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

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to explain the causal relationship between each defendant's conduct and the claimed injury.

Hogan v. Pinto · filed 2008-10-09(r)(6)

In addition, the report fails to explain the causal relationship between Hogan's treatment of Pinto and the alleged injuries, as opposed to the treatment provided by Pinto's other healthcare providers.

An expert report must explain how the provider’s alleged failure to meet the standard of care caused the claimed injury; conclusory statements about causation are insufficient.

Perez v. Daughters of Charity Health Services of Austin · filed 2008-10-10(r)(6)

As the expert report was deficient as to causation, it cannot represent a good faith effort to comply with the statutory requirements. The trial court then had no discretion but to dismiss appellants' claims against Seton.

An expert report must address the standard of care, breach, and causation for each defendant.

Dorothy Merritt, M.D., William Warner, M.D., and Gary Horndeski, M.D. v. Williamson · filed 2008-06-26(r)(6)

Reading all four reports together, the documents fail to address all three of the elements necessary under Palacios to satisfy expert report requirements for each defendant—standard of care, breach of that standard, and a causal relationship between that breach and Williamson’s injury.

Section 74.351(a) requires service of an expert report on a physician only after the physician has been served with process, accepted or waived service, or appeared in the suit.

Salih Yilmaz, M.D. v. Eula McGregor, Tommie James, Charles James and Erma Ruth Ervin, as Heirs of the Estate of Louis D. · filed 2008-07-17(a)

We conclude that the legislature’s use of the term “party” in section 74.351 indicates its intent for this section’s service requirements to apply to a physician or health care provider who has been served with citation and the petition , has accepted or waived such service, or has made an appearance .

Section 74.351(r)(6) measures an expert report against the expert’s opinions as of the report’s date, so a later change in opinion during discovery does not by itself make the report inadequate.

John A. Schmidt and Port Arthur Surgical Assoication, P.A. v. Dubose · filed 2008-06-26(r)(6)

Thus, the plain language of the statute contemplates that the expert's opinions may be amended or supplemented as discovery is completed in the lawsuit.

An expert report must explain with sufficient facts how the alleged breach caused the claimed injury; a conclusory causation opinion is inadequate.

Baptist Hospitals of Southeast Texas D/B/A Memorial Hermann Baptist Beaumont Hospital v. Carter · filed 2008-07-31(r)(6)

We conclude that Dr. Macho's report does not sufficiently explain how not having a report on the first surgery delayed Carter's treatment and resulted in his injury.

An expert report must explain how the provider’s alleged failure caused the claimed injury; a conclusory statement about causation is insufficient.

Perez v. Daughters of Charity Health Services of Austin · filed 2008-10-10(r)(6)

Assuming without deciding that Dr. Bernad’s report adequately covers the standard of care and how it was breached, we find the two sentences on the causation element insufficient. The report does not link the hospital’s actions to Shappee’s death or any cause of death. Nor does it identify any specific injury that would have been prevented had the hospital complied with the standard of care.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to explain the factual basis for its causation opinion; a conclusory assertion that timely treatment would have produced a cure rate greater than 50% is insufficient.

Schooley v. Weatherby · filed 2008-11-06(r)(6)

The trial court could have reasonably determined that the assertion in Dr. Cohen’s report that chemotherapy “would with reasonable medical probability have provided a cure rate of greater than 50%” was a conclusory statement and did not represent a good-faith effort to summarize the causal relationship between Dr. Weatherby’s deviation from the applicable standard of care and Mr. Schooley’s death.

Section 74.351(a) permits service of an expert report before the petition is filed, including service in an earlier lawsuit involving the same claim.

Moreno v. Palomino-Hernandez · filed 2008-10-23(a)

Section 74.351(a) provides that "a claimant shall, not later than the 120th day after the date the original petition was filed, serve" (emphasis added) a report and curriculum vitae; nothing in that language precludes service of the report and the curriculum vitae before the petition is filed.

An expert report makes a good-faith effort to meet the section’s requirements when it identifies the challenged conduct and gives the trial court a basis to conclude the claim has merit.

Haroon Ismail Patel, M.D. v. Trena Rodriguez, Individually and as Representative for the Estate of Corina Renee Gutierre · filed 2008-10-30(r)(6)

We hold that Dr. Sahn's report constitutes a good-faith effort to comply with the requirements for an expert report.

An expert report can support a vicarious liability claim by addressing employees’ conduct, but a direct liability claim requires a report addressing the provider’s own conduct.

Azle Manor, Inc. and Azle Manor I, L.L.C. v. Harold R. Vaden, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Joyce Vaden · filed 2008-11-06(l)

We therefore hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the reports represent an objective good faith effort to comply with the definition of an expert report in the statute with regard to Vaden’s vicarious liability claims against Appellants. ... But we hold that the trial court did abuse its discretion by denying Appellants’ motion to dismiss with regard to Vaden’s direct liability claims, which both reports wholly failed to address.

Section 74.351(i) permits separate experts to address different expert report requirements; an expert who addresses breach need not also establish the standard of care when another report does so.

Fred L. Perez, M.D. v. Santos Salinas and Wife, Argelia Salinas · filed 2008-11-25(i)

Because Dr. Herrera's report established the standard of care in appellees' health care liability claim, Dr. Butler was not required to establish the standard of care.

Former section 74.351(a) requires service of an expert report after a health care liability claim is filed; providing the report before filing does not satisfy that requirement.

Poland v. Ott · filed 2009-01-22(a)

The plain language of former section 74.351(a) and rule 21a, which it implicitly incorporates by use of the term "serve," simply does not contemplate "service" of the expert's report and CV on a physician or health-care provider until after a claim has been filed in court against that person or entity.

Section 74.351(a) requires an expert report for a health care liability claim alleging that a provider should have medically restricted a patient’s exposure to cleaning solutions because that medical decision is outside common knowledge.

Roughley v. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center · filed 2009-01-22(a)

Roughley was, therefore, required to provide an expert report with regard to this claim.

Under the former version of § 74.351(a), providing an expert report before filing a health care liability claim does not satisfy the service requirement; the 120-day period begins when the claim is filed.

St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital v. Poland · filed 2009-02-06(a)

Accordingly, the provision of an expert report to a physician or health-care provider before a claim is filed against that individual or entity in court does not comply with former section 74.351(a)'s service requirement; instead, the 120-day period in which an expert report must be served is triggered under former section 74.351(a) by the filing of a health-care-liability claim against that person or entity.

Section 74.351(r)(6) does not require an expert report to say that an emergency care provider acted with wilful and wanton negligence.

Nancy Benish, R.N., F.N.P.-C. v. Grottie · filed 2009-02-19(r)(6)

For these reasons, we decline Appellants’ request that we judicially rewrite the statute to superimpose section 74.153’s wilful and wanton standard of proof at trial upon the criteria for expert reports set forth by the legislature in section 74.351(r)(6).

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report addressing causation, which a nurse's opinion on causation cannot satisfy.

Hopkins County Hospital District D/B/A Hopkins County Memorial Hospital v. Linie Ray · filed 2009-02-24(r)(6)

Thus, Ray failed to meet the critical requirement to provide an expert report on causation issues as required by Section 74.351(r)(6).

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to explain how the alleged failure in care caused the claimed injury; the court cannot fill gaps in causation by inference.

Rory Lewis, M.D. v. Dewayne Funderburk, as Next Friend of Whitney Funderburk · filed 2008-12-31(r)(6)

Therefore, we hold that Hughes’s report does not constitute a good-faith effort to provide a fair summary of the causal relationship between Lewis’s failure to monitor the fracture as it healed and the malunited fracture.

Section 74.351(a) permits a trial court to consider a supplemental expert report filed within the 120-day deadline after the defendant objects to the original report.

Moheb v. Harvey · filed 2009-01-15(a)

We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by considering Berkowitz's timely-filed supplemental report.

An expert report must explain how the alleged breach caused the claimed injury; a court cannot supply a missing causal link by inference.

