Smith · filed 2022-02-25(s)

Section 74.351(s) stays most discovery in health-care liability cases until the claimant serves an expert report. Although general operating policies can be relevant to a health-care liability claim, and thus discoverable during the ordinary course of the suit, a defendant must produce only that information particularly “related to the patient’s health care” before the plaintiff serves an expert report.

Section 74.351’s 120-day expert-report deadline does not apply when a malpractice petition is timely mailed before the statute’s effective date and received afterward within Rule 5’s ten-day window.

Michael Bailey, M.D. v. Hutchins · filed 2004-07-19(a)

In sum, the law in existence prior to the effective date of HB 4 controlled Hutchins' duty viz the filing of expert reports. This is so because her suit was filed before that date.

Section 74.351 applies only to actions filed on or after September 1, 2003.

Mastin v. Michael T. Jelinek, M. D. · filed 2013-03-21

The successor statute to section 13.01, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 74.351, is applicable only to actions filed on or after September 1, 2003.

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal of a health care liability claim when the claimant fails to provide the required expert report within the statutory period and obtains no extension.

Davis v. Ahia Shabaaz & P. Barron, R.N. · filed 2005-04-06(b)

Moreover, the trial court properly dismissed Davis' lawsuit pursuant to Section 74.351 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. ... Because Davis did not file the required expert report, the trial court correctly dismissed Davis' lawsuit.

Section 74.351 requires dismissal with prejudice and an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs when a claimant fails to serve an expert report within 120 days without a written extension signed by the affected parties.

Robertson Management Company v. Buck Carson Stroud · filed 2005-10-19(b)(2)

Finding that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to dismiss Appellee’s health care liability claim in accordance with section 74.351(b)(2) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code because Appellee did not serve an expert report within 120 days and did not obtain a written extension signed by the affected parties, we reverse the trial court’s April 25, 2005 order and remand the cause to the trial court for dismissal of the claim with prejudice and for entry of an award to Appellants of reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs.

Section 74.351(b)(2) requires dismissal with prejudice when a claimant fails to serve an expert report within 120 days of filing a health care liability claim.

Sharon Francis, as Guardian of Godfrey Francis v. Select Specialty Hospital · filed 2005-11-03(b)(2)

Accordingly, we hold that, because there is no evidence in the appellate record that Sharon filed with the trial court or otherwise provided Select Specialty with her expert report within 120 days of filing her lawsuit on behalf of Godfrey, the trial court was left with no discretion but to dismiss her suit against Select Specialty with prejudice.

Section 74.351(a) requires an expert report within 120 days for each physician or health care provider defendant; dismissal cannot stand without evidence that the defendant qualifies as a health care provider.

Donya A. Brown v. Bienvenido Villegas, CT, Laboratory Corporation of America Thomas Danapoli M.D. · filed 2006-06-28(a)

Section 74.351(a) of the MLIIA provides that a health care liability claimant must file an expert report for each physician or health care provider defendant within 120 days after filing the claim. ... Because the record does not contain any evidence establishing that LabCorp is "duly licensed, certified, or registered or chartered by the State of Texas to provide health care" or that LabCorp is an independent contractor of Dr. Arthur, the trial court's order dismissing Brown's claims against LabCorp and Villegas must be reversed, and those claims must be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Section 74.351(b) applies when an expert report has not been served within the required time.

in the Interest of D.A.N. and D.G.N., Jr., Minor Children · filed 2006-12-14(b)

Section 74.351(b) is applicable when “an expert report has not been served” within the required period of time.

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal of a health care liability claim when the claimant fails to serve a timely expert report for a defendant physician or health care provider.

Conely v. Brackenridge Hospital · filed 2007-07-31(b)

Section 74.351(b) mandates the dismissal of health care liability claims when no timely expert report is filed with respect to a defendant physician or health care provider.

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal of a healthcare liability claim against a defendant who was not served an expert report.

Arsenault v. Orthopedics Specialist of Texarkana · filed 2007-11-14(b)

As Lowrance failed to serve an expert report on Young, and dismissal is mandatory for failure to serve an expert report, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the claim.

Section 74.351 requires dismissal with prejudice of a health care liability claim when the plaintiff fails to serve the required expert report and the defendant moves to dismiss.

Roy Kenji Yamada, M.D. v. Friend · filed 2008-02-28(b)

The trial court should have dismissed them because of Appellees’ failure to provide Appellant with an expert report pursuant to section 74.351.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report for a health care liability claim and requires dismissal when the claimant fails to serve one.

Charles Parker, D.D.S., and Marshall Denture Clinic v. Simmons · filed 2008-03-12

Because Simmons' claims are health care liability claims, she was required to file an expert report under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351. Because she did not, the trial court was required to dismiss her claims, and abused its discretion in failing to do so.

An expert report that fails to implicate a defendant's conduct counts as no report as to that defendant and requires dismissal.

Mark D. Bogar, M.D. v. Esparza · filed 2008-05-16(b)

Conversely, where an expert report has not been "served" as to a defendant within the 120-day period because no report is timely served or a report fails to implicate the defendant's conduct, the trial court has no discretion but to dismiss upon a section 74.351(b) motion.

Section 74.351(b) requires a trial court to award reasonable attorney's fees to the affected health care provider when a claimant fails to comply with the expert report requirements.

Doctors Hospital at Renaissance, Ltd. v. Elida Ramirez, Individually, and as Representative of the Estate of Enriqueta G · filed 2008-07-10(b)

Because Hole testified as to the reasonableness of attorney's fees in this matter and because section 74.351 mandates reasonable attorney's fees upon a failure to comply with the expert report requirements, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to award Doctors Hospital attorney's fees for handling the matter up to the point of dismissal.

Section 74.351 requires a claimant to serve an expert report within 120 days after filing the original petition; failure to do so requires dismissal with prejudice and an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs on the provider's motion.

Medical Hospital of Buna Texas, Inc. v. Wheatley · filed 2009-04-23(a)-(b)

Section 74.351 provides that when the required expert reports are not served by the claimant by the 120th day after the date the original petition was filed, the court, on the motion of the affected health care provider shall dismiss the claim with prejudice to refiling, and award the affected health care provider reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred by the health care provider.

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal with prejudice and an award of reasonable attorney's fees and court costs when a claimant fails to serve a required expert report on time.

Medical Hospital of Buna Texas, Inc. v. Wheatley · filed 2009-04-23(b)

To allow the trial court to comply with the legislature's mandate, we reverse the trial court's order denying Buna Medical Center's motion to dismiss and remand the cause to the trial court for entry of a judgment dismissing Wheatley's claims against Buna Medical Center with prejudice for failure to furnish an expert report as required by section 74.351 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and to award Buna Medical Center its reasonable attorney's fees and court costs.

Section 74.351 requires dismissal and an award of reasonable attorney's fees when a health care liability claimant fails to serve a timely expert report.

Turtle Healthcare Group, L.L.C. v. Linan · filed 2009-06-11(b)(1)

However, the Linans' non-battery claims are barred due to their failure to serve an expert medical report. We therefore reverse that portion of the trial court's judgment and remand to the trial court for the award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs of court to Turtle. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 74.351(b)(1).

