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

Section 74.351 requires an expert report within 120 days for a health care liability claim, including a hospital employee’s claim based on workplace safety or vicarious liability.

Tillman v. Memorial Hermann Hospital System D/B/A Memorial Hermann Southwest Hospital · filed 2013-10-01(a)

Applying the broad language of the TMLA as interpreted by our supreme court, Tillman’s claims against the hospital, including her claim that the hospital is vicariously liable for the actions of its nurse, implicate departures from accepted standards of safety under the TMLA and are subject to the TMLA’s requirements. Tillman was required to serve an expert report within 120 days of filing suit, and she did not. The trial court did not err in dismissing her complaint.

Section 74.351 does not require an expert report for a workplace injury claim unrelated to the provision of health care.

Baylor University Medical Center v. Lawton · filed 2013-11-25

We, therefore, conclude Lawton’s claim against Baylor for her workplace injuries do not come within the ambit of Chapter 74, and no expert report was required.

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

Laredo Medical Center v. Melendez · filed 2013-12-04(a)

Nothing in the text of section 74.351(a) requires that a curriculum vitae be contained in a document separate from the expert report.

Section 74.351 requires a claimant asserting a health care liability claim to serve an expert report; failure to do so requires dismissal with prejudice and an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs.

Memorial Hermann Hospital System D/B/A Memorial Hermann Southwest Hospital v. Galvan · filed 2014-01-28(a), (b)

Therefore, Galvan was required to comply with section 74.351(a)’s expert-report requirements. Because she failed to make any attempt to do so, the trial court erred in denying the Hospital’s motion to dismiss. Accordingly, we sustain the Hospital’s three issues, reverse the trial court’s order, and remand with instructions to the trial court (1) to dismiss Galvan’s claim 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 under this statute, and (3) to award the Hospital reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs incurred by the Hospital.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to continue a health care liability claim even if expert testimony may not be needed to recover.

Morrison v. Whispering Pines Lodge I, L.L.P. D/B/A Whispering Pines Lodge and Whispering Pines Lodge, L.L.C. D/B/ · filed 2014-02-27(a)

Plus, the expert report requirement of Section 74.351 is only a threshold requirement for the continuation of the lawsuit, not a requirement for recovery.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to fairly summarize how a breach of the standard of care caused the claimed harm, including nonmedical harm.

David D. Kim, M.D., Northstar Anesthisa, P.A. v. Hoyt · filed 2013-04-24(r)(6)

However, the Act does not itself limit itself to a showing of physical or medical injury. Rather, the Act requires the expert to provide a “fair summary” of the causal relationship between the defendant’s failure to meet the applicable standard of care and the injury, harm, or damages claimed.

An expert report need not rule out every possible cause of the claimed injury to satisfy the causation requirement.

Bailey v. Amaya Clinic, Inc and Dr. David W. Powell · filed 2013-05-30(r)(6)

Nothing in section 74.351 suggests the preliminary report is required to rule out every possible cause of the injury, harm, or damages claimed, especially given that section 74.351(s) limits discovery before a medical expert’s report is filed.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to explain the causal link between the alleged breach of care and the claimed injury; the original and supplemental reports may be read together to assess whether they do so.

Gay Acedo, R.N., Jennifer Bertaut, R.N. v. Adriane Springs · filed 2013-07-09(r)(6)

We conclude Groudine’s reports constitute a good faith effort to provide a fair summary of his opinions on causation as to these claims, see Scoresby, 346 S.W.3d at 549 (citing TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 74.351(r)(6)), and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding Groudine’s reports sufficiently address the claims against the anesthesia technicians, Sindhu, Dada, and Iwuoha.

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

Heritage at Longview Healthcare Center v. Betty Fitzgerald, Individually and for the Benefit of All Wrongful Death Benef · filed 2013-08-07(r)(6)

Nonetheless, we conclude that Dr. Ventimiglia’s report is inadequate because it is conclusory on the element of causation.

Section 74.351(a) requires an expert report to be served on a party or its attorney; attaching it to a petition filed with the district clerk does not satisfy that requirement.

Christus Santa Rosa Health Care Corporation v. Botello · filed 2013-11-13(a)

Because nothing in section 74.351 allows for an exception to the requirement of service upon the party or the party’s attorney, we hold that attaching an expert report to the petition filed with the district clerk does not satisfy section 74.351(a)’s requirement that the report be served.

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.

Anurekha Chadha, M.D. and Austin Regional Clinic, P.A. v. Sharon Rothert and Fred Rothert · filed 2014-02-05(r)(6)

Given the language of the report, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion by determining that the report provided the requisite causal relationship.

An expert report can adequately address causation by explaining the connection between the provider’s conduct and the claimed injuries without using the word “causation.”

Rojan Amjadi M.D. v. Mandujano · filed 2014-02-11(r)(6)

Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying Amjadi’s motion to dismiss Mandujano’s health care liability claims on the ground that Kaplan’s expert report does not adequately address the element of causation.

An expert report must affirmatively link the alleged breach of the standard of care to the claimed injury.

Pickens v. Thomas Leytham, M.D. · filed 2014-02-26(r)(6)

For purposes of causation, section 74.351(r)(6) requires Dr. Karetzky to affirmatively link Dr. Leytham’s alleged breach to Mr. Pickens’s need for mechanical ventilation.

A claimant who timely serves an expert report addressing a viable liability theory against a defendant need not serve a new report when amending the petition to add another theory against that defendant.

Gretchen Huepers, Individually, and as Independent of the Estate of James Huepers v. St. Luke Episcopal Hospital · filed 2013-04-30(a)

No further report was required when her petition was amended to add a new theory of vicarious liability against St. Luke’s based upon nursing negligence and the trial court erred in granting St. Luke’s motion to dismiss.

An expert report under § 74.351 need not address foreseeability or establish the elements that must be proved at trial.

Valley Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Lidia Gonzalez as Next of Friend of Santiago Guerrero, a Minor Child · filed 2013-05-23(r)(6)

There is no mention in the statute of foreseeability or proximate cause, and Texas law does not impose a requirement to establish the elements that must be proved at trial at this stage in the proceedings.

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

Knightstep, Debra v. Jeffers, James and Mollie · filed 2013-07-10(r)(6)

Peacock’s report fails to tie the stated breaches of the standard of care to Jami’s injuries or explain how Jami would have had a better outcome but for these breaches.

An expert report must discuss causation specifically enough to identify the challenged conduct and give the trial court a basis to conclude the claim has merit.

Columbia North Hills Hospital Subsidiary, L.P. D/B/A North Hills Hospital v. Bowen · filed 2014-01-30(r)(6)

The expert report in a health care liability suit must discuss causation with sufficient specificity (1) to inform the defendant health care provider of the conduct that the plaintiff has called into question and (2) to provide a basis for the trial court to conclude that the claims have merit. ... We hold that the report adequately discusses causation so as to inform Hospital of the conduct that Bowen has called into question and to provide a basis for the trial court to conclude that Bowen’s claims have merit.

When a hospital is sued for vicarious liability, an expert report that adequately explains how the physician’s treatment caused the injury satisfies Section 74.351 as to the hospital.

Christus Health Ark-La-Tex D/B/A Christus St. Michael Health System v. William C. Curtis and Tina Curtis · filed 2013-08-30(r)(6)

Because the Curtises alleged a theory of vicarious liability, the causal allegations that Urbina’s treatments caused injury to William are sufficient, alone, to satisfy Section 74.351 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code as to the Hospital.

When a hospital is sued for an employee’s conduct under a vicarious liability theory, an expert report that addresses the employee need not discuss the hospital’s own acts or omissions.

Wiley v. Baylor All Saints Medical Center at Fort Worth · filed 2014-03-06(r)(6)

Accordingly, when a hospital is sued under a vicarious liability theory, the expert report need not address acts or omissions by the hospital that breached a standard of care, and thus, the report need not discuss the hospital at all.

Section 74.351(a) requires service of an expert report on a party or its attorney; service on a defendant after the claims against it have been nonsuited does not satisfy that requirement.

Christus Santa Rosa Health Care Corporation v. Botello · filed 2013-09-18(a)

Therefore, we conclude appellant’s status as a “party” under the first lawsuit ended upon nonsuit and appellant did not again become a “party” to any “case or controversy” until claims were asserted against it in the second original petition.

