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

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to explain the applicable standard of care, how it was breached, and how the breach caused the claimed injury with enough specificity to support the claim.

Basem Jassin, M.D. v. Thomas O. Bennett, Jr. · filed 2012-11-29(r)(6)

The report plainly sets forth the standard of care applicable to Dr. Jassin, how he breached it, and how the breach caused Bennett’s injuries.

Section 74.351 allows a court to deny dismissal when an expert report adequately supports any one of the plaintiff’s liability theories.

W. Bryan Sims v. Kemmerling · filed 2013-03-21(l)

The trial court may deny the motion to dismiss if the plaintiff provides a report that is adequate as to any of the theories alleged.

An expert report satisfies section 74.351 when it fairly summarizes the standard of care, the alleged breach, and the causal connection to the claimed harm.

Howard H. Hood, M.D. v. Kutcher · filed 2012-09-27(r)(6)

Because Dr. Direkly’s expert report constitutes a “good faith effort” to comply with the requirements of section 74.351, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dr. Hood’s motion to dismiss Kutcher’s claims.

Section 74.351 allows a health care liability claim to proceed when the expert report makes a good faith effort to describe the standard of care and how it was breached; a report may implicate a vicariously liable defendant through its employees’ conduct.

CVS Pharamacy, Inc., Caremark L.L.C., CVS RX Services, Inc., and Caremark PHC, L.L.C. v. Kent Bland Ballard · filed 2012-10-04(l)

Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in concluding that the Ballards’ medical expert report is sufficient and not dismissing their health liability claim.

An expert report must address the standard of care, breach, and causation and provide enough factual support to show that the claim has merit.

Memorial Hermann Surgery Center Texas Medical Center, LLP v. Lester Smith and Patricia Nelson-Smith · filed 2012-12-20(r)(6)

We conclude that the report represents a good-faith effort to comply with the statute. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied MHSC’s motion to dismiss under section 74.351.

An expert report satisfies Section 74.351 when it explains the standard of care, breach, and causation with enough specificity to identify the challenged conduct and support the claim’s merit.

Kayani v. Stevens · filed 2013-01-17(r)(6)

Because Stevens’s expert report represents a good-faith effort to comply with the statutory definition of an “expert report,” we overrule Kayani’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s order denying Kayani’s motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to explain the standard of care and breach in relation to the underlying facts well enough for the trial court to assess whether the claim has merit.

Richard Hebert and Janet Hebert v. Timothy E. Hopkins, M.D., and Shannon Clinic · filed 2013-03-01(l)

Applying this deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of review, we cannot conclude that the district court acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, and without guiding rules and principles in determining that Dr. White’s reports did not supply it sufficient information regarding his opinions concerning standard of care and breach, as they relate to the underlying facts, to enable it to determine whether the Heberts’ claims had merit.

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

David Gelber, M.D. v. Hamilton · filed 2013-03-07(r)(6)

We conclude that Dr. Seid’s expert report did more than merely state his conclusions; rather, Dr. Seid explained the basis for his statements and linked his ultimate conclusions to the facts of the case.

Section 74.351(l) permits a trial court to decide a challenge to an expert report on written submission without an oral hearing.

Simmons v. Stephen Pamatmat, M.D. and Tyler Nephrology Associates, P.A. · filed 2012-12-20(l)

In this context, “hearing” does not mean that the trial court is required to hold an oral hearing; rather, the trial court may decide the matter on written submission.

An expert report must adequately explain the defendant’s standard of care, alleged breach, and causal connection to the injury, even when multiple reports are considered together.

Raval v. Annie Dorsey, Individually and as Next Friend of Ezra Dorsey · filed 2013-05-23(r)(6)

Reviewing the expert reports together, we conclude that the reports do not sufficiently point out the causation requirement as to Raval. The reports do not adequately explain Raval’s required standard of care or the alleged breaching of that standard.

An expert report that adequately supports one liability theory permits the entire health care liability suit to proceed, even if it does not address another theory.

Christus Spohn Health System Corporation D/B/A Christus Spohn Hospital Beeville v. Bret Johnston and the Estate of Karen · filed 2013-05-23(b)

Furthermore, under Potts, “if any liability theory has been adequately covered, the entire case may proceed.” Id. at 632. Therefore, appellees have the right to have the entire case move forward. See id. at 630. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to dismiss.

An expert report that adequately addresses at least one pleaded liability theory satisfies the expert report requirement and prevents dismissal.

Filiberto Rodriguez-Salinas, M.D. and Cardiothoracic Surgeons of McAllen v. Cano · filed 2013-09-12(l)

Because the appellees produced an expert report that adequately addressed at least one pled liability theory, the statutory requirements are satisfied, and “the trial court must not dismiss in such a case.” Potts, 392 S.W.3d at 632.

An expert report sufficiently addresses the standard of care and breach when it identifies the conduct the provider should have avoided with enough detail to give notice of the claim and support its merit.

Jennifer J. Garza, M.D. and Jennifer Garza, M.D., P.A. v. Rafael Deleon and Vanessa Deleon as Parents and Next of Friend · filed 2013-12-19(r)(6)

Having reviewed Dr. Moulsdale’s report in its entirety, we conclude that the trial court was justified in finding that it discusses the two elements of the standard of care and breach with sufficient specificity to fulfill the dual purposes of the expert report requirement.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to specify the care expected and explain how the provider breached that standard; conclusory statements are insufficient.

