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

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

In Re Regency Nursing Center Partners of Edinburg Ltd. v. the State of Texas · filed 2025-10-08(a)

Therefore, Villarreal was required to provide an expert report regardless of whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would ultimately apply in the trial of this case.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report for a claim about a hospital’s autopsy services when those services are directly related to health care the patient received before death.

Tenet Hospitals Limited, a Texas Limited Partnership, D/B/A the Hospitals of Providence Memorial Campus v. Bal · filed 2024-08-16

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.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report only for a health care liability claim; a doctor’s alleged failure to evaluate a dog’s behavior toward the public does not trigger that requirement.

Maurice N. Leibman M.D. v. Cleveratta Waldroup and James Waldroup, Individually and as Next Friends of R. W., a Minor · filed 2025-06-06(a)

We conclude that because any such failure did not involve a “claimed departure from accepted standards of medical care” that are “applicable” here, this is not a health care liability claim for which an expert report was required.

Section 74.351(a)’s CV requirement can be satisfied by an expert report that gives a short account of the expert’s career and qualifications.

Nexion Health at Kingsville, Inc. D/B/A Lone Star Ranch Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center; Nexion Health, Inc.; Nexio · filed 2025-04-17(a)

The trial court was within its discretion to determine that these statements constituted “a short account of [Schmidt’s] career and qualifications” so as to satisfy the CV requirement.

An expert report adequately addresses causation when it explains how the provider’s departures from the standard of care led to the claimed injury.

James Shaffer, CRNA and EPIX Medical Services of Houston, PLLC v. Marquita Jomes, as Power Off Attorney for Shronda Jone · filed 2026-04-28(r)(6)

We conclude that the trial court could have reasonably determined that Dr. Reynolds’s expert report represented an “objective good faith effort” to inform Shaffer of the causal relationship between his purported failure to provide care in accord with the standard of care and the claimed injury, harm, or damages.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to identify the applicable standard of care with enough detail to show what the provider should have done differently.

Rajesh Nambiar, M.D. v. Pumphrey · filed 2026-05-27(r)(6)

Because Dr. Miga’s report does not identify the standard of care applicable to Dr. Nambiar, it does not meet the minimum standards set forth in section 74.351.

Former section 74.351(a) did not allow a claimant to satisfy the expert report service requirement by providing the report before filing the claim.

Raymon Poland, Individually and as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Jessie Poland, Robert Martin, and Frank Ma · filed 2008-12-19(a)

The potential ambiguity arising from this predicament, as well as the fact that no cause exists presuit in which to file anything, are two of the reasons that the Court has held in this case that section 74.351(a) does not contemplate presuit provision of an expert report to suffice as “serv[ice]” of the report .

Section 74.351(a) requires a claimant asserting a health care liability claim to serve an expert report on each party or the party’s attorney.

Enrique Lopez, D/B/A Maternidad La Piedad v. Marina Edith Osuna, Individually and as Next Friend for Sarai Edith Gonzale · filed 2014-11-26(a)

Section 74.351(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code mandates that in a “health care liability claim,” a claimant must serve on each party or his attorney one or more expert reports.

Section 74.351(c) gives a trial court discretion to grant a thirty-day extension to cure a deficient expert report.

Clyde Murff Hardy and Barbara J. Hardy v. Denver C. Marsh, Jr., M.D. · filed 2005-08-17(c)

By using the word "may," Section 74.351(c) plainly vests the trial court with discretion to grant an extension.

Section 74.351(c) gives the trial court discretion to grant a thirty-day extension to cure a deficient expert report; the claimant has no automatic right to one.

Alvarado v. Abraham A. Alecozay, M.D., Ph.D. and Southwest General Hospital · filed 2005-09-09(c)

The statutory use of the word "may" shows the provision is not mandatory.

Section 74.351(c) permits an extension to cure a deficient expert report served by the deadline, but not to serve a report after the deadline.

Sam G. Thoyakulathu, M.D., and Sam T. George, P.A. v. Francis J. Brennan, Individually · filed 2006-04-27(c)

Section 74.351(c) applies only when an expert report was not "served" because it was inadequate, not when no report was served at all.

Section 74.351(c) permits a 30-day extension to cure a deficient expert report, including one missing the standard-of-care element.

Watkins v. Jones · filed 2006-05-04(c)

We conclude that the trial court did not commit a clear abuse of discretion in allowing Jones's expert report to be amended in order to add the missing standard-of-care element.

Section 74.351(c) allows the trial court to grant one 30-day extension to cure a deficient expert report.

Leland v. Brandal · filed 2006-10-16(c)

However, any relief a court grants under Subsection (b) is always subject to Subsection (c), which provides in part that the trial court may grant one 30-day extension to the claimant to cure a deficiency in an expert report.

Section 74.351(c)'s 30-day extension to cure a deficient report does not allow a claimant to submit a new report from a different expert after the 120-day deadline.

Lou Virginia Danos, Individually and A/N/F of Ryan Cochran, a Minor v. Kevin Rittger, M.D. Victor Patel, M.D. John Gille · filed 2007-03-01(c)

There is no provision in the statute that allows a claimant to go beyond the 120-day deadline to cure a deficiency in a report by obtaining a new report from a different expert.

Section 74.351 allows a 30-day extension for a deficient expert report, but no extension when no report is served within 120 days.

Tucker v. John C. McConnell, M.D. and Southwest Surgery Center · filed 2006-04-26(c)

The statute provides no opportunity for an extension if no report is served within 120 days.

Section 74.351(c) permits an extension to cure a deficient expert report served by the deadline, but not an extension when no report was served by then.

Soberon v. Robinson · filed 2006-06-29(c)

Subsection (c) does not apply in this case because Robinson did not serve the expert report by the deadline.

Section 74.351(c) allows a trial court to grant 30 days to cure a deficient expert report served within the 120-day deadline, even without a formal request.

Jorge E. Miranda, M. D. v. Martinez · filed 2007-03-08(c)

We note that although Martinez did not request a 30-day extension either in her response to Dr. Miranda's motion to dismiss or at the hearing, the trial court had the discretion to grant a 30-day extension without the necessity of a formal request, and no appeal could have been taken from that order.

Section 74.351(c) permits a trial court to allow 30 days to cure a timely expert report that addresses a defendant’s conduct but fails to link it to the expert’s opinions on breach and causation.

Austin Heart, P.A. v. Webb · filed 2007-05-09(c)

It is deficient because the link between Dr. Kessler's conduct and the expert's conclusions is not expressly stated. ... In such a circumstance, section 74.351(c) grants the trial court discretion to allow a 30-day extension of the deadline "in order to cure the deficiency."

Section 74.351(c) allows a trial court to grant a 30-day extension to cure a timely expert report that is deficient.

Austin Heart, P.A. and David J. Kessler, M.D. v. Christian L. Webb and Marilou Webb · filed 2007-05-09(c)

Section 74.351(c) contemplates that there are circumstances where a timely report will be deficient, but the deficiency can be cured.

Section 74.351(c) permits an extension to cure a deficient expert report, but not to create a report for a defendant the original report never addressed.

Mark D. Bogar, M.D. v. Esparza · filed 2007-06-28(c)

Although the line between “no report” and a defective-but-curable report may sometimes be elusive, we conclude that Dr. Adame’s report is clearly “no report.” Its defects include the types of wholesale omissions identified in Jernigan and Marichalar, and Dr. Adame cannot cure them simply by “add[ing] the link between his already stated conclusions and the already referenced conduct” of Dr. Bogar.

Section 74.351(c) allows a court to grant one 30-day extension to cure a deficient expert report, but does not require it.

Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas // State Bar of Texas v. State Bar of Texas// Cross-Appellee, Attorney General of · filed 2007-08-03(c)

The extension allowed under 74.351(c) is discretionary, not mandatory.

Section 74.351(c) gives the trial court discretion to grant a 30-day extension to cure a deficient expert report.