Marian K. Querry, D.O. v. Peggy Sanders and James Sanders · filed 2009-04-24(r)(6)

Because Ferney never specifically stated in his report that the transection of the bile duct resulted in Sanders' liver failure and did not address exactly how the open procedure could have prevented the transection, we think the trial court did not have a proper basis to conclude that Sanders' complaints had merit as related to the claimed damage of liver failure. On the issue of causation, the report was deficient.

An expert report must fairly explain the basis for its causation opinion so the court can conclude that the claim has merit.

Christopher Lockhart, M.D. v. Normell W. Guyden, Individually and as Heir to the Estate of Natalie J. Guyden · filed 2009-07-16(r)(6)

Because the expert report does not contain a fair summary of the basis for an opinion that Dr. Lockhart’s alleged negligence proximately caused Natalie’s death so as to conclude that the claim against Dr. Lockhart has merit, it is deficient as to Dr. Lockhart.

An expert report can adequately explain causation without identifying the specific bacteria that caused an infection or the antibiotic that should have been prescribed.

Bangalore N. Lakshmikanth, M.D. v. Yvonne T. Leal and Alberto B. Leal, Individually and as Next Friends of M.T.L., a Min · filed 2009-01-22(r)(6)

Moreover, although the report does not state the type of bacteria that caused the infection or the antibiotic that should have been prescribed, the report does inform Dr. Lakshmikanth of the specific conduct the plaintiff has called into question (that he did not order antibiotics to treat M.T.L.) and provides a basis for the trial court to conclude that the claims have merit.

Section 74.351(a) does not require an expert report for a claim that is not a health care liability claim.

Leonard Tesoro, M.D. v. Alvarez · filed 2009-03-12(a)

However, because Alvarez did not assert a health care liability claim, she was not required to file an expert report.

An expert report must identify the standard of care applicable to each defendant; it cannot leave the court to infer that a physician and a physician’s assistant share the same standard.

Shannon Polone, P.A.-C. AND Francis R. Lonergan, M.D. v. Monica Shearer · filed 2009-04-02(r)(6)

We hold that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Polone’s motion to dismiss on the ground that Dr. Akin’s and Dr. Sokol’s expert reports were deficient for failing to adequately set forth the applicable standards of care.

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

Johnson v. Willens · filed 2009-05-14(a)

To be sufficient, a curriculum vitae need not be on a separate piece of paper. We hold that a sufficient curriculum vitae may be contained in the expert report itself.

An expert report satisfies § 74.351(r)(6) when it describes the required care and links the physician’s failure to provide it to the patient’s injury.

John Klotz Stokes, M.D. v. Delarosa · filed 2009-06-04(r)(6)

In these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the report satisfied the requirements of section 74.351.

Section 74.351 permits an expert report addressing an employee's standard of care, breach, and causation to support a vicarious liability claim against the hospital.

RGV Healthcare Associates, Inc. v. Estevis · filed 2009-07-02(r)(6)

If the report identifies conduct by the hospital's employee, the hospital is implicated, and as long as the report adequately addresses the standard of care applicable to the employee, how the employee breached the standard of care, and that the breach caused the plaintiff's injury, it is sufficient as against the hospital to satisfy the expert report requirement for the vicarious liability claims.

Section 74.351(a) requires an expert report to be served on a party or the party’s attorney within 120 days of filing the petition; delivery before the defendant is served with process does not satisfy that requirement.

Jose R. Carreras, M.D. v. Zamora · filed 2009-08-13(a)

Even if Zamora did effectuate service of the report before December 26, 2007, Zamora nonetheless failed to comply with section 74.351 because, absent proper service of process on Dr. Carreras at the time Zamora allegedly served the report, he did not serve the report on a "party" to his lawsuit within 120 days of the filing of his petition.

Section 74.351(a) requires an expert report to be served on a party or the party's attorney within 120 days after the petition is filed; delivery to a defendant before that defendant becomes a party does not satisfy the requirement.

Carreras v. Zamora · filed 2009-09-10(a)

Even if Zamora did effectuate service of the report before December 26, 2007, Zamora nonetheless failed to comply with section 74.351 because, absent proper service of process on Dr. Carreras at the time Zamora allegedly served the report, he did not serve the report on a "party" to his lawsuit within 120 days of the filing of his petition.

An expert report addressing nursing care must show how its author knows the applicable nursing standard of care.

Weerachai Wiri, MD., Jane Doe and Methodist Hospital Levelland Dba Covenant Hospital Levelland v. Kimbrell · filed 2009-09-29

And before we can deem sufficient his opinions regarding the care provided by the nurse at bar, we must know not only what the nurse was obligated to do but also how the expert knew that.

Section 74.351(a) requires an expert report to be served on a party or the party’s attorney within 120 days of filing suit; serving an attorney for another defendant before the intended defendant becomes a party does not satisfy that requirement.

Chance W. Dingler, M.D. AND Linda Diane Tucker and Myrle Tucker v. Linda Diane Tucker and Myrle Tucker AND Nocona Medica · filed 2009-11-19(a)

Because Dr. Dingler was not a “party” to the lawsuit when the Tuckers served Dr. Jenkins’s report on Nocona in November 2007, the Tuckers’ service of the report upon Nocona did not and could not constitute service of the report on Dr. Dingler under the “party’s attorney” language in section 74.351(a).

Section 74.351(a) requires an expert report to be served on each party or that party’s attorney within 120 days of filing suit; serving another defendant’s attorney before the physician becomes a party does not satisfy that requirement.

Dingler v. Tucker · filed 2009-12-10(a)

Because Dr. Dingler was not a "party" to the lawsuit when the Tuckers served Dr. Jenkins's report on Nocona in November 2007, the Tuckers' service of the report upon Nocona did not and could not constitute service of the report on Dr. Dingler under the "party's attorney" language in section 74.351(a).

An expert report is inadequate if it fails to link the defendant’s action or inaction to the claimed injury.

Christus Spohn Health System Corporation v. Trammell · filed 2009-08-13(r)(6)

Because the expert report fails to link any action or inaction by the hospital to Trammell, Sr.'s death, it is inadequate with respect to the necessary element of causation.

Section 74.351(a)'s service requirement is satisfied when defense counsel actually receives the expert report and CV before the deadline, even if they arrive by regular mail without a certificate of service.

Goforth v. Bradshaw · filed 2009-09-04(a)

Though a certificate of service is required by Rule 21a and is recognized as presumptively establishing service, here we have acknowledged, actual delivery. We believe that is the key, and we agree with Spiegel that service was accomplished in both cases by virtue of that actual delivery.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to explain how a breach of the standard of care caused the claimed injury.

Nexion Health at Southwood, Inc. v. Judalet · filed 2009-09-23(r)(6)

A sufficient report is one that contains a "fair summary" of the standard of care, how that standard was breached, and how that breach caused the injury in question. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(r)(6). Because Dr. Colon's report contained no such summary of causation, it is deficient.

Section 74.351’s causation requirement is satisfied when an expert report links the defendants’ alleged breaches of the standard of care to the patient’s injury.

Aaron Lee Woofter, M.D. v. Benitez · filed 2009-11-19(r)(6)

Therefore, keeping in mind that section 74.351 expert reports are a preliminary method to show a plaintiff has a viable cause of action that is not frivolous or without expert support, we hold the trial court acted within its discretion in concluding that Dr. Flye’s report complied with section 74.351 ’s causation requirement as to all four defendants.

An expert report must explain how the physician’s alleged failure to meet the standard of care caused the claimed injury; a conclusory statement is insufficient.

Gonzalez v. Sebile · filed 2009-12-10(r)(6)

In addition, Herrera's report contains only a conclusory statement about causation; that is, his report does not link his conclusion to the facts and does not explain how Gonzalez's alleged negligence contributed to Sebile's death.

An expert report must explain how the defendant’s conduct caused the claimed injury; a delayed diagnosis alone does not establish that the delay caused later surgery.