Section 74.351 does not require an expert report when the defendant seeking dismissal fails to show that it is a health care provider.

Obstetrical and Gynecological Associates, P.A. N/K/A Obstetrical and Gynecological Associates, PLLC v. Layne Hardin and · filed 2013-11-14

No expert report was required because there is no evidence that OGA is a licensed healthcare provider. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying OGA’s motion to dismiss.

An expert report must link its causation opinion to facts; a conclusory opinion does not satisfy the good faith effort standard.

W.B.M. Management Company D/B/A Vivians Nursing Home v. Flores · filed 2014-04-25(l)

Accordingly, the report does not set forth a “good faith effort” to provide a fair summary of the causation element as described in the statute.

Under former § 74.351(a), an expert report sent with presuit notice does not satisfy the requirement to serve an expert report after a lawsuit is filed.

Nagakrishna Reddy, M.D. And New Braunfels Ob/Gyn, P.A. v. Haley Hebner and Darrin Charles Scott, Individually and as Nex · filed 2014-05-02(a)

Given the supreme court’s directive regarding when an expert report may properly be served, we cannot conclude that the expert report mailed with Hebner and Scott’s pre-suit notice letters satisfied the relevant statutory requirements.

Section 74.351 does not require an expert report for a hospital visitor’s elevator injury claim with no relationship to health care.

Methodist Hospitals of Dallas v. Garcia · filed 2014-05-14(a)

Because we conclude Garcia’s claim is not a health care liability claim, we affirm the trial court’s order. ... There is nothing in our record to show Garcia’s claim has even an indirect relationship to health care. Garcia was at the hospital to visit her daughter when she was allegedly injured in an elevator. Her claim is completely untethered from health care. The mere fact that the alleged injuries occurred at a hospital is insufficient to transform Garcia’s ordinary negligence claim into ... a health care liability claim.

Section 74.351 requires a plaintiff to serve an expert report on a defendant, but that duty is not jurisdictional.

Riggs v. Joseph Michael Perlman, M.D. · filed 2014-06-12(a)

Moreover, the mandatory, statutory duty to serve a defendant with an expert report in compliance with the statute is not jurisdictional.

Section 74.351(a) permits a health care liability claim to proceed when an expert report adequately explains the standard of care, its breach, and the causal connection for at least one claim.

PM Management – Wurzbach NC, LLC v. Armstrong · filed 2014-06-18(a)

Having reviewed the portion of Dr. Zeitlin’s report regarding Ms. Armstrong’s skin injuries, we hold the trial court was within its discretion to find the report serves the purposes of an expert report required by section 74.351(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Dr. Zeitlin informed Trisun of the applicable standards of care, the breaches of those standards, and the causal connection between the breaches and the harm alleged. This was a sufficient basis to allow the trial court to conclude Armstrong has at least one meritorious claim with regard to Ms. Armstrong’s injuries.

Section 74.351’s expert report requirement does not apply to an automobile negligence claim unrelated to the provision of health care.

DHS Management Services, Inc., Diagnostic Health Services, Inc., Mobile Diagnostic Systems, Inc., and Jennifer Hjarpe v. · filed 2014-06-25

Because we conclude, as the trial court did, that Castro’s claims are not health care liability claims subject to the expert report requirement, we affirm the trial court’s order.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to address the applicable standard of care, how the provider failed to meet it, and the causal relationship to the claimed injury.

Johnson v. David G. Sweet, DDS · filed 2014-11-07(r)(6)

Moreover, looking at the four corners of the “report,” which appears to be a letter from another dentist concerning a refund provided to Johnson for dental work, we conclude that it wholly fails to qualify as an “expert report” under Chapter 74. ... The “report” does not reference Sweet or the care rendered by Sweet, nor does it discuss the applicable standard of care or the manner in which Sweet failed to meet that standard.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to fairly summarize how the health care provider’s failure to meet the standard of care caused the claimed injury; the report need not meet trial evidentiary requirements.

HEB Grocery Co., LLP v. Lopez · filed 2014-05-07(r)(6)

The report is not required to meet the same evidentiary requirements as in a summary ... judgment proceeding or at trial; rather, section 74.351 merely requires the medical expert’s report to provide a fair summary of the medical 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.

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

Kristen Kocurek, M.D., and Texas MedClinic v. Colby · filed 2014-08-22(r)(6)

Based on the record before us and the four corners of the expert report, we are left with no choice but to conclude that the report does not provide an adequate causal link between Kocurek’s alleged shortcomings and Colby’s symptoms or injuries.

Section 74.351’s causation requirement is satisfied when an expert report links the causation opinion to specific facts and gives the defendant notice of the challenged conduct.

Memorial Hermann Health System v. McBride · filed 2014-08-28(r)(6)

His report links his causation opinion to specific facts such that appellants had notice of the complaint against them. Keeping in mind that expert reports, such as that of Dr. Walkes, are only a preliminary method to show that a plaintiff has a viable cause of action that is not frivolous or without expert support, we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellants’ motion challenging the sufficiency of Dr. Walkes’s expert report on the element of causation.

An expert report must explain how and why the alleged breach caused the claimed injury with enough detail to show causation beyond mere conjecture.

SavaSeniorCare Administrative Services, L.L.C. v. Cantu · filed 2014-10-22(r)(6)

The report’s statement regarding causation fails to explain how and why the allegedly negligent conduct—dropping Maria while transferring her to her bed and failing to report the incident and follow protocol—caused the injury. The report fails to contain sufficiently specific information to demonstrate causation beyond mere conjecture. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in overruling Retama Manor’s objection to the report based on causation.

An expert report must explain how and why a breach of the standard of care caused the claimed injury; a conclusory causation opinion is inadequate.

Columbia North Hills Hospital, Subsidiary, L.P., Individually and A/K/A and D/B/A North Hills Hospital v. Tuck · filed 2014-12-25(r)(6)

We conclude that appellee failed to furnish an adequate expert report on the essential element of causation and that the trial judge abused his discretion by denying appellant’s second motion to dismiss.

Under the version of section 74.351(a) governing this suit, a claimant had to serve an expert report on each named health care defendant within 120 days of filing suit; serving the employer’s counsel did not satisfy that requirement for an employee.

Matthews v. Lenoir · filed 2014-07-22(a)

Accordingly, we conclude that the service on the attorney general did not satisfy the Lenoirs’ statutory obligation to serve an expert report on Matthews.

Section 74.351(b) does not require dismissal for an untimely expert report when the defendant has not shown that it is a health-care provider.

Doctors Data, Inc. v. Ronald Stemp and Carrie Stemp · filed 2014-07-31(b)

Even assuming without deciding for purposes of this review that the Stemps’ claims are health-care-liability claims, Doctors Data must also demonstrate that it is a health-care provider. ... Doctors Data has not shown from the record before us that it is a health-care provider; thus, it cannot show that the trial court abused its discretion by denying its motion to dismiss.

An expert report must explain how the provider’s alleged conduct caused the claimed harm; conclusory statements that require the court to infer causation are insufficient.

Donald Carney, M.D. v. Holder · filed 2014-08-13(r)(6)

Consequently, Dr. Fredric’s statements on causation are conclusory, lack sufficient detail, and require us to make inferences to conclude the claim has merit. Without that information, we cannot conclude that the claim is meritorious.

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

Angela Cornejo and Carlos Portillo v. Stephen J. Hilgers, M.D. · filed 2014-08-14(r)(6)

We conclude that Drs. Hall and Tomasovic, in their amended medical expert reports, provided a fair summary of the causal relationship between Dr. Hilgers’s failure to meet the appropriate standard of care and the injuries suffered by Cornejo’s baby.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report for a health care liability claim; failure to serve one on time requires dismissal with prejudice and an award of court costs and attorney’s fees.

Bueno v. Hernandez · filed 2014-08-29(a), (b)(1)

Because Hernandez failed to conclusively rebut the presumption that her claim was a health care liability claim requiring an expert report pursuant to section 74.351(a), we reverse the trial court’s March 25, 2014 order, render judgment dismissing, with prejudice, Hernandez’s claims ... against Bueno, and remand the cause to the trial court for a determination of court costs and attorney’s fees to be awarded to Bueno pursuant to section 74.351(b)(1).

Section 74.351 requires a plaintiff asserting a health care liability claim to serve an expert report within 120 days after filing the original petition; failure to do so supports dismissal.