SJ Medical Center, LLC v. Walker · filed 2014-03-25(r)(6)

Because the standard of care as stated in Dr. Camazine’s original and amended expert reports lacks specificity and his opinion that SJMC breached the standard of care is conclusory, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to assess attorney’s fees and costs and dismiss the claims against SJMC.

Section 74.351(l) permits dismissal for an inadequate expert report only when the report is not an objective good-faith effort to meet the statutory requirements.

Arthur Fernandez, M.D. v. Valerie Verdin Farias, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Martin Farias, III · filed 2013-05-09(l)

We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that Dr. Raguthu’s expert report represented an objective, good-faith effort to comply with the definition of an expert report.

An expert report that adequately addresses one liability theory against a health care defendant allows the suit to proceed against that defendant, including later pleaded claims based on other staff members’ conduct.

Ennis Regional Medical Center and Peter Anthony Evenbly, R. N. v. Crenshaw · filed 2013-06-04

Ennis Regional concedes Lee’s expert report complies with chapter 74 regarding the allegations against Evenbly and the related vicarious liability claims against Ennis Regional. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ennis Regional’s motion to dismiss based on vicarious liability claims associated with nursing staff negligence.

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

Richard Chavira, Jr. M.D. and Roger Ward Boswell, M.D. v. Lezonia and Anthony Darden · filed 2013-06-10(r)(6)

After a careful review of Coney’s report, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding the report sufficiently addressed the issues of the applicable standard of care, breach of the standard of care, and causation.

An expert report must make a good-faith effort to summarize the causal relationship between a healthcare provider’s conduct and the claimed injury; the court may read multiple reports together to assess that effort.

San Jacinto Methodist Hospital v. McCoy · filed 2013-06-13(r)(6)

Thus, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the expert reports constituted a good-faith effort to comply with section 74.351(r)(6) as to McCoy’s vicarious-liability claim against Methodist.

An expert report is a good-faith effort under section 74.351(r)(6) when it identifies the challenged conduct and adequately explains how that conduct caused the claimed injuries.

Hillcrest Baptist Medical Center v. Dixon · filed 2013-07-11(r)(6)

And as such, we hold that Dixon’s expert reports constitute a good-faith effort to comply with section 74.351 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to make a good faith effort to identify the challenged care, the applicable standard and breach, and how the breach caused the claimed injury.

Janice Babin, D.D.S. v. Scott Haynie, Individually and as Next Friend of C.H., a Minor · filed 2013-10-01(r)(6)

We conclude that Dr. Lawson, in his report, made a “good faith effort” to inform Dr. Babin of the specific conduct called into question, the standard of care that should have been followed, what she should have done differently, and the causal relationship between her failure to meet the pertinent standard of care and the child’s injury.

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

Maha Khalifa Al-Lahiq, M.D. v. Rosemond · filed 2013-11-07(l)

Because Dr. Katz’s expert report is impermissibly conclusory, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion to the extent that it found the report provided a sufficient causal analysis.

Section 74.351(a) does not require an expert report for a hospital visitor’s slip-and-fall claim that alleges no departure from accepted health care standards.

Christus St. Elizabeth Hospital v. Guillory · filed 2013-11-14(a)

The question of whether a particular claim falls under the expert report requirements of the Texas Medical Liability Act is a question of law; as a result, we review the trial court’s ruling under a de novo standard. ... We conclude that Guillory has not alleged that Christus departed from any standard that is pertinent to accepted standards of health care; therefore, Guillory has not asserted a health care liability claim against Christus under the Texas Medical Liability Act. We hold the trial court did not err in denying the hospital’s motion to dismiss, and we affirm the trial court’s order.

An expert report must adequately explain the hospital’s standard of care, how the hospital breached it, and how the breach caused the claimed injury.

Nacogdoches County Hospital District D/B/A Nacogdoches Memorial Hospital v. Felmet · filed 2013-11-26(l)

He also does not explain how the deviation from those standards led to Felmet’s subsequent surgeries. Therefore, we hold that Dr. Rushing failed to adequately discuss the standard of care, breach of that standard, and causation.

Section 74.351(a) requires an expert report only for health care liability claims.

Hill Country San Antonio Managment Services, Inc. v. Trejo · filed 2014-02-12(a)

Only claims that assert a health care liability claim under the TMLA are required to file an expert report under section 74.351.

An expert report must identify how the physician breached the standard of care and explain how that breach caused the claimed injury; conclusory statements do not suffice.

Gary P. Lawton, M.D., FACS v. Joaquin · filed 2014-02-26(r)(6)

Dr. Melmed’s reports contained no specific information about how Lawton breached the standard of care or about what he should have done differently. We, therefore, hold that the reports failed to establish one of the required statutory elements: that Lawton breached the standard of care. ... Therefore, Dr. Melmed’s reports fail to establish yet another required statutory element: causation.

An expert report satisfies section 74.351 if it adequately addresses at least one pleaded liability theory.

the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Verba Klingsick, Diana Klingsick · filed 2013-11-05(r)(6)

Because Brown’s expert report adequately addresses at least one pleaded liability theory, it satisfies the statutory requirements. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying UTSWMC’s motion to dismiss the case.

An expert report is adequate when it identifies the provider’s challenged conduct and gives the trial court a basis to conclude that the claim has merit.