Ledesma v. George L. Shashoua, M.D. Oakwood Women's Cenre, P.A. at Round Rock Joseph Eddings B. Johns, CRNA And · filed 2007-08-03(c)

The extension allowed under 74.351(c) is discretionary, not mandatory.

Section 74.351(c) permits a trial court to grant one 30-day extension to cure a deficient expert report that was timely served.

in Re: Mario Padilla, M.D. · filed 2007-08-30(c)

Upon finding that the timely served expert report is deficient, the trial court may grant the claimant one 30-day extension in order to cure the deficiency.

Section 74.351(c) permits a 30-day extension to cure a deficient expert report that was timely served.

Mario Padilla, M.D. v. Loweree · filed 2007-08-30(c)

Having determined the report was deficient, the trial court below exercised its authority under Section 74.351(c) and granted Loweree a 30-day extension to cure the deficiencies.

Section 74.351(c) allows a thirty-day extension to cure a deficient, timely served expert report by changing that report, but not by submitting a new expert’s report after the 120-day deadline.

in Re: Nexion Health at Oak Manor, Inc. D/B/A Oak Manor Nursing Home · filed 2008-01-16(c)

The grace period permitted Brewer to cure the deficiencies in the timely filed report only by making changes to that report.

Section 74.351(c) permits a trial court to grant a thirty-day extension to cure deficient expert reports that were timely served.

Tenet Hospitals, Ltd. v. Gomez · filed 2008-01-24(c)

Because Sierra received timely reports, the trial court could properly exercise its discretion in granting a thirty-day extension to cure the deficiencies.

Section 74.351(c) gives a trial court broad discretion to grant a thirty-day extension to cure a deficient expert report, even when the deficiencies are severe.

in Re: Christian Ehrhard and John D. McKeever, M.D. · filed 2008-03-27(c)

We disagree with Ehrhard's argument that the trial court was without discretion to grant a thirty-day extension because the report was so severely deficient. To the contrary, the current statute gives a trial court broad discretion to grant an extension.

An agreed discovery order does not extend the 120-day expert report deadline unless it shows that the parties intended to extend that deadline.

Care Center, Ltd. v. Sutton · filed 2008-04-17(a)

We further conclude that nothing in the agreed order at issue suggests the parties intended to extend the deadline for serving section 74.351's required expert report.

Section 74.351(c) permits a thirty-day extension to cure deficiencies in existing expert reports.

Pedro Cuellar, as Guardian of Marta Nelida Riojas v. Warm Springs Rehabilitation Foundation D/B/A Warm Springs Hospital · filed 2007-11-14(c)

Section 74.351(c) vests the trial court with the discretion to grant an extension, but only to cure deficiencies in the existing reports.

Section 74.351(c) permits one thirty-day extension to cure timely served expert reports that the trial court finds deficient.

in Re: Tenet Hospitals, Ltd., a Texas Limited Partnership D/B/A Sierra Medical Center · filed 2008-01-24(c)

A trial court, upon finding that timely served expert reports are deficient, may grant a claimant one thirty-day extension to cure the deficiencies.

Section 74.351(c) does not provide a 30-day extension to cure a report authored by someone statutorily unqualified to give the expert opinion.

Davis v. Webb · filed 2008-02-21(c)

Moreover, nothing in section 74.351(c) indicates that a report authored by an individual who is not statutorily qualified to offer an expert opinion is a deficient report curable by a discretionary 30-day extension, rather than "no expert report," as the trial court determined here.

Section 74.351(c) allows a thirty-day extension to cure a deficient expert report; denying an extension can be an abuse of discretion when the deficiency is readily curable.

Wooten v. Samlowski · filed 2008-07-09(c)

We conclude that the failure to grant Wooten an extension was arbitrary and unreasonable and that the trial court thus abused its discretion. Accordingly, we sustain Wooten's second issue and remand this cause to the trial court with the instruction to grant one thirty-day extension to Wooten in order for her to attempt to cure the causation deficiency in Dr. Patman's report.

Section 74.351(c) allows a trial court to grant a thirty-day extension to cure a deficient expert report, and an order denying dismissal may reflect an implicit extension.

Armando Moncado, M.D. v. Trujillo · filed 2008-08-21(c)

It could be that the trial court implicitly granted Trujillo a thirty-day extension by not dismissing his claim despite ruling that Staschak's report was inadequate. ... Based upon the record before us, Moncado has not established that the trial court abused its discretion.

Section 74.351(c) gives trial courts discretion to grant a claimant 30 days to cure deficiencies in a timely served expert report.

in Re: Paso Del Norte Surgery Center · filed 2008-08-28(c)

Under Section 74.351(c), the trial court may grant a 30-day extension to the claimant to cure any deficiency in a timely-served expert report.

Section 74.351(c) permits one 30-day extension to cure a deficient expert report; it runs after the 120-day deadline, or from notice of the extension if notice arrives after that deadline.

Constancio v. Bray · filed 2008-09-05(c)

Such an extension is a one-time event, and its length is prescribed at 30 days, making the extended period 150 days from the date of the petition or 30 days from the date the claimant receives notice of the order granting the extension, if received outside the 120-day period.

Section 74.351 permits a trial court to consider a thirty-day extension to cure a deficient expert report after an appellate court reverses its denial of dismissal.

Christus Health Southeast Texas v. Broussard · filed 2008-09-11(c)

When an appellate court reverses the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss a health care liability claim due to deficiencies in the elements of the report, the appellate court may remand the case to the trial court to consider granting a thirty-day extension to cure the deficiencies in the report.

Section 74.351(c) gives the trial court discretion to grant a thirty-day extension to cure a deficient expert report.

Regent Care Center of El Paso, LP, D/B/A Regent Care Center of El Paso v. Melba Wallace Individually, and on Behalf of t · filed 2008-11-25(c)

The term "may," as used in subsection (c), vests the trial court with discretion to grant a thirty-day extension.

Section 74.351(c) permits one thirty-day extension to cure a deficient expert report even when the deficiency is first found on appeal.

Leland v. Brandal · filed 2008-06-13(c)

We agree with the court of appeals that section 74.351's plain language permits one thirty-day extension when the court of appeals finds deficient a report that the trial court considered adequate.

Section 74.351(c) does not permit a trial court to grant a 30-day extension to cure deficiencies in an expert report when the defendant fails to object on time.

in Re: Efrain Rivera, M. D. · filed 2008-08-28(c)

Because Section 74.351(c) does not allow the trial court to grant a 30-day extension to cure deficiencies when a defendant fails to timely object, we find a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court in granting Ms. Loweree a 30-day extension pursuant to Section 74.351(c).

Section 74.351(c) does not allow a thirty-day extension when an expert report says nothing about a health care liability claim; that claim must be dismissed.

Benson v. Vernon · filed 2009-08-12(c)

Dr. Gorman's reports do not address the statutory requirements with regard to asymmetry or even suggest that Dr. Benson did anything wrong in this regard. As to this injury, the reports are "so deficient as to constitute no report at all" and dismissal is mandatory.

Section 74.351(c) does not allow a thirty-day extension when an expert report says nothing about a claimed injury and therefore amounts to no report for that claim.

Royal H. Benson, III, M.D., Individually and D/B/A Southwest Center for Female Genital Refinement, and Benson OB/Gyn Cen · filed 2009-08-12(c)

Dr. Gorman’s reports do not address the statutory requirements with regard to asymmetry or even suggest that Dr. Benson did anything wrong in this regard. As to this injury, the reports are “so deficient as to constitute no report at all” and dismissal is mandatory.

Section 74.351(c) permits, but does not require, a trial court to grant a 30-day extension to cure a deficient expert report.

Mitchell v. The Methodist Hospital · filed 2009-12-31(c)

Although the statute allows the trial court to grant a 30-day extension to allow plaintiffs to supplement or amend an expert report the court has found deficient, the statute does not require that the court grant such an extension. In this case, given the extreme deficiencies of Dr. Berkowitz's expert report, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to grant the Mitchells a 30-day extension to amend or supplement his expert report.