Section 74.351(b)(2) requires dismissal with prejudice when a claimant fails to serve a timely expert report.

Carrick v. Summers · filed 2009-08-27(b)(2)

In a case where a party failed to timely serve an expert report, the appropriate judgment is a dismissal with prejudice. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(b)(2).

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal with prejudice and an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs when a claimant fails to serve an expert report for a health care liability claim.

Educare Community Living-Texas Living Center, Inc. v. Celedon · filed 2009-10-08(b)

Having held that appellees' claims are health care liability claims and that the trial court erred in denying appellants' motion to dismiss, we also conclude that appellees' suit should be dismissed with prejudice and that appellants are entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs of court.

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal of a health care liability claim when the claimant fails to serve an expert report and the defendants move to dismiss.

Clifford J. Fairfax 418151 v. Dr. Bobby Smith and Pampa Regional Medical Center · filed 2010-03-12(b)

Therefore, Fairfax was required to serve an expert report, and his failure to do so combined with the motions to dismiss required the trial court to dismiss his petition.

Section 74.351 requires dismissal with prejudice when a claimant fails to serve an expert report in a health care liability claim.

Fresenius Medical Care of Brownsville and Fresenius Medical Care, N. A. v. Martiniano Garcia and Raquel Garcia · filed 2010-05-06(b)

Because appellees' lawsuit is a health care liability claim and appellees failed to file an expert report, upon appellants' motion to dismiss, the trial court was statutorily required to dismiss appellees' lawsuit with prejudice.

Section 74.351(b)(2) requires dismissal with prejudice when a claimant fails to file an expert report.

Jefferson v. University of Texas Medical Branch Hospital at Galveston · filed 2010-03-18(b)(2)

Further, Chapter 74 specifically requires that a claim in which no expert report has been filed be dismissed with prejudice.

Section 74.351 requires dismissal with prejudice when a plaintiff fails to furnish a required expert report for a healthcare-liability claim.

Texas Cypress Creek Hospital, L.P. v. Hickman · filed 2010-12-02(b)

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying Cypress Creek’s motion to dismiss and remand the cause to the trial court for entry of a judgment dismissing Hickman’s claims with prejudice for failing to furnish an expert report as required by section 74.351 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal of health care liability claims against a provider when the claimant fails to serve an expert report by the statutory deadline.

Heriberto Sedeno, P. A. v. Mijares · filed 2010-12-23(b)

We conclude that the trial court erred in denying Sedeno, P.A.’s motion to dismiss the negligence and gross negligence claims against it because it showed that Mijares failed to timely serve an expert report on these health care liability claims.

Section 74.351 requires dismissal when a claimant fails to serve an expert report and cannot avoid dismissal by repleading a claim based on the same facts as premises liability.

Medical Center of Lewisville A/K/A Columbia Medical Center of Lewisville Subsidiary, L.P. v. Slayton · filed 2011-01-13(b)

We remand this case to the trial court for entry of an order dismissing Slayton’s claims against the Medical Center and for a hearing on attorneys’ fees pursuant to section 74.351(b).

Section 74.351 requires dismissal when a claimant fails to provide a timely expert report for a health care liability claim, even if the claim is pleaded as a marketing claim.

Toxicology Associates, Inc. v. Sylvia Aguirre, Individually and as Next Friend of Stacy Aguirre and Dylan Aguirre · filed 2011-01-31(b)

Because it is undisputed that Toxicology Associates is a health care provider and we have concluded that the nature of Sylvia's claim concerns the care and treatment Toxicology Associates rendered to John, her failure to file a 120-day expert report as required by the TMLA mandates dismissal.

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal of an entire cause of action when the claimant fails to file an expert report setting out at least one liability theory within it.

Hegwood v. American Habilitation Services · filed 2011-02-17(b)

By focusing on a cause of action rather than particular liability theories that may be contained within a cause of action, the plain language establishes that the entire cause of action is dismissed with respect to the defendant when the claimant has failed to file an expert report that sets out at least one liability theory within a cause of action.

Section 74.351 requires a health care liability claimant to serve an expert report within 120 days of filing the original petition and requires dismissal with prejudice if no report is served.

Samson v. Henry Small, M.D., Shannon D'Re Chisholm, Houston Orthopedic Surgical Hospital LLC, D/B/A Foundation Surg · filed 2011-02-24

Because we conclude that Samson’s claims were health care liability claims, it follows that he was required to serve Small, Chisholm, and Foundation Surgical Hospital with an expert report no later than the 120th day after the date the original petition was filed. ... He did not. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court properly dismissed with prejudice his claims against Small, Chisholm, and Foundation Surgical Hospital.

When a claimant fails to serve a required expert report, the court must dismiss the health care liability claim with prejudice and award reasonable attorney's fees and costs; the fees and costs may be determined on remand.

COVENANT HEALTH SYSTEM v. Barnett · filed 2011-05-13(b)

We reverse the trial court's order and remand the cause to the trial court for the limited purposes of determining Covenant's reasonable incurred attorney's fees and costs and entry of an order dismissing with prejudice the Barnetts' claims against Covenant.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report for a health care liability claim and dismissal with prejudice when the claimant fails to serve one.

Covenant Health System v. Barnett · filed 2011-05-13(a), (b)

While the Barnetts pursued the case as one for ordinary negligence, we conclude it constitutes a health care liability claim. It is undisputed the Barnetts did not serve the required expert report. The trial court abused its discretion by denying Covenant’s motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal with prejudice on the provider’s motion when a health care liability claimant fails to serve an expert report within the required period.

Sheldon v. Unknown Nurse/Staff of Trinity Mother Frances Hospital Tyler, Texas · filed 2011-05-18(b)

In the present case, Sheldon’s health care liability claim is governed by the expert report requirements of Section 74.351 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. ... Because Sheldon did not timely file an expert report, the trial court had no discretion to refuse to dismiss her action.

Section 74.351 requires a timely expert report for a health care liability claim and dismissal if the claimant fails to serve one.

Omaha Healthcare Center, LLC v. Johnson Ex Rel. Estate of Reed · filed 2011-07-01(a), (b)

Those claims fell within the statutory definition of a health care liability claim. Because they did, the statute required the suit to be dismissed unless Johnson timely filed an expert report. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE § 74.351(a), (b).

Section 74.351 requires dismissal with prejudice and an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs when a claimant fails to serve an expert report within 120 days of filing a health care liability claim.

Health Care Unlimited, Inc., Joseph Ramon III, and Teresa Soto v. Soto · filed 2011-07-21(a)-(b)

And because appellee failed to provide an expert report within 120 days from the filing of her original suit, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying appellants' motion to dismiss. ... We reverse the trial court's denial of appellants' motion to dismiss, render judgment dismissing appellee's claims with prejudice, and remand for the determination of reasonable attorney's fees and costs owed to appellants.

Section 74.351 requires dismissal of a health care liability claim when the claimant fails to serve the required expert report.