Daniel L. Foster, D.O. v. Richardson · filed 2009-12-31(r)(6)

Thus, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion to the extent that it found that Dr. Drazner’s report provided a sufficient explanation about Dr. Foster’s actions causing Richardson’s ankle treatment.

Section 74.351 permits an expert report to support a vicarious liability claim against a hospital by adequately addressing an employee's standard of care, breach, and causation.

RGV Healthcare Associates, Inc. v. Estevis · filed 2009-08-27(r)(6)

If the report identifies conduct by the hospital's employee, the hospital is implicated, and as long as the report adequately addresses the standard of care applicable to the employee, how the employee breached the standard of care, and that the breach caused the plaintiff's injury, it is sufficient as against the hospital to satisfy the expert report requirement for the vicarious liability claims.

Section 74.351's expert report requirement for a provider's vicarious liability claim is satisfied by a timely report that adequately addresses the conduct of the provider's employee, even if it does not name the provider.

Knapp Medical Center v. Molina · filed 2009-11-19(a)

Because Squires's report adequately addressed the requisite elements as to Pedraza, an employee of Knapp, we conclude that the first three pages of the report implicated Knapp and satisfied the expert report requirement as to Molina's vicarious liability claims.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report for a health care liability claim arising from a licensed professional counselor’s psychiatric and chemical dependency assessment.

Mike Norgaard, LPC and Riverbend Behavioral Healthcare Associates, P.A. v. Pingel · filed 2009-08-31(a)

Because Pingel’s suit involves an LPC acting in his capacity as a health care provider, specifically in his psychiatric and chemical dependency assessment and evaluation of her, (footnote: 25) Pingel was required to provide an expert report as to Norgaard.

An expert report must explain how a health care provider’s breach caused the claimed injury; a conclusory statement of causation is insufficient.

Pedro E. Estorque, Jr., M.D. v. Schafer · filed 2009-09-17(r)(6)

Dr. Miller’s report does not explain the basis of his opinions as to causation; his report leaves gaps by not explaining how or why the physicians’ failure to consult a urologist or gynecologist caused worsening or progression of Shirley’s listed conditions.

An expert report must explain how the alleged breach of care caused the claimed injury; a conclusory statement of causation is insufficient.

Pedro E. Estorque, Jr., M.D. v. Schafer · filed 2009-09-17(r)(6)

Based on the report’s limited description of causation, we cannot say that Dr. Miller sufficiently explained how the doctors’ inaction caused Shirley’s injuries to provide the trial court with a basis to conclude that the Schafers’ claim had merit.

An expert report must adequately identify the standard of care applicable to the health care provider whose conduct is challenged.

HN Texas Properties, L.P. v. Cox · filed 2009-10-15(r)(6)

We hold that the trial court abused its discretion by overruling HN’s objection and by denying its motion to dismiss as to the claims based on the acts and omissions of the nurses on the ground that Dr. Mitchell’s report is deficient for failing to adequately set forth the standard of care applicable to HN’s nurses.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to explain the standard of care, how it was breached, and how the breach caused the claimed injury; a conclusory statement of causation is insufficient.

Tuan A. Vu, Individually and D/B/A Southwest Cosmetic Surgery and Skin Care Center and Tuan A. Vu, M.D., P.A. v. Cicely · filed 2009-10-29(r)(6)

The causation analysis provides no basis for the trial court to conclude the diastasis-recti-correction claim is meritorious and is therefore insufficient.

An expert report may state one standard of care for multiple providers when it explains that they owed the patient the same duty.

Barber v. Dean · filed 2009-10-29(r)(6)

The report is not insufficient for “grouping” Appellees together because Dr. Wagner specifically states that they all owed the same duty to ensure the proper positioning and padding of Malcolm’s arm.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to explain the challenged conduct and its causal link to the injury sufficiently to notify the defendant and allow the trial court to assess whether the claim has merit.

Dr. John Leland, D.D.S. v. George C. Brandal and Ruth L. Brandal · filed 2009-11-04(r)(6)

A review of Dr. Gray’s supplemental report demonstrates it contains sufficient information informing Leland of the specific conduct the Brandals have called into question and how such conduct injured them. Moreover, it provides a basis for the trial court to determine whether or not their claims have merit as it links Leland’s breach of the standard of care (instructing Brandal to stop taking his medications) to the Brandals’ injury (Brandal’s stroke).

Section 74.351 permits a timely served expert report to withstand dismissal when it adequately states the standard of care, the defendant's breach, and how the breach caused the claimed injury.

Ricardo Barrera, M. D. v. Sarmiento · filed 2009-11-24(l)

In light of the foregoing, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Barrera's motion to dismiss. Sarmiento's expert report adequately sets forth the applicable standard of care, identifies how Barrera breached the standard of care, and explains how the breach caused the injuries claimed by Sarmiento.

An expert report satisfies section 74.351(r)(6) when it explains the standard of care, breach, and causation specifically enough to identify the challenged conduct and support the claim’s merit.

Mike Bismar, M.D. v. Dorothy A. Morehead, Vaughn R. Morehead, and James P. Morehead, III, Individually and as Heirs at L · filed 2009-12-10(r)(6)

Consequently, we hold that the report represents an objective good faith effort to comply with civil practice and remedies code section 74.351(r)(6)’s definition of an expert report.

Section 74.351(a) does not require an expert’s curriculum vitae to be served as a separate document from the expert report.

University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Texas v. Simmons · filed 2009-12-15(a)

We agree with Simmons that nothing in the statute requires a curriculum vitae be served as a separate document.

Section 74.351(i) requires courts to consider expert reports together when deciding whether they address every required element of a claim.

Pangburn v. Anderson · filed 2009-12-17(i)

A trial court must look at all the reports served by the plaintiff and determine whether, viewed together, the reports address each of the required elements. ... Together, the Silverman and Meyer reports satisfy the requirements of the statute as to the claim against Pangburn.

Section 74.351(a) permits a health care liability claimant to serve an expert report before the defendant answers the lawsuit.

Mariano Salinas, M. D. v. Francisco Dimas and Norma Benitez Dimas, as Next Friends of Nemesio Dimas, a Minor · filed 2010-03-18(a)

We therefore conclude that there is nothing in the applicable rules or statutes prohibiting a health care liability claimant from serving an expert medical report on a defendant prior to that defendant having answered the lawsuit.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report on a physician sued for his own conduct to identify his standard of care, breach, and how that breach caused the claimed injury.

Hart v. Comstock · filed 2010-07-27(r)(6)

They therefore were required to produce an expert report that specified the standard of care applicable to Dr. Comstock, identified his breach of the standard, and explained how his breach caused their son’s death.

An expert report can satisfy Section 74.351’s standard-of-care requirement by stating the expected response time and explaining how the provider’s delay breached it.

IHS Acquisition No. 131, Inc. v. Crowson · filed 2010-02-24(r)(6)

This statement, combined with Dr. Bradley’s criticism of Horizon’s nurses for waiting to locate the patient’s DNR paperwork provides both a statement of what the standard of care was and how it was breached. Therefore, the report meets the statutory standard on the standard of care element.

An expert report must provide sufficient facts linking its causation opinion to the standard of care.

Michael J. Reardon, M.D. v. Nelson · filed 2010-03-16(r)(6)

For all the reasons stated above, we conclude Dr. Seaworth provided sufficient facts in his report and linked his causation opinions to those facts and the standard of care for identification of a ramus artery.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to explain the causal relationship between the alleged breach of care and the claimed injury or death.

Granbury Hospital Corporation D/B/A Lake Granbury Medical Center v. Donna Hosack as Representative of the Estate of Temp · filed 2010-04-28(r)(6)

Because Rushing’s report fails to connect the occurrence of pressure ulcers to Hall’s death, his report is insufficient on the element of causation.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to describe the standard of care, breach, and causation with enough specificity to identify the challenged conduct and support the claim.