Navarro Hospital, L.P. v. Washington · filed 2014-05-08(r)(6)

After reviewing the four corners of the proffered expert reports, we conclude that the reports inform appellant of the specific conduct that appellees have called into question—appellant’s failure to: (1) have specialized intubation equipment readily available at the time the Code Blue was called; and (2) have or enforce protocols, policies, or procedures for ensuring that personnel are aware of and trained to utilize such equipment—and provide the trial court with a basis to conclude that the claims have merit.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to establish the expert’s qualifications to address causation and explain how the alleged breach caused the claimed injury.

HEB Grocery Company, LP v. Galloway · filed 2014-05-22

Considering the overall purpose of section 74.351, we conclude that the trial court committed an abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss. Dr. Keepers’ report does not show how he would be qualified to address the underlying medical conditions or how the alleged mis-filled prescription caused or contributed to the conditions.

An informed-consent expert report satisfies the statutory definition when it gives a good faith account of the standard of care, breach, and causation tied to the facts of the case.

Smith v. Jason Wall, D.D.S · filed 2014-06-18(r)(6)

Accordingly, Bates’s report represents, as a matter of law, an “objective good faith effort” to comply with the MLA’s “expert report” definition with respect to the applicable standard of care. ... As a matter of law, this suffices as an “objective good faith effort” to comply with the MLA’s “expert report” definition with respect to breach of Wall’s asserted duty to disclose the aforementioned risk to Smith. ... As a matter of law, Bates’s opinion regarding causation represented an objective good faith effort to comply with the statutory definition of an expert report.

Section 74.351’s expert report requirements apply to health care liability claims, and the trial court should determine report sufficiency when it has not yet ruled on that issue.

Matthew D. Barrow, M.D., P.A. v. Carnes · filed 2014-06-05

However, based on our review of the record, we conclude the trial court did not consider or make any ruling with respect to the sufficiency of Carnes’s expert reports. The trial court should be given the opportunity to determine the sufficiency of the expert reports.

An expert report sufficiently addresses causation when it makes a good faith effort to explain the relationship between the provider’s alleged failures and the claimed harm.

Consultants in Radiology, P.A. v. S.K. · filed 2014-06-26(r)(6)

We hold that the expert reports were sufficient as to causation.

Section 74.351(l) allows an expert report to survive a dismissal motion when it makes a good faith effort to explain the causal relationship between the provider’s alleged breach and the claimed injury.

Tenet Hospitals Limited, a Texas Limited Partnership D/B/A Sierra Medical Center v. Barajas · filed 2014-11-21(l)

Accordingly, we conclude Drs. Allen and Arredondo’s reports represented an objective good faith effort to provide a fair summary of the causal relationship between SMC’s actions and Barajas’s injury.

An expert report is a good faith effort under section 74.351 when it identifies the defendant’s questioned conduct and provides a basis to conclude the claim has merit.

D.W., as Next Friend of M.M.W. and T.F.W., Minor Children, and the Independent Administrator of the Estate of K.H. v. Ra · filed 2014-07-03(l)

We hold that Dr. Holmes’s expert report informed Dr. Sawhney of the specific conduct that Family questions and provided a basis for the trial court to conclude that Family’s claims have merit, and as such, it qualified as an objective good faith effort to comply with the requirements of section 74.351.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to fairly summarize the applicable standard of care, including what care the defendant should have provided.

Pamela Johnson, M.D. v. Gomez · filed 2015-01-23(r)(6)

We conclude the report contains a fair summary of the expert’s opinion regarding the applicable standard of care and thus the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Johnson’s motion.

Section 74.351 allows a health care liability claim to proceed when an expert report makes a good faith effort to summarize the standards of care, the alleged breaches, and how those breaches caused the claimed harm.

Legend Oaks-South San Antonio, LLC v. Molina · filed 2015-02-18(l), (r)(6)

We hold the trial court acted within its discretion to conclude that Dr. Uribe’s report represents a good faith effort to provide a fair summary of his opinions regarding the applicable standards of care, the manner in which Legend Oaks failed to meet those standards, and the causal relationship between the failures and the harm claimed.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to explain the standard of care, the provider’s breach, and causation with enough detail to support its conclusions.

Senior Care Centers, LLC and Midland SCC, LLC v. Cynthia Shelton and Betsy Taylor, Both Individually and on Behalf of th · filed 2015-03-06(r)(6)

Accordingly, we conclude that the expert report is deficient because it does not adequately describe the standard of care, any breaches of those standards of care by Senior Care Center, or rationally eliminate other equal possibilities for what occurred that do not involve Senior Care Center breaching a standard of care.

An expert report satisfies the causation requirement when it explains how a provider’s failure to meet the standard of care caused the alleged injury with enough specificity to identify the challenged conduct.

Nexion Health at North Richland Hills, Inc. v. Street-Larson · filed 2015-06-19(r)(6)

We hold that the expert report was sufficient as to causation.

An expert report makes a good-faith effort to satisfy section 74.351(r)(6) when it identifies the challenged conduct and provides a basis to conclude the claim has merit.

Columbia Valley Healthcare System L.P. D/B/A Valley Regional Medical Center v. Maria Zamarripa, as Guardian of the Estat · filed 2015-08-31(r)(6)

Therefore, the reports represent a good-faith effort to comply with the definition of an expert report.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to make a good-faith effort to summarize the standard of care, breach, and causation sufficiently to identify the challenged conduct and support the claim’s merit.