Lesley v. VETERANS LAND BD. OF STATE · filed 2011-08-26(b)

The trial court should have dismissed Esparza’s claim for failure to comply with the expert report requirements of the TMLA, and the court of appeals erred in holding otherwise.

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal of a health care liability claim when the claimant fails to serve an expert report within the statutory period.

David Cardwell, M.D. v. McDonald · filed 2011-08-31(b)

However, the Legislature has imposed on trial courts a mandatory duty to dismiss (i.e., deprived them of any discretion not to do so) where a plaintiff has failed to serve even a deficient expert report within the 120-day statutory period.

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal when the reports served do not implicate a defendant’s conduct and therefore count as no report as to that defendant.

Clifton Thomas, M.D. v. Torrez · filed 2011-03-31(b)

Because the three reports are “no report” as to Lambi, the trial court abused its discretion by denying Lambi’s motion to dismiss under section 74.351(b).

Section 74.351 requires a claimant with a health care liability claim to serve an expert report within 120 days and requires dismissal if the claimant fails to do so.

Henley v. Scott & White Memorial Hospital Scott, Sherwood & Brindley Foundation And Scott & White Continuing Care H · filed 2011-10-26(b)

However, the Legislature has imposed on trial courts a mandatory duty to dismiss (i.e., deprived them of any discretion not to do so) where a plaintiff has failed to serve an expert report within the 120-day statutory period.

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal when no expert report implicating a particular defendant’s conduct is served within 120 days of filing suit.

Anil K. Sinha, MD v. Roxanne Thurston and James Thurston · filed 2012-06-07(b)

Because the Thurstons failed to file an expert report implicating Sinha‘s conduct within 120 days of filing suit, the trial court erred in denying Sinha‘s motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report for a health care liability claim and permits dismissal when the claimant fails to provide one.

Trevino v. MC45 Holdings, L.L.C. D/B/A RYKE Physical Therapy and RYKE Rehabilitation Limited Partnership · filed 2012-10-03(a), (b)

Therefore, the trial court properly dismissed Trevino’s claims for having failed to provide an expert report.

Section 74.351(a) does not require an expert report for a claim seeking only declaratory relief because the party is not a claimant seeking damages on that claim.

McALLEN HOSPITALS, L. P., D/B/A McALLEN MEDICAL CENTER v. Gomez · filed 2013-02-28(a)

Moreover, because he is not a “claimant” with respect to his action for declaratory judgment, appellee was not subject to the expert report requirement of chapter 74 with respect to that claim. See id. § 74.351(a) (requiring a “claimant” to file an expert report).

Section 74.351 does not permit dismissal for a deficient expert report before the 120-day period for serving reports expires.

Silsbee Oaks Health Care, L.L.P. v. Melancon · filed 2012-10-25(b)

Thus, because the 120 day period provided for filing expert reports had not expired when the trial court ruled on Silsbee’s objections to the expert reports, the trial court was not authorized when it signed the September 2011 order to grant Silsbee’s request to dismiss.

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal of a health care liability claim when the claimant fails to serve an expert report and provides for the defendant’s attorney’s fees and costs.

CHCA BAYSHORE, LP D/B/A EAST HOUSTON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER v. Salazar · filed 2013-05-07(b)

We reverse the trial court’s order denying CHCA’s motion to dismiss Salazar’s claims. Because CHCA requested its attorney’s fees and costs in the trial court pursuant to section 74.351(b)(1), we remand with instructions to dismiss Salazar’s claims against CHCA and consider CHCA’s request for attorney’s fees and costs.

Section 74.351 requires dismissal when a claimant serves no expert report addressing a defendant health care provider; the claimant cannot obtain an extension to file one.

Texas Health Harris Methodist Hospital Fort Worth v. Biggers · filed 2013-10-03(b)

But because the Biggerses did not file an expert report as to Harris Methodist Hospitals Inc. and Texas Health Resources, they are not entitled to an extension to file a report addressing their claims against those providers, and the trial court must dismiss the Biggerses claims against them and consider their request for attorney’s fees.

Section 74.351 requires a claimant bringing a health care liability claim to serve an expert report; failure to do so requires dismissal.

Bioderm Skin Care, LLC and Quan Nguyen, M.D. v. Veasna "sandee" Sok · filed 2014-03-28(a)

Because Sok filed a health care liability claim but failed to serve an expert report as required by the Medical Liability Act, we conclude the court of appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss. Additionally, Bioderm and Dr. Nguyen requested attorney’s fees and costs in the trial court pursuant to section 74.351(b)(1) of the Medical Liability Act. Accordingly, we remand to that court to dismiss Sok’s claim against Bioderm and Dr. Nguyen and consider their request for attorney’s fees and costs.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report for a health care liability claim and, when none is served, requires dismissal with prejudice and an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs.

CHCA West Houston, L.P. D/B/A West Houston Medical Center v. Shelley · filed 2014-07-15(a), (b)

Shelley did not serve any document on the Hospital in an attempt to comply with section 74.351(a)’s expert-report requirements. Therefore, the trial court erred by denying the Hospital’s motion and by failing to dismiss Shelley’s claim with prejudice and award the Hospital reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs incurred by the Hospital.

Section 74.351 requires a claimant to serve an expert report on each defendant within the statutory time limit; failure to do so requires dismissal with prejudice and an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs.

the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) v. Clarke · filed 2014-08-28(a)–(b)

Clarke did not serve any document on UTMB in an attempt to comply with section 74.351(a)’s expert-report requirements. The trial court erred when it did not dismiss her claim with prejudice and award court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to UTMB.

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal with prejudice and an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs when the required expert report is not timely served.

Clark W. Brazil, M.D. v. Mayrita J. Roberts Hillman as Guardian of the Estate of Jennie M. Stokes, an Incapacitated Pers · filed 2014-09-25(b)

When the required expert report has not been timely served, the court, on the motion of the affected physician, shall dismiss the claims against the physician with prejudice and award the physician reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred.

A health care liability claim is subject to dismissal under subsection (b) for failure to serve an expert report, even when the claimant seeks declaratory relief or the defendant asserts sovereign immunity.

Tinnard v. The Dallas County Hospital District · filed 2015-01-23(b)

We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed Tinnard’s claims pursuant to section 74.351(b) of the Civil Practices and Remedies Code.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report for a health care liability claim and provides for attorney’s fees when the claimant fails to serve one.

Valley Regional Medical Center v. Camacho · filed 2015-04-09(b)(1)

We therefore conclude, in accordance with binding precedent, that Camacho’s claim is an HCLC under the statute as construed by the Texas Supreme Court in West Oaks and by this Court in Mejia. ... The trial court’s judgment denying VRMC’s motion to dismiss is reversed, and we remand for the award of attorney’s fees and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. See id. § 74.351(b)(1).

Section 74.351(a) requires an expert report for a health care liability claim; failure to serve one warrants dismissal.

Access Orthodontics of East 7th Street, P .A. v. Jaimes · filed 2015-07-23(a)

Because Jaimes failed to file an expert report as mandated by section 74.351(a) of the Act, the trial court abused its discretion in failing to dismiss her suit.

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal with prejudice and an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs when expert reports fail to adequately address causation.