A claimant may cure a deficient expert report during the thirty-day extension by serving a report from a different expert.

Edwin Dejesus and Alain Njoh v. Sandra Sanchez and Omar Aleman · filed 2009-10-29(c)

Moreover, appellees were well within their rights to supplement Nurse Burchell-Henson's report with a report on causation by Dr. Glass, because deficiencies in an expert report can be cured during the thirty-day extension period by serving a report by a separate expert.

Section 74.351(c) permits a thirty day extension to cure a deficient expert report to run from the date the trial court specifies the deficiencies and gives notice of its ruling.

Henderson Memorial Hospital v. White · filed 2010-02-26(c)

Because this was the time selected by the trial court to specifically declare its findings of deficiencies, notice of any found deficiencies began on that day, and it was appropriate for the trial court to order that the thirty day extension ran from that day as well.

Subsection (c) allows a trial court to consider a 30-day extension when report elements are first found deficient, even if the claimant previously supplemented the report by agreement.

Dr. Steven Leon Gates, D.O. and/or Dr. Steven Leon Gates, D.O., P.A. v. Altaras · filed 2010-03-10(c)

Elements have only now been found to be deficient. Therefore, we must remand this appeal to the trial court for consideration of a 30-day extension pursuant to subsection (c).

Section 74.351(c) allows a one-time 30 day extension for a deficient expert report, but a claimant who files no report within 120 days is ineligible.

John D. Fails, Jr. v. David R. Basse, M.D. · filed 2010-03-11(c)

Further, the only extension of time allowed under the statute is a one-time 30 day extension when "elements of the report are found deficient." Id. § 74.351(c). As Fails did not file an expert report within the 120 day deadline, he was ineligible for the only statutory extension of time available and the trial court did not err in denying his motion.

Section 74.351(c) permits a trial court to grant a 30-day extension to cure a deficient expert report, including one that fails to establish the expert's qualifications.

Salais v. Texas Department of Aging & Disability Services · filed 2010-08-04(c)

It is thus appropriate to remand this case to the trial court so it can exercise its discretion whether to grant a thirty-day extension so that Salais can attempt to cure this deficiency.

Section 74.351(c) permits a trial court to grant a thirty-day extension to cure a timely served but deficient expert report.

Stephen P. Somerville, M. D. v. Lawrence · filed 2010-08-12(c)

Because a report, although deficient, was timely filed, the trial court can grant an extension of time under Section 74.351(c).

A deficient expert report may be remanded for the trial court to consider a 30-day extension to cure the deficiency.

Daniel Darmadi, M.D. v. Harshman · filed 2010-08-31(c)

Contrary to Dr. Darmadi’s contention, when a report is deficient—as opposed to absent—the proper disposition is to remand the case to the trial court for consideration of whether a 30-day extension to cure the deficiency is warranted.

Section 74.351(a)’s period for curing a deficient expert report applies only to the initial 120-day report, not to a later request for time to designate a replacement expert.

Judith Thomas and John Thomas v. Eugene N. Clayton, III, M.D. · filed 2010-09-08(a)

Additionally, we are not persuaded by the argument that the trial court should have treated Thomas’s request for additional time to designate in the same manner as a 30-day request to cure a timely-served but deficient expert report under section 74.351(a). TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 74.351(a). First, this statute applies only to the initial 120-day report ... required under section 74.351.

Section 74.351(c) permits a trial court to implicitly grant a thirty-day extension to cure a deficient expert report and consider supplements filed before the dismissal hearing.

Ramon J. Garcia, M.D. v. Allen · filed 2011-02-10(c)

Because the trial court could have impliedly granted Allen’s request for a thirty-day extension pursuant to section 74.351(c) and considered Allen’s previously-filed supplements to her initial report in determining that her expert report as supplemented was sufficient, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Dr. Garcia’s motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351(c) allows a trial court to grant one thirty-day extension to cure a timely served but deficient expert report.

Samlowski v. Wooten · filed 2011-02-25(c)

This dismissal requirement is subject to the trial court's discretion to grant one thirty-day extension for the claimant to cure a timely served but deficient report.

A 30-day extension to cure a deficient expert report extends the service deadline, so Rule 21a governs service of the amended report.

Nexion Health at Beechnut, Inc. v. Paul · filed 2011-02-10(c)

Thus, a thirty-day extension to cure deficiencies is an extension of the service deadline, and Rule 21a applies.

Section 74.351(i) permits separate expert reports, but each must be served within the 120-day deadline in subsection (a).

Y. Durst v. Dr. Lillian Woo & Noel C. Boyd, M.D. · filed 2011-03-10(i)

We read section 74.351(i) consistently with section 74.351(a) so that the 120-day time period still applies to a claimant serving multiple expert reports.

Section 74.351 permits one thirty-day extension to cure a deficient expert report when a court of appeals finds a report deficient after the trial court found it adequate.

Moses E. Wilcox, Sr., M.D. v. Montalvo · filed 2011-04-14(c)

Section 74.351’s plain language permits one thirty-day extension when a court of appeals finds deficient a report that the trial court considered adequate.

Section 74.351(c) allows a trial court to consider a thirty-day extension to cure report deficiencies first identified on appeal, even if it previously granted a limited extension for a different deficiency.

TTHR Limited Partnership D/B/A Presbyterian Hospital of Denton v. Claudia Moreno, Individually and as Next Friend of Fre · filed 2011-07-07(c)

Contrary to Presbyterian‘s assertion in its motion for rehearing, this court is not allowing Moreno a second extension. Rather, we remand the case so that the trial court has the opportunity to determine whether Moreno should be granted a thirty-day extension to cure what we have held to be deficient.

Section 74.351(c) allows only one thirty-day extension to cure a timely expert report; using it to supply a missing curriculum vitae exhausts that extension.

Women's Clinic of South Texas v. Alonzo · filed 2011-03-24(c)

For these reasons, we conclude that the trial court was without authority to withdraw its November 5, 2009 order because Alonzo already availed herself of the one-time thirty-day extension available to her under section 74.351. She is not entitled to another.

Section 74.351(c) permits a thirty-day extension to cure a timely served expert report that absolves the defendant physician of liability because the report is deficient rather than absent.

Jorge De La Garza, M.D. v. Schruz · filed 2011-06-02(c)

We conclude that, under the applicable supreme court precedent, such a document must instead be considered “merely deficient,” and a claimant filing such a document may be given a thirty-day extension to cure the deficiencies under the statute.

Section 74.351(c) permits a thirty-day extension to cure a timely served but deficient expert report.

Jose L. Villarreal, D.D.S. v. Hernandez · filed 2011-06-09(c)

Accordingly, we have no choice but to conclude that Dr. de la Fuente’s second letter is “deficient,” not “absent.” The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dr. Villarreal’s motion to dismiss and granting Hernandez a thirty-day extension to file a compliant report.

Section 74.351(c) requires notice of a written order to start the 30-day extension; an oral pronouncement from the bench is insufficient.

Randolph A. Lopez M.D. v. Johanna Brown · filed 2011-08-11(c)

Accordingly, we conclude that the notice provided for in section 74.351(c) must be in the form of a written order, ... rather than a trial court’s mere oral pronouncement from the bench.

Subsection (c) permits an extension to cure a deficient expert report only if the report was served within the 120-day deadline.

Jimmie Harris, Administrator of the Estate of Jerry Yeager v. Dr. Hiren Patel and Healthsouth Rehabilitation Hospital · filed 2011-09-22(c)

Section 74.351(c) does not apply to an expert report filed beyond the 120-day deadline.

Section 74.351(c) allows a thirty-day extension to cure deficiencies in an expert report that addresses the statutory elements.