Burt Eugene Hyde, M.D. v. Dorothy Menefee, Individually and as Next of Friend of Evolla Tutt, and Evolla Tutt · filed 2010-04-29(r)(6)

We hold that the trial court was justified in finding that Dr. Tabler’s report discusses the standard of care, breach, and causation with sufficient specificity to fulfill the statutory requirements.

An expert report sufficiently addresses causation when it explains how the alleged failure to provide treatment contributed to the patient's injury.

Dorothy Menefee, Individually and as Next of Friend of Evolla Tutt, and Evolla Tutt v. Allan B. Ohman, Jr., M.D. · filed 2010-05-27(r)(6)

Therefore, we conclude and hold that this statement of causation is sufficiently specific and not conclusory and that the trial court abused its discretion by granting this objection to Dr. Tabler’s report.

An expert report does not satisfy subsection (r)(6)’s good faith requirement when its causation opinion rests on speculation.

Work & Rehab, L.L.C. v. Stevens · filed 2010-06-24(r)(6)

Neither Dr. Key’s report nor Fontana’s report represents an objective good faith effort to comply with the definition of an expert report.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to fairly summarize how the alleged failure to meet the standard of care caused the claimed injury.

Clear Lake Rehabilitation Hospital, L.L.C. v. Lily Karber · filed 2010-03-18(r)(6)

An expert report must provide only a fair summary of the expert’s opinions regarding the causal relationship between the failure of the health care provider to provide care in accord with the pertinent standard of care and the injury, harm, or damages claimed. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(r)(6). ... Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying Clear Lake’s motion to dismiss Karber’s health care liability claims on the ground that Evans’s report was inadequate with respect to causation.

Section 74.351(i) allows separate expert reports to address different issues, and a report addressing causation need not repeat the other report’s exact description of the standard of care when it identifies the conduct causing the injury.

Harvey G. Davisson, Ph.D. v. Nicholson · filed 2010-03-25(i)

To fulfill the requirements of section 74.351(i) by supplementing Dr. Helge’s report as to Dr. Davisson, Dr. Rushing was not required to mention Dr. Helge’s exact description of the standard of care applicable to Dr. Davisson, especially when, as here, that standard of care is accurately described as a failure to properly supervise or monitor, which is precisely the conduct that Dr. Rushing implicates as causing James’s injuries.

Section 74.351(a) gives a claimant 120 days from the pleading that first asserts a health care liability claim against a physician or health care provider to serve that defendant with an expert report.

David Hayes, M.D. v. Carroll · filed 2010-05-14(a)

We construe section 74.351(a) to require that a health care liability claimant must serve an expert report on a physician or health care provider not later than the 120th day after the date the claimant files the pleading that first asserts a health care liability claim against that physician or health care provider.

An expert report adequately addresses causation when it explains how a physician’s failure to diagnose and treat a condition caused continued pain and instability until treatment.

Enes Kanlic, M. D. v. Meyer · filed 2010-06-23(r)(6)

But in contrast to the expert reports in Castillo and Jones , Dr. Crofford did explain how Dr. Kanlic’s misdiagnosis of looseness in the acetabular component and malpositioning of the hip and his failure to treat the condition caused Meyer to suffer from continued instability and hip pain until the condition was surgically corrected. Likewise, his report stated that Dr. Kanlic’s failure to diagnose the hip infection caused her to suffer pain until the infection was treated. We conclude that the report sufficiently establishes how Dr. Kanlic’s action caused Meyer’s injury.

Section 74.351(a) requires a health care provider to object to an amended expert report within twenty-one days of service or waive objections to its adequacy, even if the provider objected to the initial report.

Fernando Otero, M.D. v. Leon · filed 2010-07-15(a)

Although both McAllen Hospitals and Dr. Leal objected to the initial expert reports served by Leon, neither objected to the amended reports served after the trial court granted Leon a thirty-day extension. They thus waived any objection regarding the adequacy of her reports, and we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying McAllen Hospitals and Dr. Leal's motions to dismiss.

Section 74.351 permits objections to a new matter addressed in a revised expert report.

Martinez-Partido v. Methodist Specialty and Transplant Hospital Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio. Ltd · filed 2010-07-21(a)

We therefore hold that when, as here, a revised report is submitted in which an expert opines on a new “matter,” objections to the expert’s report with respect to that ... new “matter” may be raised.

Section 74.351(i) permits separate expert reports to address different issues, and the reports may be read together to assess whether they satisfy the expert report requirements.

Tenet Hospitals Limited v. Barnes · filed 2010-07-28(i)

Based on the language in Section 74. 351(i) and the analysis in both Abrego and Martin , we conclude that the three expert reports must be read together.

An expert report must fairly summarize the standard of care applicable to each defendant and explain how that defendant breached it.

Steven Philip Kloeris, M.D. v. Stockdale · filed 2010-04-01(r)(6)

In this case, the trial court had no discretion but to conclude that the expert report does not represent an “objective good-faith effort” to provide a fair summary of the standard of care applicable to Dr. Rajan and how she breached that standard as required by section 74.351(r)(6).

An expert report can adequately explain causation by linking a delay in treatment to increased treatment risks and a reduced chance of survival.

Gary W. Elam, M.D. and Gary W. Elam, M.D., P.A. v. Galindo · filed 2010-04-22(r)(6)

The trial court could have reasonably determined that Dr. Curiel’s report represented a good faith effort as to the causal relationship between Dr. Elam’s failure to meet the standard of care and Galindo’s damages.

Section 74.351's expert report requirement does not apply to negligence and premises liability claims arising from a slippery hospital floor when the alleged negligence is incidental to medical care.

St. David's Healthcare Partnership, L.P., LLP D/B/A St. David's Hospital And St. David's Community Health Foundation v. · filed 2010-05-13

As a result, we hold that Esparza's claims for negligence and premises liability are not health care liability claims subject to the expert report requirement of chapter 74. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351.

Section 74.351 does not require an expert report for hospital premises liability and negligence claims that are incidental to medical care.

Jamison v. State · filed 2010-05-13

As a result, we hold that Esparza’s claims for negligence and premises liability are not health care liability claims subject to the expert report requirement of chapter 74.

Section 74.351(a)’s expert report requirement does not apply to a pleaded sexual assault that is not a health care liability claim.

Matthew W. Wasserman, M.D. v. Gugel · filed 2010-05-20(a)

Therefore, we hold that Gugel’s claim as pleaded is not a health care liability claim governed by Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Wasserman’s motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351 does not require an expert report for an employee’s workplace safety claim based on an independent duty owed by the employer, even when the injury occurs in a hospital.

Texas West Oaks Hospital, LP and Hospital Holdings LLC v. Williams · filed 2010-06-24(a)

Williams does not allege that West Oaks breached a duty to any patient but rather breached an independent duty owed to him as an employee. ... The trial court did not err in denying West Oaks’s motion to dismiss Williams’s claims for failing to file an expert report under chapter 74.

Section 74.351 does not require an expert report to exclude every other possible cause of the plaintiff’s injury to qualify as a good-faith effort.

Engh v. Michael Reardon, M.D. and Panagiotis Kougias, M.D. · filed 2010-11-10

Furthermore, IHS Cedars Treatment Center , which involved a summary judgment proceeding, not a section 74.351 motion to dismiss, does not stand for the proposition that a section 74.351 expert report must exclude every other possible cause of the plaintiff’s injury in order to comprise a “good-faith effort” to comply with the statute .

An expert report may be adequately served under Section 74.351(a) when it is actually delivered on time without harm, even if the method of service does not comply with Rule 21a.

Northeast Texas Staffing v. Linie Ray · filed 2010-11-23(a)

There is sufficient evidence to support a finding of actual receipt of the expert report and of no harm from the failure to serve notice by registered or certified mail. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report for a health care liability claim based on the wrongful release of medical information.