Barnes v. Navarro Hospital, LP, Navarro Regional, LLC, D/B/A NAVREG, LLC · filed 2014-08-29

Under the Texas Medical Liability Act (“TMLA”), a plaintiff asserting an HCLC must serve a medical expert report upon each party’s attorney no later than the 120th day after the date the original petition was filed. Id. § 74.351(a). ... Therefore, under the statute, Barnes’s claim is an HCLC and the trial court did not err in granting Navarro’s motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351 does not excuse an expert report merely because expert testimony may be unnecessary to decide liability on the merits.

Simmons v. Outreach Health Community Care Services, LP. D/B/A Outreach Health Services · filed 2014-11-07(j)

However, there is no statutory exception from the expert report requirement, even in cases where expert testimony is ultimately unnecessary to determine liability on the merits.

Section 74.351 does not require an expert report when the defendant fails to establish that the claim is a health care liability claim.

Malladi Sudhakar Reddy, M.D. v. Dianna Lynn Veedell and Maury Veedell · filed 2014-09-18(b)

Having considered the gravamen of the Veedells’ claims as well as the evidence brought forth by Reddy to support his contention that their claims were indirectly related to health care, we conclude that Reddy has not carried his burden to prove that the Veedells’ causes of action are health care liability claims for which an expert report was required.

Section 74.351 does not require an expert report for a hospital visitor’s slip-and-fall claim with no connection to health care.

Methodist Hospitals of Dallas D/B/A Methodist Dallas Medical Center and Methodist Health System v. Searcy · filed 2014-11-10(a)

Her claim is completely untethered from health care; consequently, it is not subject to Chapter 74.

Section 74.351 does not require dismissal for failure to serve an expert report when the claim is an ordinary workplace injury unrelated to health care.

Iris Gonzalez v. Diversicare Leasing Corp D/B/A Afton Oaks Nursing Care Center A/K/A Afton Oaks Nursing and Rehab Center · filed 2014-09-23(b)

As such, it does not qualify for the “safety” category of health care liability claims, and the trial court erred by dismissing her claims with prejudice.

Section 74.351 does not require an expert report for a hospital premises liability claim wholly disconnected from the rendition of health care.

East El Paso Physicians Medical Center, LLC v. Vargas · filed 2014-11-07

A defendant is entitled to dismissal with prejudice of any HCLC if a plaintiff fails to serve the defendant with a statutorily-compliant expert report on liability or causation within 120 days of the suit’s inception. TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE ANN. § 74.351(b), (j)(West 2011). ... Because Vargas’ personal injury claims arose in a context completely divorced from the rendition of health care, the TMLA did not apply to those claims.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report for a health care liability claim; a claim that is not a health care liability claim is not subject to dismissal for lack of a report.

the Good Shepherd Hospital, Inc. v. Masten · filed 2014-12-03

Under the TMLA, a claimant who asserts an HCLC must comply with the TMLA‟s requirements, including serving an expert report upon the health care provider within 120 days of filing suit. ... Therefore, we hold that the Mastens‟ claim is not an HCLC, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying its motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351(a) requires an expert report when a claim against a health care provider arises during patient care and the claimant fails to conclusively rebut the presumption that it is a health care liability claim.

Bueno v. Hernandez · filed 2014-12-31(a)

Because the record clearly establishes Bueno was a health care provider and the alleged assault occurred while Bueno was providing medical care to Hernandez, there is a presumption that Hernandez’s claims against Bueno are health care liability claims requiring an expert report pursuant to section 74.351(a). Hernandez failed to conclusively rebut the presumption.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report for a health care liability claim, but not for a visitor’s slip-and-fall claim unrelated to health care.

Watson v. Good Shepherd Medical Center · filed 2015-01-19(a)

A Section 74.351 expert report is required in all HCLCs. ... Because Watson did not present a health care liability claim, dismissing her claims was error.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report for a health care liability claim based on a provider’s negligent hiring, training, and supervision of a valet company; failure to comply requires dismissal with prejudice and an award of attorney’s fees and court costs.

Brazos Presbyterian Homes, Inc. D/B/A the Hallmark v. August Schumacher Lander, as Independent of the Estate of Betty S. · filed 2015-03-12(b)

We hold that appellee’s negligent hiring claim against The Hallmark is a health care liability claim to which the Chapter 74 expert-report requirement applies. ... If a claimant such as appellee does not comply with the Chapter 74 expert- report requirement, the trial court must dismiss the claim with prejudice and award reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs to the healthcare provider.

Under the former version of § 74.351(a), timely receipt of an expert report through alternative means can satisfy the service requirement even when personal or certified-mail service fails.

Owens v. Handyside · filed 2015-04-23(a)

Although the USPS certified mail receipt and green card show that Owens used the wrong zip code in mailing the report to Totz and he was not served with the expert report in person or by certified mail, Totz and his attorney did in fact timely obtain a copy of the report “though alternative means.” Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in granting Totz’s motion to dismiss Owens’s claims against him on the ground that she had failed to timely serve him with Richardson’s report.

An expert report must provide facts supporting causation; the court cannot infer that a later surgeon relied on the defendant’s alleged misdiagnosis.

Leonardo Quintero, Jr. v. Houston Methodist Hospital · filed 2015-02-26(r)(6)

Because the reports are conclusory regarding causation, a statutorily required element, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that they do not constitute a “good faith effort” to comply with Chapter 74 and dismissing Quintero’s claims.

Section 74.351’s expert report requirement does not apply when the State, acting in its sovereign capacity, seeks civil penalties and injunctive relief rather than damages.

State v. Emeritus Corporation · filed 2015-03-26(a)

The State is not subject to the expert report requirement in the TMLA when it, pursuant to its police power and acting in its sovereign capacity, seeks statutory civil penalties and injunctive relief.

Section 74.351 does not require an expert report or authorize dismissal when the defendant has not shown that the claim is a health care liability claim against a health care provider.

Shiloh Treatment Center, Inc., Shiloh II, LLC, Behavior Training Research, Inc., and Clay Dean Hill v. Destin Ed Ward · filed 2015-04-21

Because Shiloh has not shown that Ward asserted a claim against a health care provider, we conclude that Ward has not asserted a health care liability claim. We affirm the order of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

An expert report must adequately explain the causal relationship between the health care provider’s alleged failure and the claimed injury.

Texas Health Harris Methodist Hospital Fort Worth v. Frausto · filed 2015-04-30(r)(6)

The trial court abused its discretion by denying the Hospital’s motion to dismiss because Dr. Rushing’s expert report does not adequately articulate the causal relationship between the Hospital’s failure to provide life support measures until the question of the validity of the DNR and MPOA was resolved, and Rimert’s death.

Section 74.351(a) permits service of an expert report on a defendant’s attorney by regular mail.

Bexar County Hospital D/B/A University Health System v. Harlan · filed 2015-08-10(a)

This court has cited with approval decisions from other appellate courts holding “that the Legislature intended the term ‘serve’ [in section 74.351(a)] to have the same meaning that it carries in Rule of Civil Procedure 21a.” ... Therefore, the mailing of the expert report was a proper manner of service prescribed by Rule 21a.

Section 74.351 does not require an expert report or dismissal for a premises liability claim that lacks a substantive connection to the provision of health care.

Lance Thai Tran, DDS, PA D/B/A Broadway Family Dental Care v. Chavez · filed 2015-05-14

Concluding that the record in this case does not demonstrate a substantive nexus between the safety standards Chavez alleged Tran breached—standards for maintaining floors in employee work areas—and the provision of health care, we affirm the trial court’s order denying Tran’s motion to dismiss. ... We overrule Tran’s issues and affirm the trial court’s order denying Tran’s motion to dismiss for failure to produce an expert report.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report for a health care liability claim; a visitor’s safety claim with no substantive nexus to health care does not trigger that requirement.

Chamie v. Memorial Hermann Health System D/B/A University Place Retirement Home · filed 2015-07-13(a)

Pursuant to section 74.351, a claimant bringing an HCLC must, “not later than the 120th day after the date each defendant’s original answer is filed, serve on that party or the party’s attorney one or more expert reports.” ... Applying the non-exclusive considerations set forth in Ross, we conclude that no substantive nexus exists between the safety standards appellees allegedly violated and the provision of health care.

Section 74.351 does not require an expert report for a slip-and-fall claim that lacks a substantive relationship to the provision of health care.