Rosemond v. Maha Khalifa Al-Lahiq, M.D. · filed 2012-02-28(c)

But the trial court did abuse its discretion by denying Rosemond’s request for a thirty-day extension under section 74.351(c). Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand with instructions for the trial court to grant a thirty-day extension under section 74.351(c).

Section 74.351(c) allows a trial court to consider a 30-day extension to cure a deficient expert report, even when the expert is unqualified to give an opinion on causation.

Henry v. Kelly · filed 2012-07-10(c)

Accordingly, the trial court erred when it concluded that Dr. Tintor’s lack of qualification to give expert testimony regarding causation rendered his report no report at all rather than a defective report. In the order from which Henry appeals, the court stated that it denied Henry’s request for an extension under section 74.351(c) because the two reports were no reports at all and thus the trial court could not grant an extension. However, because Dr. Tintor’s report was merely deficient, the trial court should have considered whether to grant the requested extension.

Section 74.351(c) allows the trial court to consider a thirty-day extension to cure a deficient expert report when the report implicates the defendant and contains a qualified expert’s opinion that the claim has merit.

St. Luke's Sugar Land Hospital, Andrew Psyk, M.D., and Jemalatha Vijayan, M.D. v. Joseph · filed 2012-07-12(c)

We hold Dr. Vijayan’s conduct is implicated in Dr. Murphy’s report and that Dr. Murphy’s report contains the opinion of an individual with expertise that the claim against Dr. Vijayan has merit. Therefore, we reject Dr. Vijayan’s request that we dismiss appellee’s lawsuit. Instead, while we sustain Dr. Vijayan’s issue on appeal to the extent it challenges the adequacy of Dr. Murphy’s expert report, we overrule her issue to the extent it asks us to dismiss appellee’s lawsuit against her. We reverse the trial court’s order and remand to the trial court for further proceedings, including the determination of whether to grant appellee a thirty-day extension to cure the deficiencies in Dr. Murphy’s report.

Section 74.351(c) permits an extension on remand to cure a report deficiency first identified on appeal, even if the trial court previously allowed an extension for a different deficiency.

Columbia North Hills Hospital Subsidiary, L.P. v. Alvarez · filed 2012-09-27(c)

This is not a second extension in violation of section 74.351(c); rather it is the extension the plaintiff could have received had the trial court given him notice about this defect after the defendant’s first objection that the report was deficient.

Section 74.351(c) allows a trial court to consider a thirty-day extension to cure an expert report that addresses a direct liability claim but is deficient.

Texarkana Nursing & Healthcare Center, LLC v. Susan Lyle, Independent Guardian of Betty Ruth Vest · filed 2012-12-14(c)

Because the report is deficient with respect to Lyle’s direct liability claim regarding the failure to provide a safe and secure environment for Vest, we remand this claim to the trial court to consider whether to grant a thirty-day extension to cure these deficiencies.

Section 74.351(c) allows the trial court to consider a thirty-day extension to cure a timely expert report that is deficient but contains an expert opinion that the claim has merit and implicates the defendant’s conduct.

Adaiah Ezekiel, M.D. v. Ada Shorts, Sterling Drisdale Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Ja'Marean J. S · filed 2013-01-10(c)

Having concluded that Dr. Gottesman’s report, served within the statutory deadline, contains the opinion of an individual with expertise that appellees’ claim has merit and implicates Dr. Ezekiel’s conduct, we reject Dr. Ezekiel’s request that we reverse the trial court’s order and dismiss appellees’ claims against her.

When the original 120-day expert-report period has expired, the 30-day extension begins when the claimant first receives notice of it, and failure to cure the deficient report within that period requires dismissal.

SSC Robstown Operating Company LP v. Perez · filed 2013-02-28(c)

Section 74.351(c) provides that when, as here, the original 120-day period for filing an expert report has expired, the 30-day extension shall run from the date the plaintiff first receives notice of the 30-day extension. ... If a 30-day extension is granted and the plaintiff fails to timely cure the deficient report, dismissal of the plaintiff’s health care liability claim is mandatory.

Section 74.351(c) permits a 30-day extension to cure a deficient expert report, but the extension is unavailable when no report was filed.

Milton v. Vinh T. Nguyen, D.D.S. · filed 2012-08-09(c)

Because Milton filed no report, the trial court had no discretion to grant a 30- day extension.

Section 74.351(c) allows a thirty-day extension only to cure a deficient expert report that was timely served.

Chalfant v. Brookdale Senior Living Communites, Inc. and Arc Post Oak, L.P., D/B/A the Hampton at Post Oak · filed 2013-04-25(c)

Instead, the revised statute gives the trial court discretion to afford a claimant a thirty-day extension only to remedy a deficient, but curable, timely-filed report.

Section 74.351(c) allows only one thirty day extension to amend a deficient expert report; an appellate court cannot grant another after the trial court has granted one.

Conboy v. Lindale Health Care, LLC, Lindale Health Care, LLC, D/B/A Colonial Nursing and Rehabilitation Center a · filed 2013-08-29(c)

However, the statute allows only a single extension. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 74.351(c). Once an extension has been granted by the trial court, the court of appeals is without authority to grant another extension. See id. Because the trial court previously granted Patrick an extension to amend his expert report, we are without authority to grant another extension and must dismiss his suit.

Section 74.351(c) permits a thirty-day extension to cure a deficient expert report when it meets the minimum qualifications for a report.

Christus Spohn Health System Corporation v. Castro · filed 2013-12-12(c)

Because Castro met these minimum qualifications, he is entitled to one thirty-day extension to cure the deficiencies in his reports.

Section 74.351 permits only one thirty day extension to amend a deficient expert report; an appellate court cannot grant another after the trial court has granted one.

ETMC First Physicians and Kristin Ault, D.O. v. Van Ness · filed 2014-03-31(c)

Once an extension has been granted by the trial court, the court of appeals is without authority to grant another extension.

Section 74.351(c) allows a thirty-day extension to cure a deficient expert report that was timely served, but does not allow an extension when no report was served.

San Juanita and Max Griego v. Baptist St. Anthony's Health System, A/K/A Baptist St. Anthony's Hospital Corporation · filed 2015-02-06(c)

Although section 74.351(c) authorizes a court to grant a thirty-day extension to the deadline for filing an expert report, such an extension is only available to allow a claimant to cure deficiencies in a report that has been timely served.

Section 74.351 permits a thirty-day extension to cure deficiencies in a timely expert report that implicates the health care provider’s conduct and contains an expert’s opinion that the claim has merit.

Hernandez v. Christus Spohn Health System Corp., D/B/A Christus Spohn Hospital Kleberg · filed 2015-02-23(c)

In view of the foregoing, we hold the trial court abused its discretion in denying Hernandez’s request for a thirty-day extension.

Section 74.351(c) permits one thirty-day extension to cure a deficient expert report, and the trial court cannot lengthen it.

Alinea Family Hospice Care LLC D/B/A Alinea Family Hospice Care, Donna Junkersfeld and Karla Gamble v. Peggy Goldsmith, · filed 2015-10-30(c)

A trial court has no discretion to alter the length of an extension granted under section 74.351(c).

Section 74.351(c) allows a 30-day extension to cure a deficient expert report, but a claimant who misses that extended deadline is not entitled to another extension under these circumstances.

Ana Maria Gonzalez Salais, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Ruben Gonzalez v. Mexia State School, Tex · filed 2015-11-05(c)

Because Salais did not do so, and because Salais is not entitled to an additional extension under the facts of this case, the trial court properly dismissed her claim.

Section 74.351(c) permits a thirty-day extension to cure a timely filed expert report even when the report does not establish that its author is qualified to opine on causation.

Matagorda Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, L. L. C. v. Alvin Brooks, III, Individually and as Personal Representative · filed 2017-01-12(c)

Appellees’ failure to show that Dr. Radelat was statutorily qualified to opine on causation does not, by itself, render a thirty-day extension unavailable under Scoresby.