Christus Health Gulf Coast D/B/A Christus St. John Hospital, and Christus St. John Hospital v. Davidson · filed 2016-05-17(b)

We reverse the trial court’s order and remand this case with instructions to the trial court (1) to dismiss the Davidson Parties’ claims with prejudice under section 74.351(b), (2) to conduct further proceedings to determine the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees that should be awarded to the Hospital Parties under this statute, and (3) to award the Hospital Parties reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs incurred by the Hospital Parties.

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal with prejudice and an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs when a claimant fails to serve a timely expert report and the defendant moves to dismiss.

John D. Guimond and Mary Grace Guimond, Individually and as Next Friends of Nicolas R. Guimond, a Minor v. Integrated Ge · filed 2017-08-01(b)

Because the Guimonds failed to file an expert report as required, we affirm the trial court’s orders dismissing their claims and requiring them to pay the defendants’ attorney’s fees.

Section 74.351 requires dismissal with prejudice and an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs when a plaintiff fails to timely serve an expert report and the defendant moves to dismiss.

Celebrity Healthcare Management, LLC, AKA Celebrity Healthcare and Celebrity Dental, PC AKA Celebrity Dental v. Sta · filed 2017-11-17(b)

If the plaintiff fails to timely serve an expert report, the statute requires the trial court, upon motion, to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim with prejudice and award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of court to the defendant.

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal with prejudice of health care liability claims when no expert report is timely served and the defendant moves to dismiss; attorney’s fees and costs are limited to defending those claims.

Zertuche v. Chelsea Wessels, CRS Healthcare, LLC, and Joey Urrabazo · filed 2018-11-14(b)

But the claims based on the pregnancy and abortion facts are HCLCs, and because no expert report was timely served, and Dr. Zertuche moved to dismiss the claims, the trial court erred in not dismissing the claims with prejudice and awarding reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of court.

Section 74.351 requires dismissal with prejudice when a claimant fails to timely serve an expert report for a health care liability claim, including a claim based on falsified patient medical records during treatment.

Baylor Scott and White, Hillcrest Medical Center v. Weems Iii · filed 2019-04-26(b)(2)

Under the Texas Medical Liability Act, Weems’s ... failure to timely serve an expert report necessitates dismissal with prejudice.

Section 74.351 requires dismissal with prejudice when a claimant fails to timely serve an expert report for a health care liability claim.

Weems III v. Baylor, Scott & White, Hillcrest Medical Center · filed 2019-04-26(b)(2)

Under the Texas Medical Liability Act, Weems’s ... failure to timely serve an expert report necessitates dismissal with prejudice.

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal with prejudice on the defendant’s motion when a health care liability claimant fails to serve a timely expert report.

McBride v. Seton Family of Hospitals D/B/A Seton Medical Center · filed 2019-08-21(b)

If an expert report is not timely served and the defendant files a motion to dismiss the claim, dismissal with prejudice is required.

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal with prejudice and an award of attorney’s fees and court costs when a health care liability claimant fails to serve an expert report on time and the affected provider moves to dismiss.

ETMC EMS and Gary Woolverton, EMT v. Dunn · filed 2020-02-05(b)

Pursuant to Section 74.351(b), if a claimant in a health care liability claim does not serve an expert report within the specified period, the trial court, on the motion of the affected health care provider, shall enter an order that dismisses the claim with prejudice and awards attorney’s fees and costs of court incurred by the affected health care provider.

Section 74.351(s) stays discovery until an expert report is served; unreasonable delay in ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of a report can warrant mandamus relief.

in Re Baylor College of Medicine · filed 2019-07-30(s)

Until the expert report is served, all discovery is stayed in a health care liability claim. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 74.351(s). ... Thus, the relators lack an adequate appellate remedy for the respondent’s failure to rule on their Chapter 74 motions to dismiss within a reasonable time period.

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal of a health care liability claim when the claimant fails to provide the required expert report.

Reginald W. Bryant and Freda R. Bryant v. Brazos Kidney Disease Center, Central Texas Nephrology Associates, P.A., Dr. R · filed 2021-01-28(b)

In sum, the Bryants have not shown that the trial court erred in granting Appellees’ motions to dismiss for failure to file an expert report as required by the TMLA. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §74.351(b).

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal with prejudice and an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs when a claimant fails to serve an expert report within 120 days after the defendant answers.

Touchstone Communities, Inc., and Touchstone Strategies-Stone Oak2 LLC v. Huttinger · filed 2021-05-20(b)

Section 74.351(b) of the Texas Medical Liability Act requires a trial court to dismiss a claimant’s healthcare liability claim with prejudice and to award the defendant physician or health care provider the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs it has incurred if a claimant fails to serve an expert report within 120 days after the defendant files an answer.

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal and an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs when a claimant fails to serve an expert report by the statutory deadline.

John T. Nguyen, MD, FACS, FICS v. Lavigne · filed 2021-07-06(b)

In this situation, the trial court was required to dismiss Lavigne’s lawsuit and then award the defendant physician his reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of court.

Section 74.351(b)(2) requires dismissal with prejudice when a health care liability claimant fails to file the required expert report on time.

Bishara v. Texas Health Harris Methodist Hospital Fort Worth Inc., D/B/A Texas Health Harris Methodist, Hurst-Eu · filed 2021-07-22(b)(2)

Bishara was therefore required to timely file an expert report within 120 days of the Hospital’s original answer. See id. Bishara failed to file the required expert report. Consequently, the trial court correctly dismissed the suit with prejudice. See id. § 74.351(b)(2).

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal of a health care liability claim and an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs when the claimant fails to serve an expert report and the provider moves to dismiss.

Christus Good Shepherd Medical Center v. Sonnier · filed 2021-09-03(b)

Since Sonnier served no expert report on Christus and Christus moved to dismiss on that basis, the trial court was required to grant Christus’s motion and to award it reasonable attorney fees and costs.

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal with prejudice and an award of costs and attorneys’ fees when the plaintiff provides no expert report addressing a defendant.

El Paso Southwestern Cardiovascular Associates, P. A. v. Erika Vianey Crane, Luis Valdez, Clara Valdez and Pedro Alonso · filed 2021-12-17(b)

When a health care liability plaintiff fails to file an expert report as to a health care liability defendant, the trial court has no discretion but to dismiss the claims asserted against that defendant with prejudice and award the defendant costs and attorneys’ fees.

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal of fraud claims arising from the same facts as health care liability claims when the claimant fails to file a sufficient expert report.

Soliz v. McAllen Hospitals, L.P. D/B/A Edinburg Regional Medical Center · filed 2022-01-06(b)

Consequently, Soliz’s failure to file a sufficient expert report as to her negligence claim required the trial court to dismiss her fraud claims.

A defendant seeking dismissal for failure to serve an expert report must prove that it is a healthcare provider covered by the reporting requirement.

Terry L'Amber-Hope and American Medical Response, Inc. v. Stewart · filed 2022-06-02(b)

Without evidence to support Appellants’ contentions that they are emergency-medical-services providers—specifically evidence that either AMR or L’Amber-Hope is licensed, certified, registered, or chartered by the State of Texas to provide healthcare—Appellants failed to prove that they are healthcare providers for which a report is required.