Texas San Marcos Treatment Center, L.P. D/B/A San Marcos Treatment Center v. Payton · filed 2015-11-18(l), (r)(6)

We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by concluding that Dr. Reid’s report was a good-faith effort to provide a fair summary of the elements of Payton’s claim as required by Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code subsections 74.351(l) and 74.351(r)(6).

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to support its opinions on the standard of care, breach, and causation with facts sufficient to show the claim has merit.

Vivek Goswami, M.D. and Austin Heart, PLLC v. Rodriguez · filed 2016-01-27(l)

Because the expert report fails to provide a basis to conclude that Rodriguez’s claims have merit, see Jelinek, 328 S.W.3d at 539, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it found that the expert report complied with section 74.351 of the TMLA and denied appellants’ motion to dismiss.

An expert report must include facts linking the defendant’s conduct to the claimed harm so the court can assess whether the claim has merit.

Rodriguez v. the Walgreen Company and Sara Elizabeth McGuire · filed 2016-01-27(r)(6)

Without factual background concerning the prescription such as the inclusion of underlying facts to link appellees’ conduct to Rodriguez’s harm, the expert reports fail to provide a basis to conclude that Rodriguez’s claims have merit.

An expert report must do more than state conclusions about the standard of care, breach, and causation; it must identify the conduct at issue and provide a basis to conclude the claim has merit.

Methodist Hospitals of Dallas A/K/A/ Methodist Health System D/B/A Methodist Charlton Medical Center v. Janice Winn, Ind · filed 2016-06-08(r)(6)

A report that merely states the expert’s conclusions about the standard of care, breach, and causation does not fulfill the purposes of the report: to inform the defendant of the specific conduct the plaintiff has called into question and provide a basis for the trial court to conclude that the claims have merit.

An expert report adequately addresses the standard of care when it identifies the specific conduct challenged and gives the trial court a basis to conclude the claim has merit.

Pinnacle Health Facilities of Texas III, L.P. D/B/A Keller Oaks Healthcare Center and Keller Oaks Healthcare Center v. C · filed 2016-06-09(r)(6)

Therefore, the reports constitute a good faith effort to comply with the statutory requirements with respect to this theory of liability.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to explain how an alleged breach caused the claimed injury; the court cannot supply a missing causal link by inference.

Highland Pines Nursing and Rehabilitation, and Tabitha Ayers v. Shakeitha Wiley, Individually and as Representative of t · filed 2016-06-17(r)(6)

This Court cannot infer that Casandra’s pressure ulcers ultimately caused her death. We are limited to the four corners of the expert report in determining whether the report complies with the statute.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to explain how the alleged breach caused the claimed injury; a report that leaves gaps in that explanation is inadequate.

Maria Zamarripa, as Temporary Guardian of the Estates of R. F. R. and R. J. R., Minors, and Olga Flores, as Temporary Ad · filed 2016-11-22(r)(6)

By failing to adequately provide a “fair summary” of the causation of Flores’s death regarding CCMC, Dr. Harlass’s report did not comply with the statutory requirements.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to explain how the health care provider’s conduct breached the applicable standard of care; a report that infers a breach solely from a patient’s fall is insufficient.

Pinnacle Health Facilities XV, LP D/B/A Woodridge Nursing and Rehabilitation v. Jorge Robles and Werner Robles, Individu · filed 2016-12-15(r)(6)

We therefore conclude appellees’ amended expert report was deficient in that it failed to provide a fair summary of the manner in which the care rendered by ... the health care provider failed to meet the applicable standard of care.

An expert report must adequately address the standard of care, breach, and causation; failure to address any one element can result in dismissal.

Baty v. Olga L. Futrell, CRNA, and Complete Anesthesia Care, PC · filed 2015-11-19(r)(6)

To survive a dismissal of asserted healthcare liability claims, a plaintiff’s expert report must adequately address each of the three required statutory elements. The failure to satisfy even one of the statutory elements will bar recovery. Here, Baty’s amended expert report is inadequate, conclusory, and fails to satisfy the standard of care requirement as to Futrell.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to connect the alleged breach to the injury with enough medical detail to give a fair summary of causation.

Jose Ignacio Mendez-Martinez, M. D. v. Andres G. Carmona, Individually, on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries, a · filed 2016-04-22(r)(6)

Here, Dr. Roddy’s report meets the fair summary standard on causation by logically linking the alleged breach and the alleged harm step-by-step with enough medical detail to allow the trial court to decide that Carmona could state a claim under Texas law.

An expert report is sufficient if it adequately links a breach of the standard of care to the claimed harm on at least one liability theory.

Pinecrest SNF, LLC D/B/A Pinecrest Nursing & Rehabilitation Center v. Tasco Bailey, Nathan Bailey, Carlie Bailey, Roy Ba · filed 2016-05-27(l)

As we have explained, Dr. Davey adequately linked his discussion of the facts in his report to the conclusion that Pinecrest’s breach of the standard of care proximately caused Bailey’s harm on at least one theory.

Section 74.351 requires an adequate expert report for each defendant, but the report need address only one pleaded theory of liability against that defendant.