TTHR, L.P. v. Coffman · filed 2011-03-17(a)

Coffman’s claims are based on a violation of a standard of care applicable to health care providers. These claims necessitate a threshold examination by an expert on that standard of care and a determination by that expert that Presbyterian fell below that standard and proximately caused Coffman’s injuries.

Section 74.351(a) requires an expert report only for a physician or health care provider against whom a liability claim is asserted.

Raul Ernesto Loaisiga and Raul Ernesto Loaisiga, M.D., P.A. v. Cerda · filed 2010-08-05(a)

Because no allegations of medical negligence or otherwise were asserted against the P.A. in appellees' original petition, we cannot say that the requirements of chapter 74 were applicable as to the P.A. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(a) (requiring an expert medical report "for each physician or health care provider against whom a liability claim is asserted . . ." (emphasis added)).

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to explain the causal link between the alleged breach of care and the claimed injury; a conclusory statement of causation is insufficient.

Christus Spohn Health System Corporation v. Lackey · filed 2010-08-19(r)(6)

Because the Lackeys' expert reports are missing one of the required elements as to this claim, they are not good faith efforts to comply with the statute, and the trial court abused its discretion in denying Spohn and Sheridan's motions to dismiss insofar as they complain of the Lackeys' wrongful death claim.

Section 74.351 allows expert reports to be read together, but the combined reports must adequately address causation for each defendant.

Catherine Gannon, M.D. v. Wyche · filed 2010-08-31(i)

We agree that the healthcare-liability statutes do not require a single expert to address all liability and causation issues as to a defendant and the expert reports should be read together when determining whether they represent a good-faith effort to satisfy the statutory requirements. ... Nevertheless, we conclude that in this case, even when read together, the expert reports of Nurse Armstrong and Dr. Rotbart do not satisfy the element of causation as to the nurse practitioners.

An expert report in a failure-to-diagnose case must explain with specific facts how a timely diagnosis would have prevented the claimed harm.

Ashish Kapoor M.D. v. the Estate of Margaret E. Klovenski, Jake Kloveniski & Mary Hassler, Individually and as Next Frie · filed 2010-09-23(r)(6)

In a failure-to-diagnose case, the expert report must explain how the complained-of harm would not have occurred if the diagnosis had been made in a timely fashion. ... Accordingly, we determine that Dr. Moy’s statements are conclusory, and we hold that the trial court exceeded its discretion in denying Dr. Kapoor’s motion to dismiss on this ground.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to explain how the alleged breach caused the claimed injury; a report linking a missed fracture diagnosis to later treatment and pain satisfies that requirement.

Angelo L. Otero, M.D. v. Richardson · filed 2010-09-30(r)(6)

These opinions by Dr. Drazner are amply sufficient to satisfy the statutory causation element required to be included in expert reports.

Section 74.351(a)’s 120-day deadline for serving an expert report on a health care provider begins when the claimant first files a petition naming that provider as a defendant.

Kingwood Specialty Hospital, Ltd and Kingwood Specialty Hospital v. Barley · filed 2010-10-28(a)

We hold that the 120-day deadline for serving expert report on Kingwood did not begin to run until Barley had filed her second amended petition naming it as defendant.

An expert report can satisfy the causation requirement by explaining how nurses’ omissions led to a physician’s actions and the patient’s injury.

Christus Spohn Health System Corporation v. Cervantes · filed 2011-02-10(r)(6)

He has provided the necessary causal link—from the nurses‘ omissions to the physicians‘ actions to the damages suffered by Elena—thereby providing ―a basis for the trial court to conclude that the claims have merit.‖ Bowie Mem’l Hosp., 79 S.W.3d at 52.

An expert report adequately addresses causation when it explains how the defendant’s alleged breach caused the injury with enough detail to go beyond conjecture; it need not conclusively prove the claim.

Carlos Herrera, M.D. v. Javone Holiday, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Aniyah Trenae Wright · filed 2011-02-15(r)(6)

Although this explanation may not conclusively establish Holiday’s claim, it is a fair summary with sufficiently specific information to demonstrate causation beyond mere conjecture.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report for a health care liability claim alleging that a physician failed to disclose the risks of a procedure.

Tien v. John J. Alappatt, M.D. · filed 2010-10-14

Tien’s action against Alappatt falls within this definition, and Tien was required to comply with section 74.351.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report for claims involving medical judgment about a patient’s supervision and provides for dismissal with prejudice when no report is served.

Assisted Living Concepts, Inc. v. Teresa Starks, as Next Friend of Fred A. Grabeal · filed 2010-11-23(a), (b)(2)

We conclude Stark's tort and breach of contract claims are based on an alleged breach of a standard of care applicable to health care providers and inseparable from the rendition of medical services because they may not be proven without expert testimony regarding Grabeal's medical condition and the level of supervision required. ... Accordingly, we affirm that portion of the trial court's order dismissing Stark's "health care liability claims," we reverse the trial court's prior order as to Stark's remaining claims for premises liability and breach of contract, we render judgment dismissing all claims against ALC, with prejudice pursuant to section 74.351(a), (b)(2), and we deny Appellant's request to remand this cause to the trial court for a determination of attorney's fees to be awarded pursuant to § 74.351(b)(1).

Section 74.351(a)’s expert report requirement applies to negligence claims based on physicians’ prescribing and supervision of medication use.

Buchanan v. O’Donnell · filed 2011-02-23(a)

Therefore, the facts alleged in appellant’s petition are inseparable from appellees’ rendering of (or failure to render) medical care. For these reasons, we conclude appellant’s negligence claim is a health care liability claim. Because appellant’s negligence claim is a health care liability claim and no expert report was served, the claim was properly dismissed.

Section 74.351(a) allows the required curriculum vitae to be included in the expert report rather than served as a separate document.

Fatima Ibrahim, M.D. v. Lisa Gilbride and Pete Gilbride · filed 2010-12-09(a)

However, the first paragraph of Dr. Smith’s above-quoted recitation, summarizing his education and background, although fairly scant, at least qualifies as a CV, despite his intent to supplement this summary with the further information contained in his separate CV.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report only for health care liability claims; claims based on intentional conduct unrelated to medical care do not require one.

Drewery v. Adventist Health System/Texas · filed 2011-05-20(a)

Because Drewery did not plead any health care liability claims, we hold that he was not required to furnish an expert report.

Section 74.351(a) requires an expert report only for health care liability claims; intentional tort claims unrelated to medical care do not trigger the requirement.

Drewery v. Adventist Health System/Texas, Inc. · filed 2011-06-13(a)

Only health care liability claims are subject to the expert-report requirement in section 74.351 of the civil practice and remedies code. ... Because Drewery did not plead any health care liability claims, we hold that he was not required to furnish an expert report.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report for a physician-supervised laser hair removal claim when the underlying claim is for health care liability.

Darlene Stanford, Individually, and Jack M. Thomas, M.D., D/B/A Cosmetic Skin Laser and Hair Removal of Greenville v. Ra · filed 2011-06-23(a)

Cannon was, therefore, subject to the requirements of Section 74.351 because his suit asserts a health care liability claim.

Section 74.351 permits an expert to draw inferences from medical history when explaining causation in an expert report.

Weatherford Texas Hospital Company, LLC v. Riley · filed 2011-06-23

But section 74.351 does not prohibit experts , as opposed to courts reviewing expert reports, from making inferences based on medical history.

An autopsy report does not qualify as a Section 74.351 expert report if it lacks an expert opinion that the claim has merit.

San Antonio Extended Medical Care, Inc. v. Vasquez · filed 2011-08-17(r)(6)

Because Dr. Levy does not provide his opinion as to whether Vasquez’s claims have merit, we hold that Dr. Levy’s autopsy report does not meet the standard for an expert report as enunciated in Scoresby.

Section 74.351 is satisfied when an expert report adequately addresses at least one liability theory, even if it does not address every alleged damage.