Section 74.351(c) requires an opportunity to cure a timely expert report when its deficiencies are curable and the report meets the minimal standard for an extension.

Jon Gower, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Aaron Ashley Gower v. University Behavioral Health of Den · filed 2017-07-20(c)

Therefore, we sustain Gower’s first issue to the extent that he appeals the trial court’s decision to dismiss his suit for a deficient expert report without granting an opportunity to cure under section 74.351(c).

Section 74.351(c) permits an opportunity to cure a deficient expert report even when the original report omits an opinion on causation.

Debbie Wheeler, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Larry Wheeler, Kim Adams, and Kristie Stewart v. · filed 2017-12-07(c)

Consequently, applying Scoresby, we conclude that the Wheeler Parties satisfied this “minimal” and “lenient” standard and that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the motion to dismiss without granting the Wheeler Parties an opportunity to cure the deficiency in accordance with the supreme court’s decision in Scoresby.

Section 74.351(c) allows one 30-day extension to cure a timely, good faith expert report and requires an extension when the deficiencies are curable.

Nancy Carmen Curnel and Ronald Curnel v. Houston Methodist Hospital-Willowbrook and Michael Esantsi · filed 2018-08-16(c)

Under the Act, if the plaintiff timely serves an expert report, and the trial court concludes that the report is an objective good faith effort to comply with the statute but nevertheless deficient in some way, the trial court has the discretion to grant the plaintiff one 30-day extension to cure the deficiencies. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 74.351(c); Mangin, 480 S.W.3d at 705–06. ... And the trial court must grant the extension if the deficiencies are curable. Zamarripa, 526 S.W.3d at 461. ... Therefore, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in denying their motion for an extension to cure and motion for reconsideration.

Section 74.351(c) allows a thirty-day extension to cure a deficient expert report, and a court must grant one when the deficiencies can be cured.

Kerr v. PIRF Operations, LLC Dba Accel Rehabilitation Hospital of Plano and Jane Doe · filed 2019-08-27(c)

These omissions, however, are exactly the type of deficiencies that may be cured under section 74.351(c).

Section 74.351(c) permits one 30-day extension to cure a deficient expert report as to each defendant; when notice of the extension comes after the initial deadline, the extension runs from notice.

Memorial Hermann Health System Individually and D/B/A Memorial Hermann-Katy Hospital Mikael Lucas, M.D. Mikael Lucas, M. · filed 2019-08-29(c)

If the report—that is, the report as to “that party”—is deficient, the trial court may grant a single 30-day extension to cure the deficiency as to “that party.” Id. § 74.351(c). Thus, in determining whether the trial court erred in denying each Provider’s motion to dismiss, we consider (1) the materials served within 120 days of that Provider’s answer, and (2) the materials served within thirty days after the trial court signed an order granting Heinzen an extension to cure the initial report’s deficiencies as to that Provider.

Section 74.351(c)’s thirty-day period to cure a deficient expert report began when the trial court orally clarified its conflicting written order.

Whitney Gonsoulin, M. D. v. Maria Zamarripa, as Administrator of the Estate of R. F. R. and R. J. R., Minors · filed 2020-02-20(c)

The trial court’s oral clarification during the June 2018 hearing explaining its decision is what we construe to be the “order” which starts Zamarripa’s thirty-day timeline.

Section 74.351(c) permits a thirty-day extension to cure deficiencies when a timely served report meets the minimum standard for an expert report.

Wolff v. Mandi Stores · filed 2020-09-23(c)

Further, because Shulter’s expert report meets the standard enunciated in Scoresby, the trial court had authority to grant a thirty-day extension to cure the deficiency.

Section 74.351(c) permits a trial court to grant a thirty-day extension to cure a deficient expert report when the report implicates the defendant and the deficiency appears curable.

Jacksboro Nursing Operations, LLC v. Nadine Norman, Individually, as the Representative of the Estate of Ashley Norman, · filed 2021-04-15(c)

Though Dr. Smith’s report is deficient, his report certainly implicates the conduct of FCNR as strongly, if not more so, than the report in Hernandez. Further, the nature of the deficiency does not indicate that it will be impossible to cure. Thus, the trial court should decide whether to grant an extension to allow Plaintiff to attempt to cure the deficiency.

Section 74.351(c) permits a thirty-day extension to cure deficiencies in timely served expert reports that qualify as reports despite those deficiencies.

Westover Continuing Care Center Ltd. Co. D/B/A Windemere at Westover Hills, Cantex Health Care Centers III, LLC, and Can · filed 2021-12-01(c)

Thus, the trial court had discretion to grant a thirty-day extension of time for Adams to cure the reports’ deficiencies, and the trial court’s order granting the extension was not an appealable order.

Section 74.351(c)’s 30-day period to cure a deficient expert report does not begin when a trial court says it intends to grant an extension after a written order.

Donna Vickers, Individually, as the Representative for All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries, and as an Heir at Law and Repre · filed 2022-04-29(c)

We conclude the trial court did not grant an extension from the date of the hearing, but indicated she was “going to allow” Vickers 30 days after a written order to correct any deficiencies in the report.

Section 74.351(c) requires a 30-day extension to cure a timely served expert report when its deficiencies are curable.

Cody Bernard, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Paul Bernard And Blake Bernard v. CHI St. Luke's Healt · filed 2023-04-13(c)

Given the Supreme Court’s minimal standard and the Bernard Appellants’ objective good faith efforts to comply with the statutory requirements governing expert reports, we cannot say that Dr. Murray’s expert report was incurable.

Section 74.351(c) requires a thirty-day extension when deficiencies in an expert report are curable.

Eva Hernandez, as Next Friend of Juan Hernandez v. Wilfredo Crespo-Velez, M.D. · filed 2023-08-30(c)

We do not reach the issue of whether the supplemental report itself complied with the requirements of the TMLA; we merely hold that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant one thirty-day extension under § 74.351(c) because the deficiencies in the initial report were curable.

Section 74.351(c) does not permit a thirty-day extension when the document fails to indicate that the claim has merit or implicate the defendant’s conduct.

Memorial Hermann Health System D/B/A Memorial Hermann Pearland Hospital v. Nakisha Mason · filed 2024-02-27(c)

Warfield’s report is inadequate as a matter of law, and because it neither “contains the opinion of an individual with expertise that the claim has merit” nor implicates the Hospital’s conduct, it does not meet even the minimal requirements necessary to obtain a thirty-day extension.

Section 74.351(c) allows an extension to cure a deficient expert report, but granting an extension does not itself establish that the report was deficient.

Michelle Elaine Grata M.D. v. Eva Hernandez, Individually and a/n.F of J.H., a Minor Child · filed 2024-04-25(c)

However, it does not follow that a trial court implicitly finds that the original report is deficient whenever it grants an extension.

Section 74.351(c) permits one 30-day extension to cure deficiencies in a timely served expert report.

Chatara Spears v. AAA Acupuncture Center D/B/A AAA Health Center · filed 2024-07-09(c)

The record reflects that the trial court dismissed Spears’s claims with prejudice without first allowing her a 30-day extension to cure the deficiencies in Dr. Armm’s report. We remand to the trial court to allow Spears 30 days to cure the deficiencies.

Section 74.351 allows a timely expert report with curable deficiencies to qualify for an extension when it contains an expert opinion that implicates the defendant.

Quitman Hospital, LLC D/B/A UT Health Quitman v. W. S. a Minor by Duane Stewart ANF · filed 2024-08-29(c)

Because Meagher’s report complies with the lenient Scoresby standard, we cannot conclude that her report is so lacking in substance that it does not qualify as an expert report.

Section 74.351(c) permits one 30-day extension to cure a deficient expert report, and the trial court must consider an extension when the deficiencies may be curable.