THN Physicians Association D/B/A El Paso Perinatology and Frederick E. Harlass, M. D. v. Mario A. Tiscareno and Michelle · filed 2016-08-17

Because the plaintiff in a healthcare liability suit need only provide an adequate expert report on one theory of liability, we therefore conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dr. Harlass’s motion to dismiss concerning Tiscareno’s claims.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to identify the defendant’s specific challenged conduct and provide a good faith basis for the claim.

Scott A. Protzman, M.D., El Paso Orthopaedic Surgery Group P.A., and Fred Utter, CRNA v. Maria T. Gurrola, Individually · filed 2016-08-24(l)

Because Dr. Koumjian’s expert report does not provide adequate information to inform Nurse Utter of the specific conduct Maria has called into question, it fails to provide a basis for the trial court to conclude that Maria’s claims against Nurse Utter have merit, and does not constitute an objective good faith effort to comply with the statutory requirements of an expert report.

An expert report satisfies the causation requirement when it sufficiently explains how the alleged breach caused the claimed injury.

Garrison Nursing Home and Rehabilitation Center and Garrison Nursing Home, Inc. v. Demings · filed 2016-09-21(r)(6)

Under the circumstances present in this case, Dr. Miller provided sufficient information in his report to allow the trial court to conclude that he adequately addressed causation to a reasonable degree and that the report satisfies the requirements and purposes of Chapter 74. Accordingly, we hold that the trial did not abuse its discretion in overruling Garrison’s objections to Dr. Miller’s report and its motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351 requires a good-faith expert report linking a breach of the standard of care to the claimed injury before a medical negligence claim may proceed.

Geriatric Associates of America, P.A. v. Alex · filed 2016-12-20

Section 74.351 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code serves as a “gate-keeper” through which no medical negligence causes of action may proceed until the claimant has made a good-faith effort to demonstrate that at least one expert believes that a breach of the applicable standard of care caused the claimed injury.

An expert report that satisfies the statutory requirements for either a wrongful death or survival claim prevents dismissal of the suit.

SCC Partners, Inc. D/B/A Senior Care Health and Rehabilitation Center - Bridgeport And Foursquare Healthcare, Ltd. F/K/A · filed 2016-06-02

Accordingly, we conclude and hold that if the expert report served by Ince satisfies the statutory requirements as to either his alleged wrongful death or survival claims, then the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Providers’ motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to fairly summarize the applicable standard of care, breach, and causation.

Golden Years Assisted Living v. Priscilla J. Richard, on Behalf of Bruce Richard · filed 2018-07-12(r)(6)

We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in concluding the expert reports sufficiently identified the relevant standard of care and alleged breach. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(r)(6).

Section 74.351 permits dismissal for an inadequate expert report only when the report fails to make a good-faith effort to identify the challenged conduct and support the claim’s merit.

Darnell Pettway, M.D. v. Olvera · filed 2018-08-23(l)

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that Xeller’s report satisfied the “good-faith effort” requirement because the report informs Pettway of the specific conduct called into question.

An expert report can identify the challenged conduct by specifying one alleged breach of the standard of care, even if it does not support other alleged breaches.

Richter v. Downey · filed 2018-12-07(l)

Thus, the report satisfies the first element of Palacios, but only insofar as it states that failure to perform a CT scan on October 27, 2014 is the breach called into question.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to explain the causal relationship between the alleged breach and the claimed injury, without proving causation at the report stage.

Jerry M. Keepers M.D. v. Blessett · filed 2019-04-09(r)(6)

Dogali’s expert report provided an explanation of the causal relationship between the needle malpositioning and the injury, harm, and damages claimed. That a competing expert might dispute the causal link or the ultimate factfinder might reject the expert’s conclusions is immaterial to whether Blessett met her requirements under Section 74.351.

Section 74.351(l) permits a trial court to decide a challenge to an expert report’s adequacy on written submissions without an oral hearing.

Jennifer Sampson, Individually As a Representative of the Estate of Sindy Jean Hamilton And as Guardian of Jeanette Burt · filed 2018-01-18(l)

Accordingly, this Court has previously held that section 74.351(l)’s use of the word “hearing” does not require a trial court to hold an oral hearing; rather the trial court may decide the matter on written submission. ... For these reasons, we conclude the trial court did not err by failing to conduct an oral hearing on ETMC’s motion to dismiss.

An expert report satisfies Section 74.351 when it adequately addresses the standard of care, breach, and causation for at least one viable liability theory.

Oceans Behavioral Healthcare of Longview, Audubon Behavioral Hospital of Longview, LLC D/B/A Oceans Behavioral Hospital · filed 2018-03-21(r)(6)

Because Dr. Miller’s report adequately addresses the elements of the standard of care, breach, and causation as to at least one of Mrs. Butler’s theories of liability, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding the report to be adequate under Section 74.351 and denying Appellants’ motions to dismiss.

Section 74.351 permits a court to deny dismissal when a qualified expert’s report adequately addresses the standard of care, breach, and causation.

Jorge C. Zamora-Quezada, M. D. v. Mendoza · filed 2018-04-12(r)(6)

Having found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Dr. Wheeler qualified to opine and that his expert report duly set forth duty, breach, and causation, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dr. Zamora-Quezada’s motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351 requires courts to assess an expert report’s sufficiency by considering its opinions in the context of the entire report.

Renee Rice, D.O. and NSR Physicians, P.A. v. McLaren · filed 2018-06-26(r)(6)

We determine whether an expert report is sufficient under section 74.351 by considering the opinions in the context of the entire report, rather than taking statements in isolation.