Becky McGraw-Wall, M.D. v. Carmine Giardino · filed 2011-04-14(a)

Therefore, although the amended expert report here does not address all of Giardino’s alleged damages, it adequately addresses at least one liability theory and that satisfies the statutory requirements.

Section 74.351 permits a claimant to pursue liability theories omitted from an adequate expert report if they arise from the same operative facts and are asserted against the same defendant.

Certified EMS, Inc. v. Potts · filed 2011-05-19(a), (b)

Although our holding allows a plaintiff to pursue a liability theory not found in the expert report, he may do so only if the additional theory arises out of the same group of operative facts set forth in the expert report and is asserted against the same defendant.

Section 74.351 does not require a separate expert report for a gross-negligence allegation that is intertwined with a reported ordinary-negligence claim.

Younan Nowzaradan, M.D. v. Ryans · filed 2011-05-26(a)

We mention Rose because we have concluded that a gross-negligence claim is inextricably intertwined with, but nonexistent without, a claim based on ordinary negligence and is not a claim for which an expert report is required under section 74.351.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report against a hospital to state the hospital's standard of care and explain how its conduct caused the claimed injury.

Tenet Hospitals Limited v. Love · filed 2011-05-27(r)(6)

In summary, the expert reports submitted are inadequate. They do not state an applicable standard of care for hospitals, nor do they set out how Sierra Providence's alleged conduct caused Melendez's death.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to explain how each defendant’s conduct caused the claimed injury; the court cannot infer a missing causal link.

Tenet Hospitals Limited v. de la Riva · filed 2011-06-29(r)(6)

This is deficient for causation. Looking to the four corners of the report, we note that it does not explain, identify, or describe what conduct, act or omissions are attributable to any of the Appellants, that is, the report does not explain the causal relationship between each defendant's individual acts and the injury caused to Daniella.

Multiple expert reports may be read together to determine whether they adequately explain causation.

Gerald Robert Stephenson, M.D. v. Miller · filed 2011-07-28(i)

Thus, reading both reports together, the alleged failure to ensure the timely administration of the proper medication was another omission in the chain that led to the exacerbation of Miller‟s hyperkalemia and ultimate cardiac arrest.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to explain how the alleged failure to meet the standard of care caused the claimed injury; a conclusory causation opinion is insufficient.

Methodist Willowbrook Hospital v. Jennifer Cullen and Christopher Cullen · filed 2011-08-25(r)(6)

Without such an explanation, the expert opinions on causation are conclusory and the trial court exceeded its discretion in ruling that the expert reports were sufficient.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report only for a health care liability claim; allegations of fraudulent billing and referrals that do not claim a departure from a medical standard of care do not trigger that requirement.

Ihsan Shanti, M.D. v. Allstate Insurance Company · filed 2011-11-03(a)

The duty to serve an expert report applies only to those plaintiffs seeking recovery in a ―health care liability claim.‖ Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(a). ... As with Pallares, the facts alleged in this case do not state a cause of action for health care liability. The trial court’s denial of appellants’ motion to dismiss is therefore affirmed.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report for a health care liability claim and permits dismissal when the report is not served.

Martinez v. Coronado Nursing Center, LP · filed 2012-03-08

Because Martinez’s claims stem from Coronado’s failure to properly supervise Martinez’s father so that he did not injure himself, the claims involve health care services. We hold that Martinez’s claims are health care liability claims. Thus, the trial court did not err in dismissing Martinez’s claims pursuant to Section 74.351.

Section 74.351(a) requires service of the expert report on the opposing party or counsel; filing it with the court clerk does not satisfy that requirement.

Breiten v. Morteza Shatery, M.D. · filed 2012-04-11(a)

Because Section 74.351(a) expressly requires service of an expert report on the opposing party or his or her counsel, we reject Breiten’s claim that she satisfied the requirements of Rule 21a by filing the expert’s report with the court clerk.

Section 74.351’s expert report requirement applies only to health care liability claims; a retaliation claim alleging only economic loss does not require a report.

PM Management-Trinity NC, LLC v. Kumets · filed 2012-04-20(a)

Section 74.351 applies only to "health care liability claims." See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(a). ... We conclude that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in concluding that the retaliation claim was not a health-care-liability claim and therefore denying Trinity's motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351 does not require an expert report to name a health care provider when the claim against it is based on vicarious liability and the report adequately implicates its agent.

Southwest General Hospital, LP, IASIS Healthcare Holdings, Inc. v. Gomez · filed 2011-10-19(a)

Because Gomez has brought negligence claims based on vicarious liability against the Hospital Defendants, she did not need to serve an expert report specifically naming them.

Section 74.351 requires expert support for a provider's direct negligence when it rests on facts separate from a claim of vicarious liability.

Frederick Fung, M.D. v. Fischer · filed 2012-04-13(a)

The facts that the Fischers alleged to impose direct liability constitute a separate health care liability claim requiring expert support.

Section 74.351 requires dismissal of direct liability claims against a health care provider when the expert report addresses only the conduct of its employee.

Austin Regional Clinic, P.A. and Steve Wilkins, M.D. v. Power · filed 2012-06-28(b)

Similar to the expert report that was before this Court in Fung, the expert report here does not address direct liability claims against ARC. We, therefore, conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by denying appellants’ motion to dismiss the direct liability claims against ARC.

A document must contain an expert’s opinion indicating that the claim has merit to qualify as an expert report.

Luz Velandia, DMD, Individually and D/B/A Amigos Dental v. Contreras · filed 2011-10-20(r)(6)

We conclude, therefore, that Dr. Lopez’s letter is not an expert report because it fails to satisfy the minimum standard articulated in Scoresby.

An expert report must address each named defendant’s conduct; a report that fails to implicate a defendant is not a good-faith effort.

Hillcrest Baptist Medical Center and Hillcrest Health System, Inc. v. Payne · filed 2011-11-16(r)(6)

As such, we conclude that the expert reports tendered by Payne do not constitute a good-faith effort with regard to HHSI.

An expert report must explain how the alleged breach caused the patient’s harm; conclusory statements of causation are inadequate.

Nick Giannone, M.D. v. Burch · filed 2011-12-20(r)(6)

Dr. Downing‘s numerous conclusory statements that certain breaches of standards ―contributed to the cause of the patient‘s death‖ are not adequate to fulfill the requirements prescribed in section 74.351(r)(6).

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to explain the causal link between the alleged breach of care and the claimed injury without requiring the court to infer causation.

Olga Cortez, M.D., Medical Clinic of North Texas, P.A., and Denton Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.A. v. Toma · filed 2012-02-09(r)(6)

Thus, the trial court was required to infer causation, meaning Dr. Heard’s report does not sufficiently address the link between Dr. Cortez’s alleged breaches of the standard of care and Tomas’s injuries.

Section 74.351(i) allows reports from separate experts to be read together to satisfy the expert report requirements for a defendant.

Joseph Morris McKellar, M.D. v. Cervantes · filed 2012-04-18(i)

The health care liability statute thus does not require a single expert to address all liability and causation issues as to a defendant, and the expert reports should be read together when determining whether they represent a good faith effort to satisfy the statute.

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

Shenoy v. Penny Jean · filed 2011-12-29(r)(6)

These omissions make the report conclusory and deficient for purposes of section 74.351.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to fairly summarize how the alleged breach of care caused the claimed injury.

Ted Smith, D.O. And Austin Regional Clinic, P.A. v. Wilson · filed 2012-01-11(r)(6)

We are left with no choice but to conclude that the report does not provide a fair summary of the causal link between Smith’s alleged shortcomings and Harris’s death.

An expert report satisfies Section 74.351’s causation requirement when it sufficiently explains the link between the alleged breach of the standard of care and the patient’s injuries.

United Regional Health Care System AND Stuart Jackson Meyer, M.D. v. Timothy Hardy and Renae Hardy · filed 2012-05-10(r)(6)

We hold that this report represents a good-faith effort to state the causal relationship between the alleged breaches of the standard of care and Hardy’s injuries and is therefore sufficient as to causation.