Martha Mourning, FNP and Kharvar Dar, MD v. Muns · filed 2024-10-24(c)

The statute allows a trial court to grant one thirty-day extension for the claimant to cure a deficiency in an expert report. ... While we have determined that the expert reports are deficient, we cannot conclude that they are incurable. Therefore, the trial court must have an opportunity to consider whether an extension should be granted under the statute.

Section 74.351(c) allows a trial court to grant a thirty-day extension to cure deficiencies in an expert report.

Ramona Rogers, M.D., Modesto Zamorano, Stephanie Cumpian, Rolando Flores, Hector Ontiveros, Priscilla Nieto, Sonia Herna · filed 2025-05-08(c)

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 74.351(c) affords the trial court the ability to grant a thirty-day extension for a plaintiff to cure deficiencies in his expert report. ... Accordingly, we remand the case to the trial court for consideration of whether the deficiencies identified by this Court can be cured, and whether to grant an extension of time.

Section 74.351(c) allows a thirty-day extension to cure deficiencies in an expert report, including the expert’s qualifications.

The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio v. Ray Magdaleno, Individually and Next Friend of M.M, a Mi · filed 2025-06-04(c)

Properly framed, UTHSCSA confuses “an individual with expertise” with one who meets the statutory qualifications to sign an expert report under the Act. ... We reverse the trial court’s “Order Overruling Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Chapter 74 Expert Report and Denying Motion to Dismiss” and remand for the trial court to determine whether to grant Father a thirty-day extension to file a report or reports that are compliant with the Act. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 74.351(c).

Section 74.351 permits a thirty-day extension to cure a deficient expert report when the report contains an expert’s opinion that the claim has merit and implicates the defendant’s conduct.

Houston Methodist St. John Hospital D/B/A Houston Methodist Clear Lake Hospital v. Cagle · filed 2025-07-24(c)

Because we have concluded that Radcliffe is an individual with expertise in this case, we can further conclude that her report meets the minimal Scoresby standard. Radcliffe’s report includes her opinion that Cagle’s claim has merit, and it implicates the hospital’s conduct. However, in reaching this conclusion, we do not hold that Radcliffe’s report alone satisfies the Act’s expert report requirements or that early dismissal is not required. Rather, we hold only that Radcliffe’s report meets the minimal Scoresby standard for remand to the trial court to cure deficiencies because early dismissal of Cagle’s claims is not required yet.

Section 74.351(c) allows one 30-day extension to cure a deficient expert report; an amended report served after that deadline cannot be considered, even if the trial court granted the extension without finding a deficiency.

Shilpa Thakkra Pankaj and Peekaboo Pediatrics v. Eva Hernandez Individually and as Next Friend of J.H., a Minor Child · filed 2024-07-23(c)

Thus, just as when a trial court has the statutory authority to grant a 30-day extension to amend or supplement a deficient expert report and does so, when a trial court lacks the statutory authority to grant such an extension to amend or supplement a timely filed expert report but nonetheless does so, the claimant’s failure to serve an amended or supplemental report by the mandatory 30-day deadline bars the trial court from considering the amendment or supplement.

Section 74.351(c) permits the trial court to grant a thirty-day extension to cure deficiencies in an expert report.

Texas Laurel Ridge Hospital, L.P. D/B/A Laurel Ridge Treatment Center v. Jane Doe, Individually and as Next Friend of Mi · filed 2025-06-25(c)

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, we reverse the trial court’s September 23, 2024 order overruling appellant Laurel Ridge’s objections to Doe’s Chapter 74 expert reports and qualifications and remand the case to the trial court to consider whether to afford Doe a thirty-day extension to cure the deficiencies in Dr. Mackles’s expert report.

Section 74.351(c) gives a trial court discretion to allow thirty days to cure a deficient expert report, but the court may deny an extension when the causation defect cannot be cured without impermissible inferences.

Angela Hilton, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Barbara Jackson v. Mark Gibbs, M.D., Paris Orthop · filed 2025-12-19(c)

Because Dr. Choudhry’s Report included an “analytical gap” between Appellees’ alleged breach and Ms. Jackson’s death that could not be cured without considering impermissible inferences, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination that a thirty-day extension of time to cure the causation defect would be in vain.

Section 74.351(c) allows a trial court to grant one thirty-day extension to cure a deficient expert report, but does not require it.

Meyers v. Golden Palms Retirement & Health Center, Inc. · filed 2007-05-24(c)

If the elements of a report are found deficient, the trial court may grant one thirty day extension to cure any deficiency. ... The language in the statute has been interpreted as discretionary rather than mandatory.

A motion challenging an expert report’s adequacy without seeking dismissal and fees is a motion under subsection (l).

Academy of Oriental Medicine, L.L.C., Qianzhi Wu and Xiaotian Shen v. Andra · filed 2005-08-26(l)

A motion challenging the adequacy of an expert report that does not request the relief set out in section 74.351(b) is a motion for relief under 74.351(l).

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to identify the defendant's specific conduct and explain causation beyond conclusory statements.

James Longino, M.D. v. Douglas Crosswhite and Kam Crosswhite, on Behalf of Ashton Douglas Crosswhite, a Minor · filed 2006-01-27(r)(6)

In the absence of specific information concerning Longino's conduct and only conclusory statements concerning causation, the trial court abused its discretion by finding that the expert report constituted a good-faith effort.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to fairly summarize how the care breached the standard of care and how that breach caused the claimed injury.

Erwin Lo, M.D., Erwin Lo, M.D.,P.A. and Golden Triangle Neurocare v. Higgs · filed 2006-03-30(r)(6)

Because the report does not fairly summarize the manner in which the treatment rendered breached the standard of care and the causal relationship between the alleged breach and the injury claimed, the trial court erred in finding the report adequate.

Section 74.351(l) permits a challenge to both the substance of an expert report and the expert's qualifications.

Lewis v. Funderburk Ex Rel. Funderburk · filed 2006-05-09(l)

Because subsection (r)(6) defines an "expert report" as "a written report by an expert" and because the term "expert" is defined by subsection (r)(5), we conclude that a challenge under section 74.351( l ) may be urged against not only the substance of the expert's report but also the expert's qualifications.

An expert report addressing multiple defendants must explain how each defendant breached the applicable standard of care and caused or contributed to the injury.

Talmore v. Baptist Hospitals of Southeast Texas · filed 2006-10-12(r)(6)

A report may not simply assert that multiple defendants are all negligent for failing to meet the standard of care without explaining how each defendant specifically breached the standard and how that breach caused or contributed to the cause of the injury or death.

An expert report must state the applicable standard of care and explain the causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and the claimed injury.

Manuel Hababag, M.D. v. Mary Garcia, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Melany Avila · filed 2006-10-26(r)(6)

However, the report does not set forth the applicable standards of care for Hababag. (2) In addition, the report fails to explain the causal relationship between Hababag's treatment of Avila and the damages alleged. Because of these inadequacies, the report does not meet the requirements of the statute, and it does not provide a basis for the trial court to determine that Garcia's claims have merit.

An expert report must explain the applicable standard of care with enough detail to identify what the provider should have done differently.

McKenna Memorial Hospital, Inc. And Robert Donovan Butter, D.O. v. Quinney · filed 2006-11-10(r)(6)

Because Dr. Lowry's report does not provide enough information to inform McKenna or Dr. Butter of the specific conduct Quinney has called into question or to allow the trial court to determine that Quinney's claims have merit, see Palacios , 46 S.W.3d at 878, it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to find that Dr. Lowry's report was sufficient under the statute.

An expert report must address the required elements for each defendant; omitting an element means the report is not a good faith effort to meet the statute.

CHCA Mainland L.P. D/B/A Mainland Medical Center v. James M. Burkhalter, Individually · filed 2007-03-08(r)(6)

Because Dr. Fullerton's expert report omits at least one of the three specifically enumerated requirements of section 74.351(r)(6) in regard to Mainland, it cannot constitute an objective good faith effort to meet the statutory requirements.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to fairly summarize the expert’s opinions on the standard of care, breach, and causation; reports may be considered together to meet that requirement.