An expert report that satisfies section 74.351(r)(6) for one liability theory permits the claimant to proceed without addressing every theory.

Raymond R. Fulp, III, D.O. v. Petitta · filed 2018-08-31(r)(6)

Fulp’s second argument fails for the same reason its counterpart failed in the preceding subsection, because a report that satisfies the elements articulated in section 74.351(r)(6) as to one theory only entitles the claimant to proceed with a suit against the physician or health care provider.

Section 74.351 does not require an expert report to identify exactly who positioned a patient when the report describes proper positioning, unsafe practices, and the positioning documented in the medical record.

Kenneth J. Lee, M.D., KL Modern Spine, PLLC, Karlyn J. Powell, M.D. v. Le · filed 2018-10-11(r)(6)

Dr. Yong identified the best way to position an arm for surgery, described positions and ways of padding to be avoided, and critiqued the medical record’s description of how Le’s shoulders and arm were placed at the start of surgery. Detail greater than this is not required for an expert report.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to give fair notice of the applicable standards of care, the provider’s breaches, and how those breaches caused the claimed injury.

Misty Jackson, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Roger J. Young, And Roger Jackson v. Kindred Hospitals Limite · filed 2018-11-01(r)(6)

Accordingly, we hold that the Kindred Report satisfied section 74.351’s requirement of providing Kindred with fair notice of its specific breaches of the applicable standards of care and how those breaches were linked to Young’s injuries and death.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to identify how the defendant breached the standard of care and link that breach to the claimed injury.

Fondren Orthopedic Group, LLP and Hussein Adel Elkousy, M.D. v. Sherman · filed 2018-11-13(l)

Accordingly, we conclude that Dr. Nirgiotis’s report does not represent a good faith effort to comply with the statutory requirements because it does not specify how Dr. Elkousy or Fondren breached the standard of care. We further conclude that the report is insufficient as to causation because Dr. Nirgiotis does not adequately link Sherman’s injury to a breach in the standard of care.

An expert report satisfies § 74.351’s causation requirements when it uses specific facts to explain how the provider’s alleged breach led to the patient’s injury.

Satbir S. Chhina, M.D. and Alejandro Gonzalez, Jr., FNP-C v. Luz Del Carmen Rodriguez and Victor Velazquez, Individually · filed 2018-12-27(l), (r)(6)

We conclude Dr. Correa’s report constitutes an objective, good faith effort to comply with the Texas Medical Liability Act’s requirement to provide a fair summary of the expert’s opinion regarding the causal relationship between Dr. Chhina’s and FNP Gonzalez’s alleged breach and R.V.’s injury.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to describe the challenged care and provide a basis to conclude that the claim may have merit.

David E. Blanchard, D. O., Schumacher Management Services Inc., and the SchumacHer Group of Texas, Inc. v. Marie · filed 2019-01-10(r)(6)

Dr. Caldarola’s report was sufficient to give the Blanchard group notice of the specific conduct being called into question and provided a basis for the trial court to determine the claim could have merit.

An expert report can satisfy the standard-of-care requirement by identifying the specific conduct questioned without detailing every step the provider should have taken.

Steffan Scherer, DDS MS v. Gandy · filed 2019-02-28(r)(6)

Bearing this in mind, we conclude that the trial court was within its discretion to conclude that Dr. Maranga’s reports satisfied the good-faith effort requirement as to the standard of care because the reports inform Dr. Scherer of the specific conduct called into question: his use of Prilocaine in treating Gandy and his continuation of the root canal in the face of an indication that Gandy was suffering an adverse event.

An expert report satisfies Section 74.351 when it describes the care expected, the care omitted, and how that omission caused the claimed injury.

Cook Children's Medical Center and Cook Children's Health Care System -AND- Cook Children's Physician Network and Jose O · filed 2019-03-14(r)(6)

We hold that the Report adequately describes what care was expected and was not given and how that failure caused G.R.’s brain injury.

An expert report must fairly summarize the applicable standard of care, how the care failed to meet it, and how that failure caused the claimed injury.

Sanjar Naderi, D.D.S. and Antoine Dental Center, LLC v. Kangasabapathy "Rikki" Ratnarajah · filed 2019-04-02(r)(6)

Because Ratnarajah’s expert report provided a fair summary of the expert’s opinions regarding the applicable standards of care, a statement identifying the manner in which the care rendered by Dr. Naderi failed to meet the standards, and an explanation of the causal relationship between that failure and the injury, harm, or damages claimed, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellants’ motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351 requires expert reports to fairly summarize the applicable standard of care, its alleged breach, and the causal relationship to the claimed injury; reports may be read together to satisfy those requirements.

Charles Sims, M.D. and Greater Houston Physician's Medical Association, PLLC v. Christy Manchac, Individually, as Next F · filed 2018-12-27(r)(6)

We conclude that Roberts’s and Brown’s reports, when read together, provide a fair summary of the applicable standards of care, how the experts contend the standards of care were breached, and the causal relationship between the alleged breach and the injury, harm, or damages claimed.

An expert report that adequately supports a vicarious liability theory permits the entire health care liability case to proceed, even if it does not address other pleaded theories.