Reyes v. Memorial Hermann Health D/B/A TIRR Memorial Hermann · filed 2015-08-25(a)

Reyes, therefore, was not required to serve an expert report to avoid dismissal of her suit.

Section 74.351(a) requires an expert report for a health care liability claim, but does not apply to a safety claim lacking a substantive relationship to the provision of health care.

Valley Regional Medical Center v. Camacho · filed 2015-05-14(a)

Under TMLA, a plaintiff seeking damages in an HCLC must serve a medical expert report upon each party’s attorney no later than the 120th day after the date the original petition was filed. ... Accordingly, the claim is not an HCLC and the trial court did not err in denying VRMC’s motion to dismiss.

An expert report must explain the causal relationship between each physician’s alleged failure to meet the standard of care and the claimed injury; a speculative account is insufficient, while a specific factual chain can suffice.

Mitchell v. Nuggehali Neil Satyu, MD, Zahour Ahmed, MD · filed 2015-06-17(r)(6)

We conclude Grodzin’s reports fail to provide a fair summary of the causal relationship between Ahmed’s purported failures to meet the applicable standards of care and Mitchell’s death. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 74.351(r)(6). ... In contrast to the insufficiency of Grodzin’s opinions of causation with regard to Ahmed’s care and treatment of Mitchell, we conclude Grodzin’s reports provided a fair summary of the causal relationship between Satyu’s purported failures to meet the applicable standards of care and Mitchell’s death. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 74.351(r)(6).

Under the former version of § 74.351(a), timely receipt of an expert report through alternative means can satisfy the service requirement even when certified mail and personal service fail.

Owens v. Krista G. Handyside, M.D., Samuel J. Prater, M.D., Kenneth A. Totz, D.O., FACEP, and Memorial Hermann H · filed 2015-06-22(a)

Although the USPS certified mail receipt and green card show that Owens used the wrong zip code in mailing the report to Totz and he was not served with the expert report in person or by certified mail, Totz and his attorney did in fact timely obtain a copy of the report “though alternative means.” Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in granting Totz’s motion to dismiss Owens’s claims against him on the ground that she had failed to timely serve him with Richardson’s report.

An expert report that does not implicate the provider’s conduct or state that the claim has merit counts as no report under section 74.351, requiring dismissal without triggering the deadline to object.

Valley Baptist Medical Center-Brownsville v. Rosalinda Battles · filed 2015-06-25

A report like the second one in this case is no report under section 74.351. See Scoresby, 346 S.W.3d at 555. As such, VBMC’s obligation to object was never even triggered and it was entitled to automatic dismissal.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to explain the causal link between the alleged breach of care and the injury with enough specificity to show the claim has merit.

Diagnostic Research Group and John R. Holcomb, M.D. v. Vora · filed 2015-08-19(r)(6)

Dr. Mulroy’s report does not provide a fair summary of her opinions on the causal relationship between the asserted breach in the standard of care and the alleged harm with enough specificity to allow the trial court to conclude Vora’s claims have merit and to adequately inform Dr. Holcomb of the specific conduct that Vora calls into question.

A safety claim against a health care provider requires an expert report under section 74.351 only if the alleged safety violation has a substantive nexus to the provision of health care.

Chamie v. Crothall Healthcare, Inc. · filed 2015-07-13

Pursuant to section 74.351, a claimant bringing an HCLC must, “not later than the 120th day after the date each defendant’s original answer is filed, serve on that party or the party’s attorney one or more expert reports.” ... Applying the non-exclusive considerations set forth in Ross, we conclude that no substantive nexus exists between the safety standards appellees allegedly violated and the provision of health care.

An expert report satisfies Section 74.351’s causation requirement when it explains how a provider’s breach delayed diagnosis and treatment and caused the claimed injury.

Owens v. Handyside · filed 2015-10-08(r)(6)

Based on the foregoing, Dr. Richardson’s report represented an “objective good faith effort” to inform Drs. Handyside and Prater of the causal relationship between their failure to adhere to the pertinent standard of care and the injury, harm, or damages claimed.

Section 74.351(r)(6) does not require an expert report to name the defendant when the report identifies the responsible physician by function and describes the conduct at issue.

Earl Mangin, Jr., M.D. and Zbigniew Wojciechowski, M.D. v. Melissa Wendt, Individually, and as of the Estate of Donald W · filed 2015-11-05(r)(6)

Although this report did not specifically identify Dr. Wojciechowski by name, it identified with particularity the responsible party by function: the anesthesia provider who intubated Mr. Wendt.

Section 74.351(a) requires service of an expert report after suit is filed; serving a future defendant before suit does not satisfy the requirement to serve a party.

Jeanne Ransom v. Jeanine Eaton, D.D.S. · filed 2015-11-05(a)

Because no lawsuit was pending, Dr. Eaton was not a “party” at the time the expert report was served on her as required by section 74.351.

Section 74.351 does not require an expert report or authorize dismissal when the defendant has not shown that it is a health care provider and the claims against it are not health care liability claims.

Verticor, Ltd. v. Wood · filed 2015-11-13

Verticor cannot prevail, as it acknowledges, unless it can establish that it is a “health care provider” as defined by the TMLA. ... Without more, Verticor has not raised a fact issue, let alone demonstrated conclusively, that it is a “health care provider” under the TMLA. Consequently, Wood’s claims against it cannot be HCLCs, and the district court did not err in denying Verticor’s motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351(a) does not require an expert report for a claim against a defendant who is neither a physician nor a health care provider.

De La Garza v. the Home Care Team Inc., and Maria Patricia Solis · filed 2016-09-01(a)

There is no allegation that Solis is a “health care provider or physician,” see id.; therefore, appellant’s claim against Solis is not a HCLC, and she was not required to serve Solis with an expert report pursuant to section 74.351(a).

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to address causation even when lay testimony might establish causation under the common law.

Tenet Hospitals Limited D/B/A Sierra Medical Center v. Sandra Bernal, Individually and as Independent Administrator of t · filed 2015-11-18(r)(6)

Because the statute is clear that an expert report must address causation, we cannot ignore that requirement simply because lay testimony may sometimes be deemed sufficient to establish causation under the common law.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to explain the causal relationship between an alleged breach of care and the claimed injury well enough to identify the challenged conduct and support the claim’s merit.

Gerald Harrington, M.D. v. Sandra Schroeder and Duane J. Ramos, Individually and as All Heirs to the Estate of Sylvia Ra · filed 2015-12-16(r)(6)

We conclude the information in Dr. Lipson’s report adequately discusses causation so as to inform Dr. Harrington of the conduct that appellees have called into question and to provide a basis for the trial court to conclude that appellees’ claims have merit.

An expert report supporting at least one liability theory permits a medical negligence claim to proceed despite objections to other theories.

Harlingen Medical Center, Limited Partnership v. Rosa Andrade, as Next Friend of M. H. A., a Minor Child · filed 2016-04-21(l)

We decline to address the merits of this argument because we have already concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding at least one theory of liability against Harlingen Medical Center supported by expert reports, which makes the claim not frivolous and permits the suit to proceed.

An expert report must explain how a short treatment delay caused the patient’s injury when the report does not otherwise show how earlier treatment would have improved the outcome.

THN Physicians Association D/B/A El Paso Perinatology and Maria D. Velazquez, M.D. v. Mario A. Tiscareno and Michelle R. · filed 2016-08-17(r)(6)

Given the timing of Tiscareno’s office visit, which was at least five days after her infection began, and the fact that Tiscareno’s wound ruptured the very next day after her office visit, we conclude it was incumbent upon Dr. Borow to provide a more detailed medical explanation to support his conclusion that Dr. Velazquez failed to meet the standard of care and that her failure to provide appropriate antibiotic treatment caused Tiscareno’s alleged injuries.

An expert report adequately addresses causation when it explains how the alleged failure to diagnose and treat a patient’s symptoms led to the claimed injury.

El Paso Specialty Hospital, Ltd. v. Maria T. Gurrola, Individually and on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries, an · filed 2016-08-24(r)(6)

Rather, we conclude the close proximity between the onset of Oscar’s tachycardia signs and symptoms, the improper monitoring, diagnosis, and treatment of those signs and symptoms, the discharge of Oscar from the hospital despite the existence of those signs and symptoms, and the event of Oscar’s cardiac arrest within hours after being told his symptoms were normal and being sent home supports the trial court’s determination that Dr. Koumjian’s expert report is adequate as to causation.