Richard M. Evans, M.D. v. Charles Arambula, and Wife Belia Arambula · filed 2007-03-21(r)(6)

We further hold that Dr. Kern's reports, when construed together, provide a fair summary of the elements identified in section 74.351(r)(6).

An expert report may apply the same standard of care to physicians with overlapping duties if it sufficiently explains the standard, breach, and causation.

Benjamin T. Agana, Jr. v. Billie L. Terrell on Behalf of Carolyn Terrell · filed 2007-06-21(r)(6)

Taylor requires that the expert report state a standard of care for each healthcare provider; however, nothing in Taylor explicitly forbids applying the same standard of care to more than one physician if the physicians owe the same duty to the patient.

An expert report must explain how the care failed to meet the applicable standard of care and how that failure caused the claimant's injury.

Victor Haddad, M. D. v. Marroquin · filed 2007-08-29(r)(6)

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires that an expert report explain how the care rendered by the physician failed to meet the applicable standard of care and the causal relationship between that failure and the injury suffered by the claimant.

An expert report fairly summarizes the standard of care when it identifies the care expected but not given, even if it describes the provider’s failures rather than stating the standard positively.

Gary Grindstaff, D.P.M. v. Michie · filed 2007-08-30(a)

Section 74.351 requires that an expert report provide a fair summary of the expert's opinions regarding the applicable standard of care. See Section 74.351(a). ... While these statements are written in the negative rather than the positive, the report provides specific information about what Dr. Grindstaff should have done differently. Palacios , 46 S.W.3d at 880. It sets out what care was expected, but not given. Id. , citing Palacios , 4 S.W.3d at 865. We conclude that Dr. Cartwright has provided a fair summary regarding the applicable standard of care.

Section 74.351(l) permits a challenge to an expert report based on the expert’s qualifications as well as the report’s substance.

in Re Carl Long · filed 2007-03-14(l)

Because subsection (r)(6) defines an “expert report” as “a written report by an expert” and because the term “expert” is defined by subsection (r)(5), we conclude that a challenge under section 74.351( l ) may be urged against not only the substance of the expert’s report but also the expert’s qualifications.

Section 74.351(i) permits a claimant to cure a deficient expert report with a second expert’s report filed within the 120-day deadline.

Hervy Hiner, Marisa Turner Johnson, H.H. Hiner, P.C. and Southeast Texas Nephrology Associates, P.A. v. Lee "Pete" Burne · filed 2007-09-06(i)

However, in the case sub judice , Gaspard filed Lowenthal's report within the 120-day deadline. Therefore, Danos is inapposite, and the trial court did not err in permitting Gaspard to cure the deficiencies in Ayus's report by filing Lowenthal's report.

Section 74.351 does not require defendants to object to deficient records that do not qualify as an expert report before moving to dismiss for failure to file one.

Pollard v. Walgreen Co. and Michael Barnes · filed 2007-09-06(l)

As we have determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the records attached to the pre-suit notice letter were not an expert report pursuant to Section 74.351, Barnes and Walgreen were not required to file and serve objections before the date on which they moved to dismiss the case for failure to file an expert report.

An expert report concerning an admitting physician must identify when the physician should have evaluated the patient to adequately address the standard of care and causation.

Ronald F. Baker, M.D. v. Gomez · filed 2008-01-24(r)(6)

While the report provides specific information as to what care was expected but not given, it wholly fails to address the applicable time frame. ... To that extent, the report is deficient.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to give a good faith summary of the standard of care, the alleged breach, and how that breach caused the claimed injury.

CHCA Mainland, LP D/B/A Mainland Medical Center v. Cathy R. Wheeler and Tommy Wheeler · filed 2008-04-10(r)(6)

We conclude Dr. Gaskill's reports represent a good faith effort to comply with the definition of an expert report. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(r)(6).

An expert report that fails to set forth the standard of care is inadequate under section 74.351 and supports dismissal of the claim.

Martinez v. Jorge E. Miranda, M.D. · filed 2008-07-03(r)(6)

Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Martinez's claim because the report was inadequate, as it did not set forth the standard of care.

An expert report satisfies subsection (r)(6) when it explains the standard of care, breach, and causation with enough detail to inform the defendants of the alleged conduct and give the trial court a basis to find the claims meritorious.

Lawrence R. Gelman, M. D. and Raymond Barrie Walker, C.R.N.A. v. Cuellar · filed 2008-08-14(r)(6)

Herrera's report represents an objective, good-faith effort to comply with the definition of an expert report provided in subsection (r)(6).

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to explain the applicable standard of care and how the defendant breached it.

Rodolfo Guerrero, M.D. v. Rosario Ruiz and Husband, Roberto Ruiz · filed 2008-08-29(r)(6)

Accordingly, we find that the Ruizes' expert report is deficient in failing to establish that Guerrero breached the standard of care. We further find that the Ruizes' expert report does not sufficiently set out the standard of care applicable to Guerrero.

An expert report must adequately state the standard of care, breach, and causation; a possible cause does not adequately establish causation.

Oral James, M.D. v. Ricardo Noyola, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Consuelo Noyola, Pedro Noyola, a · filed 2008-08-29(r)(6)

We conclude that Dr. Raijman's report fails to adequately state the duty or breach elements with respect to the colonoscopy, and it fails to adequately state the causation element with respect to the barium enema.

An expert report is adequate when it explains the standard of care, the breach, and the resulting harm well enough to identify the challenged conduct and allow the court to assess the claim's merit.

Pearl Carrillo, D.O. v. Jay Palacios and Sophia Palacios, Individually and as Representatives of the Estate of Sandra Pa · filed 2008-11-25(r)(6)

We conclude that Dobberfuhl's expert report adequately informed Carrillo of the complained-of conduct and provided the trial court with a basis to determine whether the Palacioses' claims had merit; therefore, the report was adequate.

An expert report adequately addresses the standard of care, breach, and causation when it identifies the challenged conduct and gives the trial court a basis to conclude the claims have merit.

Jerome C. Young, Marra S. Francis, and Obstetrics and Gynecology of the Woodlands v. Pinto · filed 2008-11-26(r)(6)

Furthermore, we hold that Appell's report discussed the standard of care, breach, and causation with sufficient specificity to inform appellants of the conduct Pinto has called into question and to provide a basis for the trial court to conclude that the claims have merit.

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

Craig v. Dearbonne · filed 2009-02-12(r)(6)

Dr. Rushing's report provides a fair summary of his opinions, as of the date of the report, on the applicable standards of care, the manner in which the care rendered by appellants failed to meet the standards, and the causal relationship between that failure and the injury, harm, or damages claimed.

Section 74.351 permits an expert report to support a claim when it fairly summarizes the standard of care, how the defendant breached it, and the causal link to the injury.

Robert G. Ranelle, D.O. v. Herschel Edward Beavers and Pamela Beavers · filed 2009-04-30(r)(6)

We therefore hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that Dr. McBride’s report complied with section 74.351 as to the Beaverses’ claim for Herschel’s torn rotator cuff, and accordingly we overrule that portion of Dr. Ranelle’s sole issue pertaining to Herschel’s rotator cuff injury.

An expert report must adequately state the applicable standard of care, how it was breached, and how the breach caused the claimed injury.

Victor Haddad, M.D. v. Marroquin · filed 2009-07-23(r)(6)

Looking only to the four corners of the report, we conclude that Marroquin's amended expert report adequately set forth the applicable standard of care, identified how Dr. Haddad breached the standard, and explained how the breach caused the injuries claimed by Marroquin.

A trial court may assess an expert report’s causation statements in the context of the entire report, even if some statements appear conclusory in isolation.

Stephanie M. Philipp, P.A. v. McCreedy · filed 2009-07-29(r)(6)

Even if some of the causation statements in the report appear conclusory when read in isolation, the trial court was entitled to read the causation section in the context of the entire report.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to show that its author is qualified to give the medical opinion; a report that fails to do so is inadequate.