McAllen Hospitals, L.P. v. Salvador Gonzalez, Individually, as Representative of the Estate of Santos Camacho, and as Re · filed 2018-12-28

When a health care liability claim involves a vicarious liability theory, either alone or in combination with other theories, and there is an expert report sufficient to support that vicarious liability theory, the entire case may proceed past a motion to dismiss based on the expert report rule.

Section 74.351(l) allows a trial court to deny a motion to dismiss when an expert report makes a good faith effort to explain how the provider’s conduct caused the injury.

Deborah Hendryx and KPH-Consolidation, Inc. D/B/A Kingwood Medical Center v. Carolina Duarte, Individually and as Next F · filed 2019-03-07(l)

Here, the trial court could have reasonably found that Dr. Roberts’ report represented a good faith effort to explain how the hospital’s acts and omissions proximately caused the baby ... to be delivered in a buttocks-down position.

Section 74.351 permits a health care liability claim to proceed when the expert report makes a good faith effort to explain the applicable standards of care, their breach, and how the breach caused injury.

Tomball Texas Hospital Company, LLC D/B/A Tomball Regional Medical Center v. La Neta Bobinger · filed 2019-08-13(l)

We conclude that Dr. Arredondo’s expert reports provide a basis for the trial court to have concluded that they represent an objective good faith effort to comply with the definition of expert report and that Bobinger’s claims against the Hospital’s physical therapists and nurses have merit. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 74.351(l), (r)(6). We therefore hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Hospital’s motion to dismiss.

An expert report makes a good faith effort to satisfy Section 74.351 when it adequately explains how and why the provider’s breach caused the claimed injury.

Nancy Carmen Curnel and Ronald Curnel v. Houston Methodist Hospital-Willowbrook · filed 2019-12-31(l)

For these reasons, we hold that Dr. Sheer’s reports represents an objective good-faith effort to adequately explain “how and why” Methodist’s breach of the standard of care caused Curnel’s liver biopsy and subsequent liver injury.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to fairly summarize causation, but the report need not rule out every possible cause of the claimed injury.

Darry G. Meyer, D.O., Darry G. Meyer, D.O., P.A., and Memorial Medical Center of East Texas v. Strahan · filed 2019-04-10(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 the report is filed.

An expert report must explain how and why the alleged breach caused the injury, but need not account for every technical detail.

JMA Partners, Inc. D/B/A Guardian Pharmacy Services and Jack R. Munn v. Guzman · filed 2019-04-16(r)(6)

To satisfy the causation requirement of section 74.351(r)(6), an expert must explain “how and why” the alleged negligence caused the injury in question. ... We do not agree more detail, including either the specific pH of the medication injected into Guzman’s eye or an explanation of what caused the pH to become “too high,” was required.

Section 74.351 does not require a preliminary expert report to rule out every possible cause of the claimed injury.

Carl R. Jones, M.D. v. Waggoner · filed 2019-05-15

Further, 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(a) limits discovery before a medical expert’s report is filed.

An expert report sufficiently addresses causation when it explains, with facts and reasonable medical probability, how the alleged breach led to the injury.

Debbie Wheeler, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Larry Wheeler, Kim Adams, and Kristie Stewart v. · filed 2019-06-21(r)(6)

Accordingly, we hold that his amended report included a fair summary of his opinion concerning the causal relationship between the breach of the standard of care and the damages claimed, and the trial court abused its discretion by concluding otherwise.

An expert report satisfies § 74.351’s causation requirement when it fairly explains how the alleged breach led to the patient’s injury.

Rachel B. Head, MD and Rachel B. Head, MD, PLLC v. William Hagan and Lysa Hagan · filed 2019-10-31(r)(6)

Accordingly, we hold that Dr. Rossman’s reports, when read together, constitute an objective, good faith effort to comply with Chapter 74’s requirement to provide a fair summary of his opinion with respect to the causal relationship between Dr. Head’s alleged breach and Mr. Hagan’s injury.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to fairly summarize the expert’s opinions on the standard of care, its breach, and causation; factual disputes alone do not make the report insufficient.

Sujeet Acharya M.D., Texas Oncology P.A., and Texas Urology Specialists v. Gomez · filed 2019-04-30(r)(6)

The existence of factual disputes does not preclude Dr. Link’s report from meeting Chapter 74’s requirements.

Section 74.351 permits an expert report to address healthcare providers together when they share the same standard of care and the report adequately explains breach and causation.

Aimee Harvey Individually and as Next Friend of Talisa Phillips, Amanda Harvey, Henry Wilson, III, as Next Friend of Aal · filed 2019-05-09(r)(6)

We conclude that the expert report is adequate—it represents an objective good faith effort to comply with the Act because the expert opined that the same standard of care was applicable to all involved healthcare providers, none of the healthcare providers complied with that standard, and such failure resulted in the patient’s injuries.

An expert report adequately addresses standard of care, breach, and causation when it explains that a hospital kept a recalled device in stock, supplied it for implantation, and thereby caused the patient’s injury.

Grismore v. Medtronic, Inc., the East Texas Medical Center System, Inc., and Texas Spine & Joint Hospital, Ltd., · filed 2019-05-31(r)(6)

As such, Dr. Shaneyfelt’s amended report adequately outlines the standard of care applicable to TSJH as to its possession of the Medtronic battery after its recall, the breach of that standard of care, and the causal connection between that breach and the harm suffered by Grismore when a recalled Medtronic battery was surgically implanted during his 2015 surgery at TSJH.

An expert report must identify the conduct that breached the standard of care and link that breach to the claimed injury with supporting facts.