An expert report sufficiently addresses causation when it connects the alleged negligence to the injury without a logical gap and provides enough detail to assess the claim.

Michael H. Simpson, M. D., Individually and D/B/A El Paso Dermatology Center v. Barton · filed 2016-12-09(r)(6)

In summary, there are no logical gaps between Dr. Roddy’s negligence allegations and his ultimate conclusion on Barton’s harm, and the level of detail provided in this report is comparable to those of other wound care and infection control cases upheld by this Court, our sister courts, and the Texas Supreme Court.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to explain the causal link between a breach of the standard of care and the claimed injury.

St. Joseph Regional Health Center v. Maria Gonzales, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Patricia Gonzal · filed 2017-06-14(r)(6)

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that appellee’s expert reports are deficient as to the causation element, because an analytical gap exists between the breach and the injury that cannot be cured without drawing impermissible inferences.

Section 74.351(i) allows a claimant to satisfy the expert report requirements through reports from multiple experts, even when one report does not supply a qualifying causation opinion.

Blake Smith, M.D., Baylor Scott & White Health System, Baylor Regional Medical Center at Grapevine, Texas Heart Hospital · filed 2017-07-26(i)

Although Moore could not provide opinions regarding causation, that alone does not render Moore’s expert report inadequate. Section 74.351(i) specifically provides a claimant may satisfy the requirements of section 74.351 by serving reports of multiple experts regarding the conduct of a physician or health care provider.

Section 74.351 does not require dismissal for an untimely expert report when the claim is not a health care liability claim.

Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd., D/B/A Corpus Christi Medical Center v. Martinez · filed 2015-11-19(b)

Accordingly, the claim is not an HCLC and the trial court did not err in denying BAHG’s motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351’s expert report requirement applies to claims alleging wrongful disclosure of medical information.

Alajmi v. Methodist Hospital · filed 2016-02-17(a)

Taking the case in the posture it was litigated in the district court, as we must, the district court did not err in reading Texas law to treat claims alleging wrongful disclosure of medical information as “health care liability claims” within the meaning of section 74.351.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report for a health care liability claim even when res ipsa loquitur may apply at trial.

Geri Merry and Mike Merry v. Diana E. Wilson, M.D., Neurosurgical & Spine Center, North Texas Neurosurgical & Spine Cent · filed 2016-06-30(a)

In drawing the distinction between res ipsa loquitur’s status as an evidentiary rule and the procedural requirement of an expert report at the beginning of the litigation to show that a claim is not frivolous, we join our sister courts in holding that an expert report is still required regardless of whether res ipsa loquitur would apply at trial.

An expert report that meets Section 74.351’s standards as to an employee can support a claim against the employer under a vicarious liability theory.

Humble Surgical Hospital LLC v. Traynor · filed 2016-03-08

The hospital defendants do not dispute that the expert reports here meet the statutory standards as to Bunyard’s conduct. The reports also implicate the hospital defendants, both directly and through vicarious liability for Bunyard’s actions. Under Potts, the trial court did not err in refusing to grant the hospital’s motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to explain the causal relationship between a health care provider’s alleged failure to meet the standard of care and the claimed injury.

Nexion Health at Lancaster, Inc. D/B/A Millbrook Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center and Nancy Lawson v. Gurtha Wells, · filed 2016-07-25(r)(6)

We conclude that Dr. Eskildsen’s reports concerning Nexion and Lawson fail to provide a fair summary of the causal relationship between Nexion’s and Lawson’s purported failures to meet the applicable standards of care and Mr. Well’s death. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 74.351(r)(6). Because Wells’ expert reports omit the statutory element of causation, they do not fulfill the good faith effort requirement.

An expert report must explain how the alleged breach caused the claimed injury; a report that fails to connect an intermediate injury to the cause of death is insufficient on causation.

Texas Home Health Skilled Services, LP and Texas Home Health v. Judy Anderson, Individually and as Representative of the · filed 2016-10-19(r)(6)

A review of Dr. Warshawsky’s expert reports reveals that dehydration was the cause of Timmons’ death; however, he failed to explain how Timmons’ subdural hematoma was a substantial factor in her death from dehydration.

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

Hickory Trail Hospital, L.P. D/B/A Hickory Trail Hospital v. Christopher Webb and Melissa Hayes Individually and as Next · filed 2017-02-21(r)(6)

Dr. Dunn fails to state how the absence of the listed policies would have kept this particular incident from happening. Therefore, Dr. Dunn’s opinion is conclusory.

Section 74.351(a) permits service of an expert report before suit is filed, and that service can satisfy the report deadline.

Noah v. Donald Wikoff, M.D., and Wikoff Urology, P.A. · filed 2016-07-28(a)

Because Noah’s pre-suit service of the expert report is not prohibited by the statute, this fact does not render service of the report untimely.

Section 74.351(a) permits a claimant to serve a qualifying expert report before filing suit, even if the physician is not yet a party, so long as service occurs before the deadline.

the Estate of Ruben Lopez, M.D. v. Barbara Sondock, in Her Individual Capacity and as Independent of the Estate of Marvi · filed 2016-09-15(a)

Under Hebner, Sondock’s pre-suit service of her expert report to Dr. Lopez was not prohibited under Chapter 74 and was well before the expiration of section 74.351(a)’s 120-day deadline to file such qualifying expert report.

An expert report must explain how the alleged breach caused the claimed death; an unsupported conclusion about causation is insufficient.

Stephen Courtney, M.D. and Plano Orthopedics Sports Medicine and Spine Center, P.A. v. Christel Pennington, Individually · filed 2017-07-21(r)(6)

There is simply nothing in either expert’s report to explain how or if the cardiac arrest was linked to the 2015 surgery. Without such explanation, there is no showing of a causal link between the alleged negligence in the first surgery and Steven’s death.

An expert report must explain with facts how the provider’s alleged breach caused the injury; a conclusory causation opinion does not suffice.

Ahmad Karkoutly, M.D. v. Maria Guerrero, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Maria Otilia Estrada · filed 2017-12-14(l)

We therefore cannot say that Dr. Miller’s report satisfies the requirements of the TMLA. See Columbia Valley, 526 S.W.3d at 460. We hold that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Dr. Karkoutly’s motion to dismiss Guerrero’s health care liability claim.

An expert report can satisfy Section 74.351(a)'s service requirement when it is timely sent through the electronic filing manager to a legal assistant's email address that counsel placed on the case's service list.

Eldo E. Frezza, M.D. v. Flores · filed 2018-11-21(a)

We must decide whether service on Ms. Vela was proper. We hold that under the facts of this case, it was.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to explain how and why an alleged breach caused the injury; unexplained gaps in causation make the report insufficient.

Humble Surgical Hospital, LLC, K & S Consulting, LLC D/B/A K+S Consulting v. Davis · filed 2017-10-17(r)(6)

Although Dauphinee explained the basis of his conclusions and linked the conclusions to the facts in many respects, his opinion on causation contains analytical gaps and missing links which render his opinion conclusory.

Section 74.351’s expert-report requirement does not apply when a hospital fails to show that a slip-and-fall claim is a health care liability claim.

Houston Methodist Willowbrook Hospital v. Ramirez · filed 2017-12-14(a)

The hospital failed to demonstrate that Ramirez’s cause of action is a health care liability claim of either the “safety” or “professional or administrative services” varieties. She therefore was not subject to the TMLA’s expert-report requirement, and the trial court correctly denied the motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to explain the causal link between a breach of the standard of care and the claimed harm; a straightforward explanation can suffice.

Columbia Medical Center of Arlington Subsidiary L.P. aka/dba Medical Center of Arlington v. L.M. · filed 2018-03-01(r)(6)

Section 74.351 requires that an expert report provide a fair summary of the expert’s opinions regarding the causal relationship between the defendant’s failure to meet the applicable standards of care and the injury, harm, or damages claimed by the plaintiff. ... Looking at Dr. Lumpkins’s causation statement in the context of her entire report, we conclude that she sufficiently established a causal link between Cagle’s alleged breach of the standard of care and the harm to L.M.

An expert report must specify what care the provider should have given; a vague statement that the care was unsafe is insufficient.

Clavijo v. Fomby · filed 2018-06-14(r)(6)

Dr. Chowdhury’s statement does not constitute a statement of a standard of care because it does not articulate anything specific about what Manor Care’s physical therapists should have done differently.