Jose R. Carreras, M. D. v. Trevino · filed 2009-08-25

We hold that Martin's report is inadequate because it does not demonstrate that he is qualified to render an expert medical opinion in this case and the trial court abused its discretion by not granting Carreras's motion to dismiss.

An expert report under § 74.351 is inadequate when it fails to identify the defendant's challenged conduct and gives the trial court no basis to find the claim has merit.

Burkhart v. Sedgwick Claim Management Services · filed 2009-08-31(r)(6)

We cannot conclude that Dr. Secord's report was a "good faith" effort to comply with the expert report requirement because it does not inform Innovative of any specific conduct being called into question, and it provides no basis for the trial court to conclude that the Burkharts' claim against Innovative has any merit.

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

Rodolfo Guerrero, M. D. v. Rosario Ruiz and Husband, Roberto Ruiz and Joe A. Cisneros · filed 2009-11-12(r)(6)

Looking only within the four corners of the report, we hold that appellees' amended expert report adequately identified Dr. Guerrero's breach of the standard of care and explained how the breach caused Mrs. Ruiz's injuries.

An expert report must explain causation with enough detail to identify the challenged conduct and give the court a basis to conclude the claim has merit.

Baptist Hospitals of Southeast Texas v. Sebile · filed 2010-01-28(r)(6)

Bhimji's report fails to discuss causation with sufficient specificity to inform Baptist of the conduct of its nurses 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 must identify the applicable standard of care, explain how the provider breached it, and link that breach to the claimed injury.

Health Care Unlimited, Inc. and Health Care Unlimited-Mcallen v. Villarreal · filed 2010-02-11(r)(6)

We conclude that Dr. Miller's report sufficiently sets forth the standard of care and breach elements required of expert reports under section 74.351.

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

University of Texas Medical Branch - Galveston v. James Nightingale, Individually and as Independent of the Estate of Ka · filed 2010-03-16(r)(6)

To the contrary, the report is a fair summary of Dr. Shadoff’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.

An expert report must identify the physician whose conduct is challenged and explain how that conduct caused the claimed injury.

Miguel Hernandez, M.D. v. Ebrom · filed 2010-05-06(r)(6)

Because the report did not name Dr. Hernandez and was conclusory with respect to causation, the trial court should have granted Dr. Hernandez's motion for dismiss.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to fairly summarize the standard of care, its alleged breach, and how that breach caused the claimed harm; a causation opinion can satisfy that requirement by linking the facts in the report to a chain of events leading to the harm.

Presbyterian Community Hospital of Denton v. Connie Smith · filed 2010-05-20(r)(6)

These statements, all contained within the four corners of Dr. Halkos’s report, sufficiently link Dr. Halkos’s causation opinions to the facts and adequately describe the chain of events allegedly leading to Mr. Smith’s death.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to fairly summarize the expert’s opinions on the standard of care, breach, and causation; the report is assessed as a whole.

Presbyterian Community Hospital of Denton v. Connie Smith · filed 2010-05-20(r)(6)

We do not address these specific arguments by the Hospital, however, because Dr. Halkos’s report, as a whole, provides a “fair summary” of his opinions; it (1) sufficiently informs the Hospital of the conduct the Smiths question and (2) provides the trial court with a basis to conclude the Smiths’ claim has merit.

When deciding a motion challenging an expert report, the court cannot resolve disputed facts using an affidavit and documents the expert did not review or rely on.

Christus Health Southeast Texas v. Broussard · filed 2010-02-25(l)

Because defendants' motion asked the trial court to look beyond the four corners of the report and determine fact issues based on an affidavit and documents not reviewed or relied on by the expert, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss.

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

Basith Ghazali, M.D. v. Brown · filed 2010-02-25

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

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to fairly explain how the health care provider’s care failed to meet the applicable standard of care.

TTHR Limited Partnership D/B/A Presbyterian Hospital of Denton v. Claudia Moreno, Individually and as Next Friend of Fre · filed 2011-03-17(r)(6)

Section 74.351(r)(6) of the civil practice and remedies code specifically requires an expert report to include a fair summary of the manner in which care rendered by the health care provider failed to meet the standards of care.

Section 74.351 limits review of an expert report’s sufficiency to the report and excludes outside material the expert did not rely on.

Mark M. Mettauer, M.D. v. Helen Noble, Individually and as Independent of the Estate · filed 2010-09-30(l)

Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err in declining to review Dr. Mettauer’s source material in its review of Dr. Carey’s expert report.

Section 74.351 confines review of an expert report’s adequacy to the report’s four corners; courts do not compare it with the underlying medical records.

Doctors Hospital v. Hernandez · filed 2010-10-21(r)(6)

Because our review is confined to the four corners of Dr. Miller’s report, we overrule the portion of appellants’ second issue asserting that the report contradicts the medical records.

Section 74.351(l) limits review of an expert report’s sufficiency to the report itself; the trial court need not examine the expert’s source material.

Peter Lotze, M.D. v. Amanda Howton and John Howton · filed 2011-03-17(l)

Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in declining to review Dr. Aldrete’s source material in its review of the expert report.

An expert report must specify the care expected of a hospital; general statements about security policies and staffing do not adequately state the standard of care.

Baylor All Saints Medical Center v. Pamela Martin and John Martin · filed 2011-04-14(r)(6)

Keeping in mind that mere conclusions about the standard of care are insufficient, that the standard is “what an ordinary prudent hospital would do under the same or similar circumstances,” and that “even a fair summary must set out what care was expected,” see Palacios , 46 S.W.3d at 880, we cannot agree that Dr. Shershow’s report fulfills the required specificity.

Section 74.351 permits a claimant to pursue all liability theories within a cause of action when an expert report adequately supports at least one of them.

Certified EMS, Inc. D/B/A CPnS Staffing v. Potts · filed 2011-05-19(b)

But if at least one liability theory within a cause of action is shown by the expert report, then the claimant may proceed with the entire cause of action against the defendant, including particular liability theories that were not originally part of the expert report, as long as those liability theories are contained within the same cause of action.

An expert report supporting a direct liability claim against a hospital must state the hospital’s standard of care for the alleged failures.

Columbia North Hills Hospital Subsidiary, L.P. v. Alvarez · filed 2011-07-28(l)

Looking to the four corners of Dr. Tyuluman’s report, we hold that it does not set forth what the standard of care is for North Hills Hospital with respect to adequate training of its nurses, enforcement of its policies and procedures, or supervision of its nurses.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to describe the applicable standards of care, how each defendant breached them, and how those breaches caused the claimed injury without relying on conclusory statements.

Kingwood Pines Hospital, LLC v. Gomez · filed 2011-11-22(r)(6)

We hold that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motions to dismiss because they do not adequately describe the elements required by subsection 74.351(r)(6).

Section 74.351 permits a health care liability claim to proceed when the expert report adequately addresses at least one liability theory.

Laurel Ridge Treatment Center v. Merardo P. Garcia and Carol Garcia on Behalf of the Estate of Steven Santos Garcia · filed 2012-08-29

Because we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding the expert report satisfied the statutory requirements with regard to the second liability theory, we need not address whether the report was adequate regarding the appellees’ first liability theory.

An expert report attributing negligence to multiple physicians must explain each physician’s standard of care, breach, and causal role; a report that fails to do so is inadequate.

Benjamin Clapp, M.D. and Julio Gagot-Pizarro, M.D. v. Perez · filed 2012-09-19(l)

In this case, Dr. Herrera’s report is inadequate because, in addressing each of the statutory elements, it fails to provide a reasoned explanation, supported by specific facts, why Drs. Clapp and Gagot – physicians with differing specialties – owed the same standard of care to Perez, how each breached that standard of care, and how their respective breaches caused to Perez’s death.