An expert report adequately addresses causation when it explains how the alleged failure to meet the standard of care caused the claimed injury.

Robert Hillery, M.D. v. Kyle · filed 2012-05-17(r)(6)

We conclude that this is a fair summary of the causal relationship between Hillery’s failure to meet the appropriate standard of care and the injury, harm, or damages claimed.

An expert report supporting vicarious liability must identify at least the types of hospital employees involved so the court can assess the applicable standard of care and whether the expert is qualified to address it.

Hendrick Medical Center v. Sharon and Steve Miller, Individually and as Next Friend of Andrew Miller · filed 2012-01-26(r)(6)

Here, none of the experts stated which employees, or even what type of employees (i.e., triage personnel, administrative personnel, nurses, nurse practitioners, physicians’ assistants, etc.), were responsible for the delay in medical treatment. ... We also cannot determine from the reports whether the reports provide a fair summary of the expert’s opinion regarding the applicable standard of care, breach, and causation as required under Section 74.351(r)(6).

An expert report can adequately address standard of care and breach by explaining the risk of interactions between prescribed medications and medications the patient was already taking.

Rebecca Maxwell, M.D. v. Martin · filed 2012-02-09(l)

Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining Dr. Glass provided a sufficient opinion on the standard-of-care and breach elements by articulating the potential for negative interaction between various medications in the protocol and various medications David said he was taking when admitted.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to make a good-faith effort to identify the challenged care and provide a basis for finding the claim has merit.

Ashish Kapoor M.D. v. the Estate of Margaret E. Klovenski, Jake Klovenski & Mary Hassler, Individually & as Next Friends · filed 2012-02-16(l)

Based on the information presented in the amended expert report, we conclude that the trial court acted within its discretion in concluding the amended report constituted a good-faith effort to inform Dr. Kapoor of the specific conduct the plaintiffs have called into question and that the report provides a basis for the trial court to conclude that the claims can go forward.

An expert report adequately addresses causation when it links the defendant’s alleged conduct to the claimed injury and fairly summarizes the expert’s causation opinion.

Pediatrix Medical Services, Inc. v. Elizabeth de la O · filed 2012-03-14(r)(6)

Thus, we find that Dr. Good’s report was sufficient to establish causation and the report constitutes a good faith effort to provide a fair summary of his causation opinions.

Section 74.351’s expert report requirement applies only to health care liability claims; a claim alleging only economic loss, without personal injury, does not qualify.

PM Management-Trinity NC, LLC v. Kumets · filed 2012-04-20(a)

Section 74.351 applies only to “health care liability claims.” ... The question presented is whether the ... phrase “injury to or death of the claimant,” as used in the TMLA, includes pure economic loss, with no accompanying bodily injury or other personal injury. We conclude that it does not.

Section 74.351 requires dismissal of a health care liability claim, including a Chapter 321 claim based on the same underlying facts, when the claimant fails to file a sufficient expert report.

Texas Laurel Ridge Hospital, L.P. D/B/A Laurel Ridge Treatment Center v. Almazan · filed 2012-07-05(b)

The factual complaints underlying all of Almazan’s causes of action concern the same set of ... circumstances and are all health care liability claims. We therefore hold Almazan failed to file an expert report as required by section 74.351, and the trial court should have dismissed all her claims.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to identify the standard of care applicable to each defendant or state that the same standard applies to them.

the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston v. Qi · filed 2012-04-24(r)(6)

Because Dr. Caughey did not sufficiently describe or specify whether the standards of care breached by the ―clinicians‖ applied to Dr. Rauth, Nurse Griffice, or both, and because we may not infer an answer, we hold Dr. Caughey’s report is inadequate.

An expert report need not address every alleged act of negligence or gross negligence when it addresses at least one liability theory within each claim.

Nexion Health at Beechnut, Inc. v. Estate of Shauna Thompson Kent · filed 2012-06-14(r)(2)

Because each specific allegedly wrongful act that could support liability is not a separate claim for negligence or gross negligence, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to dismiss Bray’s claims.

A proper certificate of service is prima facie evidence that an expert report was served within Section 74.351(a)’s 120-day deadline; a next-day postmark does not necessarily defeat that presumption.

Michael J. McQuade, D.D.S., M.S. v. Richard Brooks Berry · filed 2012-12-06(a)

For all of these reasons, we hold that under rule 21a, appellee‘s certificate of service constituted prima facie evidence that he served the expert report on appellant on November 22, and that under the facts of this case, appellant‘s evidence of a postmark of November 23 did not obligate the trial court to find that the prima facie presumption had been overcome.

An expert report sufficiently addresses causation when it links the alleged breach of care to the claimed injury.

Fatima Ibrahim, M.D. v. Lisa Gilbride and Pete Gilbride · filed 2012-07-17(r)(6)

He further directly linked the failure to prescribe anti-seizure medication to Lisa’s having a grand mal seizure, which in turn caused her to fall and hit her head, resulting in a subdural hematoma requiring brain surgery. These additions to Smith’s report also now render the report sufficient on causation.

An expert report addressing an alleged agent’s conduct implicates a health care provider sued for vicarious liability, requiring the provider to object to the report’s sufficiency within twenty-one days or waive its objections.

Young v. Medical Imaging Diagnostic Associates, Inc., Beeville Medical Imaging, and Kingsville Medical Imaging · filed 2012-11-29(a)

Consequently, MIDA was required to file objections to the sufficiency of Dr. Hall’s report within twenty-one days of being served with his report.

Expert reports read together can satisfy the fair-summary requirement when they explain how the alleged breach caused the injury and identify the conduct at issue.

Clinton Brunson, M.D. v. Johnston · filed 2013-01-17(r)(6)

We hold that the reports by Dr. Lustgarten and Dr. Shalen gave the trial court a sufficient basis to reasonably conclude that Johnston’s claims have merit and advised Dr. Brunson of the conduct Johnston has called into question.

An expert report alleging that delayed treatment worsened a patient’s pain must include facts showing increased pain or new ailments during the delay.

Sam Lo, M.D. and Southwest Radiology Association v. Gonzales · filed 2013-04-18(r)(6)

Because Gonzales contends that her pain worsened due to the delay in treatment allegedly caused by Lo, for the trial court to conclude that her claim has merit, the expert report must state facts supporting a conclusion that her pain became more severe or she developed new ailments, as opposed to her pain continuing at the level that it was at before Lo’s involvement, during the delay.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report for health care liability claims, including claims framed as fraud or conspiracy when they arise from the preparation of medical records related to treatment.

Fort Duncan Medical Center, L.P. v. Edwin Martin and Esther Martin, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of · filed 2012-08-01

We hold the Martins’ claims against the Center are health care liability claims subject to the expert report requirements in section 74.351 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report within 120 days for a health care liability claim and requires dismissal on the defendant’s motion if no report is filed.

Hoyt v. Timothy Van Frank, M.D. · filed 2012-08-09(a), (b)

Under chapter 74, any person who has brought a suit asserting a health care liability claim must provide an expert report for each physician or healthcare provider against whom the claim is asserted within 120 days of filing the claim. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 74.351(a). If an expert report is not filed, the trial court must, upon motion of the defendant, dismiss the claim with prejudice and award the defendant reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of court. See id. § 74.351(b). ... Because Hoyt was seeking professional services directly related to the health care treatment Dr. Van Frank had previously provided, and fell off a medical apparatus related to her care which proximately resulted in her injury, we hold that this lawsuit is a health care liability claim. ... Having overruled all of Hoyt’s issues, we affirm the order of the trial court.

Section 74.351 does not require an expert report for a claim arising from cosmetic laser hair removal because that service is not health care treatment.

Rio Grande Valley Vein Clinic, P. A. D/B/A Rgv Vein Laser & Aesthetic Clinic v. Guerrero · filed 2012-08-30

Following our previous precedent in Tesoro v. Alvarez, we hold that laser hair removal is not health care “treatment” and affirm the decision of the trial court to deny a motion to dismiss for failure to file an expert report.