An expert report adequately summarizes the standard of care when it explains what the physician should have done and why.

New Medical Horizons, II, Ltd. D/B/A Cypress Fairbanks Medical Center v. Milner · filed 2019-03-28(r)(6)

In stating his opinion on the applicable standard of care, Dr. Mitchell’s report states with sufficient detail what a physician should have done and explains why it was the standard of care; it provides “enough information” for the trial court to have concluded that the report constitutes a good-faith effort to set forth the applicable standard of care as to Dr. Balasubramanian.

An expert report makes a good faith effort to explain causation when facts in the report link the provider’s alleged breach to the claimed injury.

Propath Sevices, LLC and Terry L. Barrett, M.D. v. Russ · filed 2018-06-19(l), (r)(6)

Dr. Slominski’s report represents an “objective good faith effort” to meet this requirement by providing a “fair summary” of his causation opinion. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ motion to dismiss.

An expert report must explain how the alleged breach caused the injury; conclusions that require the court to guess at the causal link are insufficient.

Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio, Ltd., L.L.P. D/B/A Northeast Methodist Hospital Sarah I. Back, R.N. And Isma · filed 2018-08-15(r)(6)

Because the report requires inferences or guesses as to what Dr. Rushing likely meant, we hold the report is insufficient as to the issue of causation with respect to Dr. Sosa.

Section 74.351’s causation requirement is satisfied when an expert report explains how the alleged breach caused the injury and gives the trial court a reasonable basis to conclude that the claim has merit.

Mohsen Shahpouri Arani, M.D v. Ronnie J. Fisher, Claudia M. Graeter, Kevin D. Fisher, and Lou Ellen Beasley, Individuall · filed 2018-10-25(r)(6)

The trial court could have reasonably found that Dr. Naina’s expert report constituted a good-faith effort to comply with the statutory requirements, specifically the challenged element of causation. ... We therefore hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Dr. Arani’s motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to fairly summarize the basis for the expert’s opinion linking a breach of the standard of care to the claimed injury or death.

Greenville SNF, LLC D/B/A Greenville Health and Rehabilitation Center v. Charles Webster, as Representative of the Estat · filed 2018-12-21(r)(6)

Because Dr. Rushing’s expert report did not satisfy the statutory element of causation by setting out a fair summary of the basis of his opinion as to the causal relationship between the purported breach of the standard of care and Robinson’s injuries and death, the report is deficient ... under chapter 74.

An expert report must explain how the alleged failure to provide care caused the claimed injury; a conclusory assertion that earlier treatment would have changed the outcome is insufficient.

Anil Sinha, MD v. Niebuhr · filed 2018-12-28(r)(6)

The expert report does not adequately explain how or why Niebuhr’s condition, which continued to worsen with an elevated white-blood-cell count following the exploratory laparoscopic surgery eight days after his appendectomy, would not have worsened following the exploratory laparoscopic procedure a day after his appendectomy.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to explain how the alleged breach caused the claimed injury.

John R. Hall, D.O. and South Texas Spinal Clinic, PA v. Vasquez · filed 2019-02-13(r)(6)

Because the expert report fails to sufficiently explain the causation element of Vasquez’s health care liability claim, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to adequately address at least one pleaded liability theory, but not every theory alleged against the defendant.

Helson Pacheco-Serrant, M.D. v. Munoz · filed 2018-07-25

Instead, an expert report that adequately addresses at least one pleaded theory of liability satisfies the statutory requirements.

An expert report sufficiently addresses causation when it explains how the provider’s breach caused the injury and identifies an earlier treatment that would have prevented it.

Nexion Health at Duncanville, Inc. D/B/A Duncanville Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center v. Ruth J. McCray, Individuall · filed 2018-08-01(l), (r)(6)

In sum, we conclude that Dr. Eskildsen’s report sufficiently links Nexion’s breach to McCray’s injury, thus constituting an “objective good faith effort” to provide a “fair summary” of Dr. Eskildsen’s causation opinion.

Section 74.351(i) permits a healthcare liability claimant to use multiple expert reports together to satisfy the statutory requirements.

Christus Spohn Health System Corporation D/B/A Christus Spohn Hospital Corpus Christi-Shoreline v. Alaniz · filed 2018-08-02(i)

And, because the trial court may consider multiple reports, see id. § 74.351(i), it did not abuse its discretion in denying Christus Spohn’s motion to the dismiss on the ground that Alaniz failed to file and serve expert reports that satisfy the elements in section 74.351(r)(6).

An expert report adequately addresses causation when it explains the steps the provider should have taken and links the failure to take them to the patient’s injury.

Raees Ahmed and Diagnostic Group v. Murphy · filed 2018-08-16(r)(6)

We conclude that, Dr. Camazine’s report contains an adequate explanation regarding what steps Dr. Ahmed should have followed to avoid the complications Murphy suffered after Dr. Ahmed discharged her from the hospital.

An expert report satisfies Section 74.351’s causation requirement when it explains how the alleged breach caused the injury; the court does not weigh the explanation’s credibility at this stage.

Abshire v. Christus Health Southeast Texas D/B/A Christus Hospital-St. Elizabeth · filed 2018-11-16(r)(6)

We hold that Dr. Rushing’s supplemented report constitutes an objective, good faith effort to comply with the Act’s requirement to provide a fair summary of his opinion with respect to the causal relationship between Christus’s alleged breach and Abshire’s injury.

An expert report makes a good faith showing of causation when it explains how nurses’ failure to communicate information affected a physician’s decision and led to the claimed harm.

Maria Zamarripa, as Guardian of the Estates of R.F.R. and R.J.R., Minors v. Columbia Valley Health Care System, L.P., D/ · filed 2019-02-28(r)(6)

We conclude that Edmondson’s report constitutes a good faith effort to establish the causal relationship between VRMC’s alleged breaches and the damages claimed.

An expert report addressing a progressive injury need not pinpoint when the injury became irreversible to provide an adequate causation opinion.

Dileep Puppala, M. D. v. Perry · filed 2018-08-30(r)(6)

But the absence of an opinion stating with specificity at what point in the continuum of disease progression an intervention would have proven timely does not cause these experts’ causation opinion to be conclusory at this early stage of evaluation.

Section 74.351 requires a timely expert report even when res ipsa loquitur may apply to the claim.

Pruski v. American Medical Response, Inc. · filed 2018-11-20(a)

Consequently, even if res ipsa loquitur applies here, it would not excuse Pruski’s failure to timely serve her expert’s report.

An expert report supporting a vicarious liability claim need not separately address the employer if it adequately addresses the employee’s conduct.

the Methodist Hospital, Methodist Health Centers, Baylor College of Medicine and Donald T. Donovan, M.D. v. Addis · filed 2018-12-21(r)(6)

The reports were not required to include these items so long as they adequately addressed a theory of vicarious liability based on the actions of Baylor’s employees or agents.

Section 74.351 governs service of expert reports in medical malpractice cases and does not apply to divorce proceedings.

in the Matter of the Marriage of D.E.L. and J.J.P. · filed 2019-02-12(a)

Section 74.351 governs service of expert reports in medical malpractice cases and thus does not apply to this divorce proceeding.

Section 74.351(a) requires an expert report for an informed consent health care liability claim, even when a statutory presumption of negligent nondisclosure applies.

Thelma Hackworth and Caryl Neal, as Natural Parents I Survivors for Carylette DeShun Neal v. Fresenius Medical Care Nort · filed 2019-03-26(a)

Without an expert report clarifying which risk was not disclosed to Carylette and how that lack of disclosure lead to an injury, appellants have failed to comply with the requirements of Section 74.351(a).

Section 74.351(a) requires an expert report for a health care liability claim even if the claimant argues that expert testimony will not be needed at trial.

Mary Lou Ortiz, Joanne Ortiz and Jesus Ortiz v. St. Teresa Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC · filed 2019-05-31(a)

But whether the Ortizes could have gotten some theory to a jury without an expert is beside the point. The legislature has required those asserting health care liability claims to file an expert report. The counterclaim was dismissed based on this failure, and not whether they ultimately needed an expert witness as trial.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report; medical records cannot substitute for the report.