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal with prejudice and an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs, on the health care provider’s motion, when a claimant fails to serve an expert report within 120 days of the defendant’s answer.

St. David's Healthcare System, Inc. v. Malyia Lezama and Malyia Lezama as Parent and Next Friend of Z.L. · filed 2022-07-21(b)

When, as here, a health care liability claimant does not serve an expert report within 120 days of the defendant’s answer, on motion of the health care provider, the court must dismiss the claim with prejudice and award the health care provider reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of court.

Section 74.351 requires a claimant with a health care liability claim to serve an expert report and requires dismissal with prejudice, attorney’s fees, and costs if the claimant fails to do so.

Valley Regional Medical Center v. Patrick S. Skulemowski DO · filed 2022-08-04(a), (b)

Because Skulemowski failed to furnish an expert report, the trial court erred when it denied Valley Regional’s motion to dismiss. ... We remand with instructions to dismiss Skulemowski’s claims with prejudice, to award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of court to Valley Regional, and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Section 74.351 permits a court deciding a dismissal motion to consider an amended petition filed in response, even after the expert-report deadline, if procedural rules allow the amendment.

Lake Jackson Medical Spa, Ltd., Robert Yarish, and Jamie Gutzman v. Gaytan · filed 2022-02-25(b)

For these reasons, we hold that the Act does not prohibit trial courts from considering an amended petition filed in response to a dismissal motion under section 74.351. Except when our procedural rules prohibit such a filing, courts deciding a section 74.351 dismissal motion should consider an amended petition when determining the claims’ underlying nature.

Section 74.351 requires dismissal of health care liability claims when the claimant fails to serve an expert report, including claims based on conduct integral to mental health care.

Snell v. Behavioral Health Connections, Inc. UHS of Timberlawn, Inc., Universal Health Services, Inc., and Heat · filed 2022-12-05(b)

But on the record before us, we have no choice but to conclude the trial court did not err in dismissing Snell’s claims against appellees for his failure to serve an expert report under the TMLA.

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal with prejudice when a claimant fails to serve an expert report within 120 days and the affected health care provider moves to dismiss.

Avila v. Baylor Scott and White · filed 2023-03-08(b)

If no expert report is served within 120 days, the trial court shall, upon motion of the affected physician or health care provider, enter an order awarding the physician or health care provider reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of court and dismissing with prejudice the claim against the physician or health care provider. ... We conclude this course of proceedings conformed to the requirements of section 74.351.

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal with prejudice and an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs when a claimant fails to serve the required expert report for a health care liability claim.

Ernest Health, Inc. D/B/A South Texas Rehabilitation Hospital v. Castro · filed 2024-11-07(b)

Accordingly, we conclude that Castro’s claim meets the definition of a health care liability claim under the TMLA, and thus the trial court erred by not granting South Texas Rehab’s motion to dismiss. ... We reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for the trial court to enter a judgment that: (1) awards South Texas Rehab its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of court; and (2) dismisses Castro’s claim with prejudice.

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal when a claimant fails to timely serve a qualifying expert report as to a defendant.

Patricia Copley and Ravali Tarigopula v. Guidry · filed 2025-04-10(b)

Because Guidry failed to timely serve a qualifying report as to the Appellants, the court erred by failing to dismiss Guidry’s claims against the Appellants.

Section 74.351 requires dismissal when a claimant fails to timely serve an expert report with a CV and the health care provider moves to dismiss, regardless of the claim’s merit.

Oramas v. UTMB Health (Hospital) at Galveston · filed 2025-08-26(a), (b)(2)

If the claimant fails to serve an expert report with a CV on a timely basis and the health care provider moves for dismissal—which is what happened here—the case cannot proceed to a trial. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 74.351(b)(2). This outcome remains the same regardless of whether the underlying claim has genuine merit.

Section 74.351 requires a claimant asserting a health care liability claim to timely serve an expert report and requires dismissal with prejudice if the claimant fails to do so.

Holcomb v. Seton Medical Center · filed 2025-08-27(a), (b)

Thus, Holcomb was required to timely serve an adequate expert report, and because she did not, the trial court properly dismissed her claim with prejudice.

Section 74.351 requires a claimant asserting a health care liability claim to serve an expert report within 120 days after each defendant’s original answer and requires dismissal with prejudice if the claimant fails to serve a timely, compliant report.

Williamson Survivors v. Mustansir Vejlani, M.D., North Houston- TRMC, LLC D/B/A HCA Houston Healthcare Tomball (Incorrec · filed 2025-10-09(a), (b)

We thus cannot conclude the trial court erred in dismissing the claims against appellees under section 74.351 for failure to serve an expert report within 120 days of appellees’ answers or in severing this action from the remainder of the lawsuit.

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal and an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs when a claimant fails to timely serve an expert report for a health care liability claim.

Doctors Hospital at Renaissance, LTD. D/B/A DHR Health v. Alma Rosa Corona · filed 2025-10-30(b)

Consequently, because Corona failed to timely serve DHR with an export report, the trial court erred by denying DHR’s motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal for failure to serve an expert report only when the claim is a health care liability claim.

Enrique Guerra A/K/A Enrique "Ricky" Guerra v. State · filed 2012-08-30(b)

A claimant who files a health care liability claim must serve an expert report on each party or his counsel not later than the 120th day after the claimant’s original petition was filed. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 74.351(a) (West 2011). If the claimant fails to do so, the trial court must dismiss the health care liability claim on the defendant’s motion. Id. § 74.351(b). ... Accordingly, we conclude McAllen Medical Center has waived this argument by not citing legal authority and related analysis in support of its position that Ontiveros’s claim is a health care liability claim.

Section 74.351(b) permits dismissal when a claimant fails to timely serve an expert report; it does not authorize dismissal on a motion challenging whether a breach of contract claim is available.

Kritzer v. Scott E. Kasden, M.D. and Scott E. Kasden, M.D., P.A. · filed 2012-10-04(b)

And while defendants in medical malpractice cases are allowed by statute to have the claimant’s claim dismissed for failure to timely serve an expert report, see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(b) (West 2011), Dr. Kasden’s “motion to dismiss” here does not touch on the expert report issue for its basis.

Section 74.351(i) permits separate expert reports on different issues arising from a health care provider’s conduct, and courts read the reports together to assess their sufficiency.

Tenet Hospitals Limited, a Texas Limited Partnership D/B/A Providence Memorial Hospital v. Luz De La Rosa and Gilbert De · filed 2016-06-08(i)

Section 74.351(i) permits a claimant to utilize separate expert’s reports regarding different issues, such as liability and causation, arising from the conduct of a health care provider. ... In our review of the trial court’s ruling, we will read multiple reports together to determine whether they adequately address the standard of care, breach of the standard, or causation.

Section 74.351(b) does not require dismissal for lack of an expert report when a visitor’s premises liability claim against a hospital is unrelated to health care.