Section 74.351 does not require dismissal for failure to serve an expert report when a hospital’s decision to eliminate podiatrists’ ankle privileges is not directly related to patient care.

Hendrick Medical Center v. Texas Podiatric Medical Association Cory Brown, DPM And Martin v. Sloan, DPM · filed 2012-12-13(b)

The expert report requirements set forth in Section 74.351 apply to health care liability claims. ... For the reasons stated above, we conclude that appellees’ claims are not health care liability claims under Chapter 74. The trial court did not err when it denied Hendrick’s motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351 does not require an expert report for a State enforcement action that alleges no injury to a patient and therefore is not a healthcare liability claim.

Madelyn Holzman, M.D. v. State · filed 2013-01-31

Therefore, we conclude that the third element for a healthcare liability claim is absent in this case. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report for a hospital visitor’s slip-and-fall claim when the claim qualifies as a health care liability claim.

Ross v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital · filed 2013-03-19

The sole issue on appeal is whether Ross’s claim based on a slip and fall occurring on the Hospital’s premises is a ―health care liability claim‖ (HCLC) to which the expert-report requirement applies. Compelled by stare decisis, we hold that this claim is an HCLC, and we affirm.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report for claims arising from medical treatment even when pleaded as assault or intentional infliction of emotional distress, and requires dismissal with prejudice when the report is not served.

Lindsey, Barbara v. Max Adler, M.D., P.A · filed 2013-04-09(a), (b)

As a result, Lindsey’s claims are health care liability claims subject to the expert report requirements of section 74.351. Because Lindsey failed to file an expert report as required by section 74.351(a), we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting appellees’ motion to dismiss and dismissing Lindsey’s claims with prejudice.

Section 74.351 does not require an expert report to address whether the claimant’s injuries were foreseeable.

Rio Grande Regional Hospital v. Ayala · filed 2012-08-24(r)(6)

In light of the foregoing precedent, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to impose a new requirement that the expert report address the element of foreseeability.

Section 74.351 does not require an expert report when the defendant fails to establish that it is a health care provider or physician.

Akhter v. Smooth Solutions DFW One, LLC, Smooth Solutions Franchising, L.P., Smooth Solutions Limited Partnership · filed 2012-08-31(a)

Smooth Solutions failed to carry its burden to establish that it is a healthcare provider or a physician and therefore the trial court erred in dismissing Akhter’s claims against Smooth Solutions under section 74.351.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to explain the applicable standard of care, how the provider breached it, and how that breach caused injury.

Taylor v. Michael Allon, M.D. and Christus St. Catherine Hospital · filed 2012-10-18(r)(6)

After reviewing the report, we conclude that the trial court correctly determined that the report does not constitute a good-faith effort under section 74.351(r)(6). ... The report does not discuss the applicable standards of care or the manner in which the care rendered by Dr. Allon or Christus St. Catherine Hospital failed to meet any standard.

Section 74.351(a) requires an expert report to be served on each newly added defendant, including one facing only vicarious liability for a health care liability claim.

Oak Management Services, Inc. and Burmont, Inc. v. Melancon · filed 2012-10-25(a)

We hold that the Texas Medical Liability Act requires an expert report be served on the newly added defendants addressing the health care liability claims for which the plaintiffs are attempting to hold newly added defendants liable.

Section 74.351 does not require an expert report to identify the documents the expert reviewed to provide a fair summary.

Peterson Regional Medical Center v. Laurie M. O'Connell, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Kenneth · filed 2012-11-14(r)(6)

Nothing in section 74.351 requires the expert to detail in their report what documents they reviewed in order to provide a fair summary.

Section 74.351 requires separate evaluation of whether expert reports support direct liability and vicarious liability claims.

Abilene Regional Medical Center v. Allen · filed 2012-11-29

For the reasons expressed in Miller , we reaffirm our holding that direct liability and vicarious liability claims must be separately evaluated to determine whether each claim is supported by a sufficient expert report.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to address both direct and vicarious liability claims separately and adequately when both are asserted.

MSHC the Waterton at Cowhorn Creek, LLC v. Donna Miller, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Nellie Mae · filed 2012-12-14(r)(6)

Therefore, in order to fulfill the requirements of Chapter 74, the expert report must separately and adequately address both vicarious and direct liability claims.

A failure-to-disclose health care liability claim requires an expert report addressing the particular risks or hazards of the procedure and how nondisclosure could affect consent.

Laron Meadows v. Tarrant County Hospital District D/B/A JPS Health Network · filed 2013-02-21(r)(6)

Because Meadows’s failure-to-disclose claim under section 74.101 is a health care liability claim requiring an expert report meeting the requisites of section 74.351(r)(6), because Bagett’s report does not meet the requisites of section 74.351(r)(6), and because neither Dr. Shershow’s nor Dr. Smith’s reports disclose any particular risks or hazards in a right ankle arthrodesis that could have influenced a reasonable person in making a decision to give or withhold consent to the surgical procedure, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Meadows’s failure-to-disclose claim.

Section 74.351 does not require an expert report for a safety claim whose only connection to health care is that the injury occurred on a health care provider’s premises.

Good Shepherd Medical Center - Linden, Inc. v. Twilley · filed 2013-03-01(a)

Because the claims here are not even indirectly related to health care—save only that they arose on the premises of a health care provider—we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report for a health care liability claim even when the claimant pleads res ipsa loquitur.

Sherman, Andrea v. Healthsouth Specialty Hospital, Inc. D/B/A Healthsouth Dallas Rehab Hospital · filed 2013-04-02(a)

We express no opinion on whether the use or non-use of a seatbelt for purposes of strapping a wheelchair in a van would fall within any of the three categories because even if the doctrine applies to Sherman’s claims, section 74.351 still requires her to file an expert report.

Section 74.351 allows a health care liability claim to proceed when an expert report sufficiently explains the standards of care, breach, and causation.

Intra-Op Monitoring Services, LLC and Justin Hawkins v. Rachel Causey and Bill Causey · filed 2013-04-25(l)

Because the supplemental expert report was sufficient for the trial court to find it met the requirements of section 74.351, we affirm the order of the trial court.

A report sufficiently addresses causation when it explains how and why the alleged breach may have caused or contributed to the injury.

Charles Popeney and Ft. Bend Neurology, P.A. v. Rachel Causey and Bill Causey · filed 2013-04-25(l)

Dr. Lopez‘s explanation of how and why Dr. Popeney‘s breach of the standards of care may have caused or contributed to Dr. Burke inadvertently cutting the facial nerve provides a sufficient basis for the trial court‘s determination that the Causeys filed a compliant report.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report in a claim against multiple defendants to address each defendant’s standard of care, breach, and causal connection to the claimed harm.

Children's Medical Center of Dallas v. Durham, Sheri and Jenkins, Denise, as Adminstrator of the Estate of Jessics Haley · filed 2013-05-31(r)(6)

When a plaintiff sues more than one defendant in connection with a health care liability claim, the expert report also must set forth the standard of care applicable to each defendant, show how that defendant’s conduct failed to meet that standard, and explain the causal relationship between each defendant’s individual acts and the injury, harm, or damages claimed.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to fairly summarize the applicable standard of care, its breach, and causation.

Charles J. Aramburo, M.D. v. Thelma Brown · filed 2013-07-11(r)(6)

The report is deficient because it does not provide a fair summary of the expert’s opinions on all required elements with respect to any of the negligence theories against Dr. Aramburo.

Section 74.351(a) requires an expert report for a health care liability claim, but an assault claim that does not depend on a departure from safety standards does not trigger that requirement.

Bidiwala v. Fieldler · filed 2013-07-31(a)

The Act requires a person who asserts a HCLC to file an expert report within 120 days of filing the original petition. ... Because Fielder’s claim was not a HCLC, the trial court did not err in denying Bidiwala’s motion to dismiss.