Careflite and Nathan Taton v. Taylor · filed 2019-06-27(a)

While Taylor cites to Kettle v. Baylor Medical Center, 232 S.W.3d 832 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, pet. denied) for his proposition that medical records can be considered in conjunction with a report, neither Kettle nor chapter 74 allow medical records to be substituted in place of a section 74.351 expert report.

Section 74.351 requires a plaintiff to serve an expert report within 120 days of the health care provider’s answer when the claim has a substantive nexus to the provider’s health care duties.

Southeast Texas Cardiology Associates v. Doris Smith, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Gill Smith · filed 2019-07-11(a)

Since Doris’s claims are health care liability claims, Doris needed to file an expert report within 120 days of S.E.T. Cardiology’s answer.

Section 74.351(a) requires a claimant alleging a health care liability claim to timely serve an adequate expert report.

in Re Tomball Texas Hospital Company, LLC D/B/A Tomball Regional Medical Center · filed 2019-07-30(a)

Because RPIs Father and Son alleged health care liability claims, these required service of an adequate expert report, which they timely served with Dr. Lopez’s report on June 7, 2017.

Section 74.351(a) does not require an expert report for an ordinary negligence claim based on an ambulance driver’s operation of the vehicle.

Amanda Marie Coci and Heart of Texas EMS, Inc., D/B/A Heart of Texas EMS v. Dower · filed 2019-09-12(a)

We hold that the essence of Dower’s cause of action is one for ordinary negligence and is not a health care liability claim. Dower was, thus, not required to satisfy the expert report requirements of the TMLA.

Section 74.351(a) requires timely service of an expert report; proof of nonreceipt can rebut the presumption of service created by a certificate of service.

the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston v. Francis Durisseau, Individually and as Administrator of the Estat · filed 2019-10-31(a)

UTMB’s evidence rebutted the presumption of service and, as the only evidence on this issue, conclusively established non-service of the expert report. Because Durisseau did not comply with section 74.351’s requirements, the trial court erred by denying UTMB’s motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to summarize the applicable standard of care, how the care fell short, and how that failure caused the claimed harm.

First Nobilis Surgical Center, LLC D/B/A First Street Surgical Center and Michael Ciaravino, M.D. v. Phillips · filed 2019-10-31(r)(6)

Further, an expert report must provide a fair summary of the expert’s opinions regarding (1) the applicable standard of care; (2) the manner in which the care provided failed to meet that standard; and (3) the causal relationship between that failure and the injury, harm, or damages claimed.

Section 74.351(i) permits a claimant to cure a deficient expert report with a separate expert’s report addressing a different issue, including causation.

Jayne R. Schulte, M.D. and Gregory C. McKeever, M.D., My Doctor, PA D/B/A Huntsville Pediatrics and Adult Medicine Assoc · filed 2019-04-24(i)

Because the statute allows a claimant to cure a deficiency, and that requirement like all others may be satisfied by serving a report from a separate expert, the statute does not prohibit Vaco from supplementing Dr. Pilcher’s report with the report of Dr. Lovitt.

An expert report that adequately addresses a physician’s alleged negligence can support a vicarious-liability claim against a hospital without specifying whether the physician was its employee or agent.

Seton Family of Hospitals D/B/A Seton Medical Center Williamson v. Tomaurz White as Administrator of the Estate of Latoy · filed 2019-10-24(r)(6)

Although the report does not specify whether Dr. Pittman was working at the hospital as Seton’s employee or agent or as an independent contractor, these are legal distinctions, not specialized medical knowledge necessitating an expert report, and the absence of information regarding the physician’s status at Seton does not entitle Seton to dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims at this stage of the case.

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

William J. Norberg Jr., M.D. v. Alexis Ameel, Pieter Ameel, and Acacia Ameel · filed 2019-12-19(r)(6)

Dr. Tsifansky was not required to set out a different standard of care as to each physician because he opined that all appellants—attending physicians and interventional radiologists—owed Alexis the same standard of care.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report for a claim that a hospital failed to prevent the spread of a communicable disease, even when the claimant seeks only economic damages.

Coming Attractions Bridal and Formal, Inc. v. Texas Health Resources · filed 2020-02-21(a)

Because medical experts must discuss the hospital’s departure from safety standards associated with treating and preventing the spread of the Ebola virus, a report was required.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report for a health care liability claim, but does not require dismissal when the defendant fails to prove the claim qualifies as one.

Harris County Hospital District v. McNew · filed 2020-02-27(a), (b)(2)

Health care liability claims are subject to the TMLA’s provisions, including its expert-report requirement. ... As our analyses of the Ross factors show, the Hospital did not carry this burden. Therefore, the trial court did not err by denying the Hospital’s motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351(a) requires an expert report within 120 days of the health care provider’s answer when a patient’s slip and fall claim concerns safety during treatment.

the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston v. Jackson · filed 2020-03-26(a)

We therefore hold that Jackson’s claim is a health care liability claim, as that term is defined under chapter 74, and Jackson was required to serve on UTMB an expert report within 120 days of UTMB’s answer. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.351(a). Because Jackson failed to so, the trial court erred in denying UTMB’s motion to dismiss. See id. § 74.351(b).

An expert report must link the provider’s negligence to the claimant’s injury but need not prove the claimant’s damages model.

Mark Healy, M.D. v. Mowat-Cudd · filed 2021-02-17(j)

Both the Texas Supreme Court and this court have recently recognized that the expert report is required to establish the causal link between the health care provider’s negligence and the claimant’s injury, not prove the claimant’s damages model.

Section 74.351(b) does not require dismissal or an award of fees and costs when the claim is premises liability rather than a health care liability claim.

South Place SNF, LP v. Hudson · filed 2020-03-31(b)

Therefore, we hold that Hudson’s claim is not an HCLC, but rather one based on premises liability. Because of our disposition of South Place’s first issue, we likewise hold that the trial court properly denied South Place’s motion to dismiss and request for attorney’s fees and costs.

Section 74.351(a) requires a timely expert report when a claim is presumed to be a health care liability claim and the claimant fails to rebut that presumption.

Gentle Touch Dentistry and Vida Tahmoresi v. Wolbrueck · filed 2020-04-17(a)

Accordingly, we hold that Wolbrueck failed to rebut the presumption that her claim is a health care liability claim that is subject to section 74.351(a)’s expert-report requirements and, as a result, it was error for the trial court to deny Gentle Touch Dentistry’s motion to dismiss her claim for failure to timely serve an expert report.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report for a health care liability claim; a premises liability claim based on a cracked sidewalk does not trigger that requirement.

Christine Faber, Individually and as Heir at Law of Carmelina "Millie" Smith v. Collin Creek Assisted Living Center, Inc · filed 2021-05-03(a)

Because we conclude Faber’s action is not a healthcare liability claim (HCLC) under the TMLA for which an expert report is required, we reverse and remand Faber’s action to the trial court for further proceedings.

Section 74.351(a) permits an expert’s curriculum vitae to take the form of a webpage printout when its contents satisfy the curriculum-vitae requirement.

Aquatic Care Programs, Inc. v. Cooper · filed 2020-12-29(a)

A curriculum vitae does not fail merely because it takes the form of a printout from a webpage.

An expert report that meets the statutory requirements as to an employee physician also supports a health care liability claim based on the employer’s vicarious liability.

Paul James, M.D. and Metropolitan Houston Surgery Associates, PLLC v. Sam · filed 2021-08-03(r)(6)

Having held that the trial court did not err in overruling Dr. James’s objections to Dr. Paine’s expert reports and denying Dr. James’s motion to dismiss Sam’s direct liability health care liability claim against him because Dr. Paine’s expert reports meet the requirements of chapter 74 related to Dr. James, we hold that Sam may also proceed on the vicarious liability health care liability claim against Metropolitan Houston which is based on the conduct of Dr. James.

Section 74.351(a) does not require an expert report when the defendant fails to prove it is a health care provider.

East Texas Support Services, Inc. v. June Brown, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of James Brown · filed 2021-08-18(a)

Because ETSS failed to prove that it is a health care provider for which an expert report is required, we do not address whether June’s claims are health care liability claims.

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

Rafath Quraishi, M.D. v. Ochoa · filed 2021-08-31(a)

Because this was not a healthcare liability suit, Ochoa was not required to file an expert report.

An expert report must fairly summarize the applicable standard of care, how the defendant failed to meet it, and the causal relationship between that failure and the claimed harm.