Doctors Hospital at Renaissance, Ltd. v. Mejia · filed 2013-08-01(b)

Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code entitles a defendant to dismissal of a healthcare liability claim if the defendant is not served, within 120 days of the date suit was filed, with an expert report showing that the claim has merit. ... Thus, “safety” claims like those pleaded by Mejia, which are completely unrelated to health care, are excluded from the scope of the TMLA.

Separate expert reports may be considered together to satisfy the required elements of standard of care, breach, and causation as to a health care provider.

Hillcrest Baptist Medical Center v. Wade · filed 2005-08-03(r)(6)

The trial court could have concluded that the three expert reports, considered together, contained the three statutory requirements as to Hillcrest and its nursing staff.

Section 74.351(a) requires a claimant to serve an expert report on the health care provider or the provider’s attorney within 120 days after filing the claim; filing the report with the district clerk does not satisfy that requirement.

Violet Quint v. Alexander · filed 2005-10-28(a)

We therefore hold that Quint’s filing of the report with the district clerk did not satisfy section 74.351(a)’s service requirement.

Section 74.351(a) requires a claimant to serve the expert report and curriculum vitae within 120 days using a method authorized by Rule 21a; regular mail does not suffice.

Herrera v. Seton Northwest Hospital and Francois A. Gordan, M.D. · filed 2006-06-23(a)

Because section 74.351(a) contemplates service to parties consistent with the rules of civil procedure and because Herrera did not use any method of service authorized by rule 21a to deliver copies of his expert’s report and curriculum vitae within 120 days of filing suit, we conclude that Herrera failed to prove compliance with the statutory deadline.

An expert report that identifies only the cause of death does not satisfy section 74.351 when it omits opinions on the standard of care, how the care fell short, and how that caused the death.

Sherman v. Austin State Hospital · filed 2006-02-09(r)(6)

The autopsy report concludes by finding that the cause of death was “natural,” and is silent as to the standard of care the hospital was to provide, how the hospital fell short, and how that shortcoming caused Washington’s death. A report finding only the cause of death does not satisfy the statutory requirements.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to address the standard of care, how the care fell short, and the causal link to the claimed injury; medical records lacking those opinions do not qualify.

Cindy Roe Anglin v. Roy R. Marrero, Jr., M.D. · filed 2006-03-16(r)(6)

As a matter of law, the documents that Anglin filed do not satisfy section 74.351(r)(6)'s requirements.

Section 74.351(r)(6) does not require an expert report to include the heightened standard of proof for emergency medical care under section 74.153.

Vanden Bosch v. Wilbarger General Hospital · filed 2006-04-25(r)(6)

Accordingly, we hold that section 74.153 does not constitute a standard of care contemplated by section 74.351(r)(6).

An expert report supporting a wrongful death claim must provide specific information connecting the alleged breach of care to the patient's death.

Northeast Medical Center, L.P. v. Harriette Crooks · filed 2006-05-19(l)

Absent some specific information connecting Mr. Crooks' fall and broken hip to his death, we find the trial court abused its discretion in finding the report adequate for Section 74.351 purposes concerning the wrongful death claim.

Section 74.351’s expert report requirement applies to a suit whose underlying nature is a health care liability claim, regardless of how the claim is pleaded.

Valley Baptist Medical Center v. Stradley · filed 2006-11-30

Artful pleading cannot avoid the requirements of section 74.351 when the essence of the suit is a health care liability claim. ... Based upon the underlying nature of Stradley's claims, we hold that they do not constitute health care liability claims under the statute.

An expert report must provide factual information explaining how and why the alleged breach caused the injury; a conclusory statement of causation is insufficient.

Guy A. Wells, M.D. v. Ashmore · filed 2006-09-15(r)(6)

So, when addressing the topic of causation, an expert is required to provide some factual information describing how and why the breach resulted in the injury.

An expert report must link each defendant’s alleged breach of the standard of care to the claimed injury with more than speculation.

Alicia G. Murphy, M. D. and Mariano Allen, M. D. v. Rick Mendoza and Irene Mendoza · filed 2007-01-11(r)(6)

Dr. Epstein’s report fails to articulate the link between the breach of the standard of care and the purported injury. He merely contends the surgeon “could have reasonably interpreted the report” to indicate a tumor was invading the muscularis propria. Nothing in the report substantiates his assumption that the surgeon based the decision to perform a cystectomy on the faulty pathology report.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to make a good faith effort to explain the causal relationship between the alleged breach of care and the claimed injuries.

Ashraf Farishta, Individually and as Next Friend for Inaya Farishta v. Tenet Healthsystem Hospitals Dallas, Inc. D/B/A T · filed 2007-01-25(r)(6)

We hold that this report constituted a good faith effort to summarize the causal relationship between the failure to test for GBS and the alleged enumerated injuries suffered by Inaya, that the trial court could not have reasonably determined that the report does not represent a good-faith effort to summarize the causal relationship, and that the trial court therefore abused its discretion in striking Dr. Hammill’s affidavit for failure to meet the Palacios tests.

Section 74.351 allows an expert report to satisfy the standard of care and breach requirements when it identifies the challenged conduct and gives the trial court enough information to evaluate the claim.

Christus Health Southeast Texas D/B/A Christus St. Elizabeth Hospital v. Lanham · filed 2007-02-15(r)(6)

Under the circumstances, the report provides sufficient information to inform the defendant of the conduct called into question, adequately sets out the standard of care and breach of that standard, and gives the trial court sufficient information on which to evaluate the merits of the claim.

An expert report attached to a discovery response can satisfy the service requirement without a separate letter identifying it as a section 74.351 report.

Regent Care Center of Laredo v. Abrego · filed 2006-12-13(a)

Under the circumstances presented in this case, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss. ... In serving the response to the discovery request, the appellees also served Regent Care with the expert reports.

Section 74.351(a) requires a claimant with a health care liability claim to serve an expert report on the health care provider.

Devereaux v. Harris County Hospital District · filed 2007-03-22(a)

Devereaux was therefore obligated to serve an expert report on the Hospital District. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(a). We hold that because Devereaux failed to file the required expert report, the trial court did not err by dismissing Devereaux's claims.

Under former section 74.351(a), curing a representative’s lack of capacity does not restart the 120-day deadline to serve an expert report; the deadline runs from the claim’s original filing.

Opinion Intracare Hospital North v. Campbell Ex Rel. Brown · filed 2007-05-31(a)

Former section 74.351(a)'s expert-report deadline should not have a different starting date simply because Campbell eventually cured her lack of capacity.

Section 74.351 does not require an expert report for a dentist's defamation claim against another dentist when the claim is not a health care liability claim.

Douglas A. Terry, D.D.S. v. John Christian Schiro, D.D.S., A/K/A John Phillip Schiro, D.D.S. · filed 2007-07-26(a)

Thus, we conclude that Dr. Schiro's claims are not health care liability claims and, therefore, the expert report requirements found in section 74.351(a)(13) do not apply.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to identify each defendant and address that defendant's conduct; a report that fails to do so counts as no report for that defendant and does not qualify for a cure extension.