Methodist Hospitals of Dallas D/B/A Methodist Mansfield Medical Center v. Cynthia Yates, Individually and as Representat · filed 2022-01-24(r)(6)

The report must fairly summarize “the expert’s opinions as of the date of the report regarding 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.” Id. § 74.351(r)(6).

Section 74.351 does not require an expert to sign an expert report or an addendum to a report the expert signed.

Matthew McKerley, D.O. v. Danisha Jackson and Devin Jackson, Individually and as Representatives of the Estate of Merlen · filed 2022-02-17

To the extent Dr. McKerley complains that Dr. Jones did not sign the addendum, nothing in the statute requires a signature on an expert report, much less on an addendum to a report that was signed by the physician.

Section 74.351(a) requires an expert report for claims based on facts constituting a health care liability claim, even when pleaded under the Texas Tort Claims Act.

Vanderbilt v. University Medical Center and ICU Nurse Doe in his/her Individual and Official Capacity · filed 2022-07-14(a)

We hold that all of Appellant’s claims constitute healthcare liability claims and are subject to the expert report requirements of section 74.351(a).

An expert report may apply the same standard of care to multiple physicians who owed the patient the same duty.

Harsha Aramada, MD, Tomi Ola-Peters, MD Uzoeshi Anukam, MD Sado Al Bitar, MD And Saurabh Patel, MD, Chandand Koduro, MD · filed 2021-11-29(r)(6)

However, the same standard of care may be applied to one or more physicians if they owed the same duty to the patient.

Section 74.351 does not require an expert report or permit dismissal when the claims are not health care liability claims.

Gabriel Miranda Jr., Maria Fuentes, Gabriel Miranda Sr., Alexandra Suzanne DeLeon, Reuben Antonio DeLeon III, and Jon Hi · filed 2022-01-06(b)

Therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing the suit pursuant to the expert report requirement of the TMLA.

Section 74.351(a)’s expert report requirement does not apply to a nonpatient driver’s ordinary negligence claims arising from an ambulance collision when the claims lack a substantive nexus to health care.

Spencer Canter and American Medical Response, Inc. v. Toca · filed 2022-08-31(a)

Because we conclude that appellee Zaida Soto Toca’s claims against appellants are not health care liability claims and are not subject to the expert report requirement of section 74.351(a), we affirm.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report for health care liability claims, including claims based on a hospital’s failure to correctly identify infant patients.

Christus Spohn Health System Corporation v. Mary Ann High and Cynthia Rector · filed 2022-11-17

Thus, we conclude that High and Rector have asserted health care liability claims subject to the TMLA’s expert report requirement.

Section 74.351(a) requires the claimant to serve the expert report; filing it with the court clerk and the defendant’s access to it do not satisfy that requirement.

James Rinkle M.D. v. William Graf & Linda Graf · filed 2022-12-08(a)

The plain language of the TMLA places the burden on the claimant to serve the report, not on the defendant to find the report.

Section 74.351 requires a claimant to serve an expert report within 120 days after each defendant files an original answer; photographs of injuries do not satisfy that requirement.

Jackson v. Dr. Billy Puckett, Billy Puckett, D.D.D.d/b/a Pearland Family Dentistry Griselda Aviles, Syeda Shaw, D. · filed 2023-02-07(a)

It is also undisputed that Jackson did not file any expert report within 120 days of appellees’ answer, as required by Chapter 74. See id. § 74.351(a). Although she argues that her claims should not have been dismissed because she submitted photographs proving her injuries, such photographs are not a substitute for an expert report under Chapter 74. ... Accordingly, the trial court did not err when it dismissed Jackson’s claims for failure to file an expert report.

Section 74.351(a) permits service of an expert report by email to a defendant’s counsel’s paralegal.

Mark Harshany, M.D. v. Fogle · filed 2023-06-07(a)

But, he cites no authority, nor have we found any, to conclude Fogle’s email to his counsel’s paralegal was insufficient to meet the requirements of Rule 21a or Section 74.351.

Section 74.351(a) requires an expert report when the facts underlying a claim against a health care provider show that alleged safety failures have a substantive nexus to the provision of health care, even if the claim is pleaded as premises liability.

Collin Creek Assisted Living Center, Inc. D/B/A/ Dayspring Assisted Living Community v. Christine Faber, Individually an · filed 2023-06-30(a)

The TMLA’s expert-report requirement applies to Faber’s cause of action because it constitutes a health care liability claim under our analysis in Ross.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to address the applicable standard of care, how the provider breached it, and how that breach caused the claimed injury.

Gray v. Robert Christian Iversen, M.D. and Rima Joffrion, NP Employees · filed 2023-12-19(r)(6)

This statement is not in the form of a medical expert report either. It does not mention the Providers by name, nor contain any opinion as to whether the Providers deviated from the standard of care.

Section 74.351(a) requires service of an expert report and CV on each affected healthcare provider; filing them with the clerk or giving notice of their existence does not constitute service.

Abilene Regional Medical Center and Brian Ganesh, M.D. v. Eugenia Fae Pierce, Individually, on Behalf of All Wrongful De · filed 2024-02-08(a)

We agree with this rationale and conclude that a healthcare provider’s alleged actual or constructive knowledge or possession of an expert report that has been filed with a trial court clerk, irrespective of whether the healthcare provider could have retrieved a copy, does not establish service of a healthcare liability claimant’s expert report upon an affected healthcare provider or absolve the claimant of her responsibility to strictly comply with the TMLA’s expert report service requirements.

Section 74.351(a) requires an expert report only for a health care liability claim; statements about a dog’s service animal status did not make these claims subject to that requirement.

Maurice N. Leibman M.D. v. Cleveratta Waldroup and James Waldroup, Individually and as Next Friends of R. W., a Minor · filed 2023-03-23(a)

We conclude that the Waldroups’ claims against Dr. Leibman are not health care liability claims that required them to serve an expert report pursuant to Section 74.351(a) of the TMLA.

Dismissal for failure to serve an expert report requires the defendant to show that it is a health care provider; American Red Cross certification alone does not establish the state certification required for that status.

Sea World of Texas, LLC v. Renada Mathis, Perreal Woods and Joe Boston · filed 2023-05-03

Because Sea World presented no evidence that its lifeguards were “duly licensed, certified, registered, or chartered by the State of Texas to provide health care,” it did not carry its burden to show the lifeguards were health care providers for the purposes of Chapter 74. See id.; Complex Rehab Techs., 660 S.W.3d at 540. As a result, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sea World’s motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report when a patient’s billing claim challenges the level of ambulance care provided and resolving the claim requires expert testimony.

Louis v. Liberty County Emergency Medical Services, Inc. · filed 2024-03-14(a)

Following this court’s precedent and the statutory directives of chapter 74, we conclude the trial court did not err in determining that Louis brought a health- care-liability claim and for dismissing the claim due to lack of compliance with the expert-report requirements.

An expert report satisfies § 74.351(l) when it makes an objective good faith effort to explain how a breach of the standard of care caused the claimed injury.

Neonatology Consultants of Corpus Christi, PLLC; Alfonso M. Prado, M.D.; Miguel A. DeLeon, M.D.; Euming Chong, M.D.; Jie · filed 2024-12-12(l)

Because expert reports are simply a preliminary method to show that a plaintiff has a viable cause of action that is not frivolous, we hold that Dr. Rhine’s expert report represents an objective good faith effort to inform appellants of the causal relationship between the failure to adhere to the pertinent standard of care and the injury, harm, or damages claimed.

Section 74.351 does not require an expert report or dismissal when the alleged conduct is separable from health care and the claim is therefore not a health care liability claim.

Kory Lee Gill, D.O. v. Goodson · filed 2024-07-18(a), (b)

The TMLA provides that, upon the defendant's motion, a trial court shall dismiss a health care liability claim and award attorney's fees to the defendant if the claimant fails to provide one or more expert reports within 120 days day after the date each defendant’s original answer is filed. ... Accordingly, Goodson did not assert a health care liability claim, and consequently, the trial court did not err in denying Gill’s motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report for an autopsy-related claim when the services at issue were directly related to health care received by patients.

Pathlink of Texas, LLC v. Ashlee M. Balderrama and Alejandro J. Martinez · filed 2024-12-30

For the above reasons, we conclude that the Parents’ claims are health care liability claims under the TMLA for the purpose of deciding whether the Parents must file an expert report as required by the TMLA; we reverse the trial court’s order holding they are not.