Barbara Apodaca, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Claudia J. McAulay v. Russo · filed 2007-05-02(a)-(c)

The report does not satisfy section 74.351(a) for a specific defendant merely because he or she is a defendant; the report must specifically identify the defendant and apply the statutory elements to that defendant. ... After reviewing the report in its entirety, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that the report fails to represent a good faith effort to address the conduct of Dr. Russo and constitutes no report as to Dr. Russo.

Section 74.351(a) requires an expert report for each defendant physician or health care provider; a report that does not address a defendant does not start that defendant’s 21-day objection period.

Sharad Jain, M.D. v. Dorothy Stafford, as Representative of the Estate of Jack Stafford · filed 2007-05-24(a)

Our holdings in this regard mean that the twenty-one day requirement for objections from Dr. Jain was not triggered by the filing of Nurse Berry’s report because that report was not an “expert report” as to Dr. Jain.

Section 74.351(a) permits an expert’s curriculum vitae to be included in the expert report rather than served as a separate document.

Harris County Hospital District v. Autrey Garrett, Individually and as Next Friend of J.G., D.G., and S.G., Minor Childr · filed 2007-05-03(a)

In regard to the Garretts' service of Dr. McWilliams's curriculum vitae, HCHD has failed to cite any authority for the proposition that a curriculum vitae must be furnished as a separate document. (6) Section 74.351(a) provides merely that a claimant shall serve "one or more expert reports, with a curriculum vitae of each expert ." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(a) (Vernon Supp. 2006) (emphasis added).

An expert report must explain how the alleged breach of care caused the patient's injury or death.

Simonson v. Keppard · filed 2007-06-04(r)(6)

A report that merely states the expert's conclusion as to causation does not satisfy the statutory requirements. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. § 74.351(r)(6) (Vernon Supp.2006). ... Dr. Thomas connected his conclusion as to causation with the alleged breaches of Doctors Simonson and Wilkin.

Section 74.351’s expert report deadline can be satisfied by serving the report while the claim is pending in federal court, before the claim is refiled in state court.

University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio v. Ripley · filed 2007-06-20(a)

It is undisputed that UTHSC was served with a copy of the Ripleys’ expert report on April 15, 2005, while the Ripleys’ claim was pending against UTHSC in federal court. ... The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the Ripleys had complied with chapter 74 because UTHSC had been timely served with the Ripleys’ expert report.

Section 74.351(a) requires service of the expert report on the defendant; filing it with the district clerk does not satisfy that requirement.

Smith v. Hamilton · filed 2007-06-21(a)

Merely filing the expert reports with the district clerk fails to comply with the mandatory requirement that the plaintiff "serve" the report on the defendant.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to fairly summarize the expert's causation opinion without presenting all the evidence needed to prove the claim.

University Medical Center v. Ward · filed 2007-08-23(r)(6)

Because the Wards' second supplemental expert report adequately states Dr. Coney's opinions with respect to causation, we find the trial court reasonably exercised its discretion when it overruled UMC's objections.

An expert report adequately addresses causation when it links the physician's identified failures to the patient's alleged injury.

Eric Sides, M. D. v. Guevara · filed 2007-08-30(r)(6)

The trial court could have reasonably determined that the report provided a fair summary of Dr. Cartwright's opinions as to causation because it linked the failures of Dr. Sides to appreciate and diagnose Ms. Guevara's toe problems and to document the surgery he performed to the subsequent infection in her knee.

An expert report may apply the same standard of care to physicians whose responsibilities overlap, if it adequately explains the standard, breach, and causation for each.

Alexander v. Billie L. Terrell on Behalf of Carolyn Terrell · filed 2007-09-13(r)(6)

The fact that the report does not set out a different standard of care for Dr. Alexander does not render the report inadequate under the circumstances.

Section 74.351(a) requires a claimant to serve an expert report on each defendant; service on another defendant or receipt from someone else does not satisfy that requirement.

University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston v. Gutierrez · filed 2007-10-11(a)

Evidence that appellees served a separate defendant in compliance with section 74.351 is insufficient to comply with the service requirements as to UTHSCH. Further, evidence that UTHSCH was furnished a copy of an expert report by someone other than appellees prior to UTHSCH's becoming a party to the lawsuit does not establish appellees' compliance with section 74.351(a).

Section 74.351(a) starts the 120-day deadline for serving expert reports when the claimant files the original petition; service of the defendant's papers does not extend it.

Ruth Prestwood, Kate Wilson, Both Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Clyde L. Prestwood v. Stephen Settle, M.D. · filed 2008-02-28(a)

Under section 74.351, the reports became due 120 days after the Prestwoods filed their original petition, not 120 days after anything was served on them by the defendant.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to fairly summarize the standard of care, its breach, and the causal relationship between the breach and the claimed injury.

Bill Comstock and Lana Comstock, Individually and A/N/F of Megan Rae Comstock v. M. James Clark and Northwest Oral & Max · filed 2007-10-25(r)(6)

Because Dr. Orr's report provided adequate opinions on the applicable standard of care, breach, and causal relationship, we find that the report represents an objective good faith effort to comply with the statutory requirements of a health care liability expert report.

An expert report satisfies § 74.351(r)(6) when it explains the applicable standard of care, how the provider breached it, and how the breach caused the injury.

Stuart Spitzer, M.D. v. Madelon Berry, Individually and as Personal Representative/Administrator/Executor of the Estate · filed 2008-02-22(r)(6)

This report was not deficient under the statute.

Section 74.351 requires dismissal of claims when the expert report does not address the standard of care, breach, and causation for the alleged direct or vicarious liability.

University of Texas Medical Branch v. Railsback · filed 2008-04-17(b)

Accordingly, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in not granting UTMB's motion to dismiss Railsback's claims against UTMB for vicarious liability based on the acts and omissions of Dr. Maxwell and UTMB's direct liability.

An expert report must address the defendant's standard of care, breach, and how the breach caused the injury; a report addressing only another doctor's conduct is insufficient.

Clark Watts, M.D. v. Roger Renee Rodriguez and Dorothy Rodriguez · filed 2008-04-18(r)(6)

Francis's report does not set out the applicable standard of care that Watts should have followed, how Watts breached that standard, or how any breach by Watts cause Rodriguez's injuries. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(r)(6). Therefore, Francis's report is not sufficient as to Watts.

An expert report satisfies section 74.351 when it fairly summarizes the standard of care, its breach, and how the breach caused the claimed injury.

San Jacinto Methodist Hospital v. Guy Patrick Carr and Terri Carr · filed 2008-05-22(r)(6)

We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the Carrs’ expert reports satisfied the requirements of section 74.351.

Section 74.351(i) allows a claimant to use reports from separate experts to address different liability and causation issues.

Andrew Palafox, M. D. v. Cruz J. Silvey, Ind. and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Carmen Jiner · filed 2007-11-01(i)

The statute does not require that a single expert address all liability and causation issues; rather the plaintiff may satisfy the requirements by serving reports of separate experts regarding different issues. Tex.Civ.Prac.&Rem.Code Ann. § 74.351(i).

A timely but deficient expert report counts as a report that “has not been served” under subsection (b).

Lewis v. Funderburk Ex Rel. Funderburk · filed 2008-04-11(b)

As subpart (c) defines a timely but deficient report as one that "has not been served," the same meaning must be given the same phrase in subpart (b).

Section 74.351(a) does not require a health care provider to object to an expert report before being served with the lawsuit.

Armando Ramos, Sr. v. Dr. Ian Richardson and Valley Baptist Medical Center · filed 2008-04-24(a)

Valley Baptist should not have been required to respond and object to a report before it was served with the lawsuit.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to explain how the alleged breach caused the claimed injury; a conclusory statement of causation is inadequate.

U.S. Imaging, Inc. D/B/A Sadi Pain Management and Berney R. Keszler, M.D. v. Craig Gardner and Thelma Gardner · filed 2007-12-28(r)(6)

Because we cannot infer causation, the report is inadequate and the trial court should have dismissed the cause of action under Section 74.351.

An expert report must give an opinion on causation; saying symptoms are consistent with a possible cause is insufficient.

Walgreen Co. v. Hieger · filed 2008-01-10(r)(6)

Dr. Young's report states only that Ms. Hieger's symptoms are "consistent with" the known side effects of the medication and thus expresses an opinion on a possibility, not an ultimate opinion on causation.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to explain how the alleged breach of care caused the claimed injuries; bare conclusions are insufficient.

Jones v. King · filed 2008-02-20(r)(6)

Powell's report does not link his bare conclusions to the facts and thus fails to explain how the alleged breaches caused the injuries and damages alleged by King. The report did not provide the trial court with sufficient information to determine King's claims have merit. Accordingly, we conclude his report does not satisfy section 74.351 on the issue of causation.

Section 74.351's expert report requirement does not apply to nursing home pest control claims that are not directly related to health care.

Omaha Healthcare Center, L.L.C. v. Wilma Johnson, on Behalf of the Estate of Classie Mae Reed · filed 2008-02-08

There is no medical expert report required to explain the standard of care or its breach. Johnson's claims are not safety claims directly related to health care, not HCLCs, and not subject to the expert report requirements of the former Section 74.351.

An expert report need not be personally written by the expert if it reflects the expert's own opinions and the expert adopts it.

the Sepharic Sisters, Inc. D/B/A John Paul II Nursing Home v. Dillon · filed 2008-03-12(r)(6)

However, § 74.351 does not define an "expert report" as a report an expert has personally written but rather, as "a written report by an expert. " Id. § 74.351(r)(6) (emphasis added).

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to fairly summarize the applicable standards of care, how they were breached, and the causal relationship to the claimed injury.

Reddy v. Seale · filed 2008-03-20(r)(6)

Accordingly, we conclude that Dr. Lutz's report constitutes a fair summary of his opinions as it identifies the applicable standards of care, explains how those standards were breached, and links the reported conclusions to the facts.

An expert report can fairly summarize causation without explaining every medical concept that may need to be addressed at trial.

IHS Acquisition No. 140, Inc. v. Travis · filed 2008-04-24(r)(6)

We believe that Dr. Starer's report, which explained causation, but which did not explain certain medical concepts that would perhaps need to be explained at trial, was "less than all the evidence necessary to establish causation at trial," but still provided a "fair summary" of causation.

Section 74.351(a)'s service requirement can be satisfied when the defendant timely receives the expert report through the plaintiff's attempted service and a certificate of service establishes notice.

Spiegel v. Warren Lee Strother, Melissa Jan Strother, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Child, Bailey Alex · filed 2008-08-14(a)

The statute requires the report to be served by the plaintiff within 120 days of the filing of the petition, so that the defendant may timely file any objections, and the court may implement the statute. By requiring the report to be served, the statute adopts a procedure courts use to determine whether notice is received and when a response is due. We conclude the defendant was timely served with the report in compliance with section 74.351(a).

An expert report adequately summarizes causation when it links the defendant’s specific conduct to the claimed injury, including aggravation of an existing injury.

Ronald R. Eikenhorst, M.D. and Trinity Community Medical Center v. Leonard M. Wellbrock and Mary Wellbrock · filed 2008-06-05(r)(6)

We conclude that Dr. Harris, in his report, provided a fair summary of the causal relationship between Eikenhorst’s failure to meet the pertinent standard of care and the Wellbrocks’ damages, and adequately informed Eikenhorst of the specific conduct the Wellbrocks called into question.

An expert report on a claim that a medical association failed to supervise must identify the association’s standard of care and specify how its conduct breached that standard.

Center for Neurological Disorders, P.A. AND Gregory A. Ward, M.D. v. Roger P. George and Juliet A. George · filed 2008-07-10(l)

Because Dr. Richmond’s report does not state a standard of care applicable to CND or state with specificity any conduct of CND that breached an applicable standard of care, the report does not make a good faith effort to comply with section 74.351 as to CND’s failure to supervise, and the trial court abused its discretion in finding otherwise.

An expert report can satisfy section 74.351’s causation requirement by explaining how the alleged negligence caused the claimed injuries.

Rodolfo Guerrero, M. D. v. Juan Limon and Elida Limon · filed 2008-08-28(r)(6)

We conclude that Dr. Miller's report provides the causal links between the alleged negligence and appellees' injuries.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to explain the standard of care, how the provider breached it, and how that breach caused the claimed injury; the expert may draw explained inferences from medical records.

Roberto Diaz-Rohena, M.D. v. Melton · filed 2008-08-29(r)(6)

Thus, Dr. Maggiano’s report summarizes his opinions as to the “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.” See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(r)(6). ... We therefore hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the report complied with section 74.351, overruling Dr. Diaz-Rohena’s objections to the report, and denying his motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to discuss the standard of care, breach, and causation with enough specificity to identify the challenged conduct and give the trial court a basis to find the claim has merit.

Harold Bruce Hamilton, M.D. and Texas Neurological & Pain Institute, P.A. v. Durgin · filed 2008-11-05(r)(6)

After reviewing the reports, we agree with Durgin that the trial court was justified in finding that they discuss the standard of care, breach, and causation with sufficient specificity to fulfill the two required purposes: (1) inform the defendants of the specific conduct the plaintiff has called into question; and (2) provide a basis for the trial court to conclude that the claims have merit.

An expert report must explain causation with enough factual detail to show how the alleged breach caused the claimed injury; a conclusory assertion that proper treatment would have prevented death is insufficient.

Craig v. Dearbonne · filed 2008-06-26(r)(6)

Rushing’s causation opinion that appropriate treatment would have prevented Betty’s death lacked a factual basis and was conclusory, and the expert report did not sufficiently describe what different treatment Craig should have provided to prevent Betty’s death. Therefore, the report did not discuss causation with sufficient specificity to inform appellants of the conduct Dearbonne has called into question and to provide a basis for the trial court to conclude that Dearbonne’s claims have merit.

An expert report must explain how the alleged breach caused the harm; describing only a possibility of causation is insufficient.

Earl Alford, Jr. v. Belacazar · filed 2008-08-21(r)(6)

A description of only a possibility of causation, however, does not constitute a good-faith effort to comply with the statute.