MCH Professional Care and Kristopher Kindle, CRNA v. Yulissa Zubia, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of · filed 2019-06-06(r)(6)

Because the report fails to inform Appellants of the specific conduct challenged and does not sufficiently link Dr. Hurt’s opinion on causation to the relevant facts, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Appellants’ motion to dismiss.

An expert report must link its conclusions to relevant facts and explain how and why the alleged breach caused the injury.

Matthew Lovitt, M.D. v. Colquitt · filed 2019-07-09(r)(6)

Because the report lacks any explanation linking the expert’s conclusions to the relevant ... facts and fails to explain how and why the alleged breach proximately caused the injury, the report is conclusory and does not satisfy the requirements of chapter 74.

Section 74.351(l) allows an expert report that makes a good faith effort to explain causation and provides a basis to conclude the claim has merit.

Eduardo Tanhui, M.D. and East Texas Medical Specialties, P.A. v. Rhodes-Madison · filed 2019-09-18(l)

We conclude that Dr. de la Garza’s reports constitute a good faith effort to comply with the statutory requirements and provide a basis for the trial court to conclude Rhodes-Madison’s claims have merit.

An expert report satisfies § 74.351 if it adequately addresses at least one pleaded theory of liability.

El Paso Healthcare System, Ltd. D/B/A Las Palmas Medical Center v. Santiago Monsivais, by and Through His Next Friends C · filed 2019-10-31

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

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

McCoy v. Sandoval · filed 2020-01-30(r)(6)

Here, Dr. Ng’s report provided the causal nexus between the breach (McCoy’s manner of stating to Sandoval of a possible venereal disease) to the injury (Sandoval’s severe mental distress). We conclude Dr. Ng’s report was sufficient to explain the basis for his opinion and therefore, not conclusory.

An expert report satisfies section 74.351 when it identifies the challenged conduct and provides a basis to conclude the claim has merit.

Jorge Robles and Werner Robles, Individually and as Heirs of Zoila Robles v. Pinnacle Health Facilities XV, LP D/B/A Woo · filed 2020-02-13(r)(6)

We conclude Dr. Davey’s report meets the statutory requirements because it informs Woodridge of the specific conduct appellants have called into question, and it provides a basis for the trial court to conclude that their claims have merit.

Section 74.351(l) permits a court to sustain a challenge to an expert report when its speculative causation opinion does not make a good-faith effort to satisfy the statutory definition.

Soliz v. McAllen Hospitals, L.P. · filed 2020-03-05(l)

Thus, we conclude that the trial court could have reasonably concluded that the report did not constitute a good-faith effort to comply with the definition of an expert report.

An expert report that relies on a speculative inference to explain breach and causation is legally insufficient under Section 74.351.

Texas Health Care, P.L.L.C. and Timothy J. Jones, D.O. v. E. D., a Minor, by and Through Her Parents B.O. and D.D. as Ne · filed 2020-03-05(l)

Because Dr. Balducci’s observations and opinions concerning Dr. Jones’s alleged negligence and its consequences rely exclusively on a counterintuitive inference that Nurse Tran, a nursing historian that Dr. Balducci brands as demonstrably incompetent, would have given Dr. Jones accurate fetal heart rate information had he only asked the right questions, we agree that his amended report is both conclusory and speculative and thus that it is legally insufficient to support the Parents’ health care liability claims.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to identify the specific care expected and how the defendant failed to provide it; a list of possible failures is insufficient.

Kelsey- Seybold Medical Group, PLLC D/B/A Kelsey-Seybold Clinic and Ahmed I Sewielam, M.D. v. Cheeks · filed 2019-07-23(r)(6)

Dr. Hull’s report merely lists possible violations of the standard of care without stating that any of these possibilities actually occurred during Cheeks’s care. He does not identify any particular failure to maintain sterile procedures, nor does he identify the persons responsible for the alleged failure.

Section 74.351 permits a supplemental expert report to be considered with an initial report when deciding whether the reports make a good-faith effort to explain a health-care-liability claim.

Retirement and Nursing Center - Austin Ltd. v. Israel Joseph, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate · filed 2019-08-21(l)

On this record, the Nursing Home has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by determining that Dr. Reuben’s supplemental expert report, considered in addition to his initial report, constituted a good-faith effort to inform the Nursing Home of the basis of Israel’s health-care-liability claim and allowed the district court to assess the merit of that claim.

Section 74.351 permits multiple expert reports to be read together to determine whether they make a good faith effort to meet the expert report requirements.

Methodist Hospitals of Dallas D/B/A Methodist Health System and D/B/A Methodist Dallas Medical Center v. Jesus Nieto, Ri · filed 2019-08-22(i)

We conclude that the Nietos’ expert reports, considered together, demonstrate a good faith effort to comply with the statutory requirements.

Section 74.351 allows multiple expert reports to be read together to determine whether they adequately address the standard of care, breach, and causation.

Methodist Hospitals of Dallas D/B/A Methodist Health System and D/B/A Methodist Dallas Medical Center v. Jesus Nieto, Ri · filed 2019-11-15(i)

One expert need not address the standard of care, breach, and causation; multiple expert reports may be read together to determine whether the requirements have been met. ... We conclude that the Nietos’ expert reports, considered together, demonstrate a good faith effort to comply with the statutory requirements.

Section 74.351 permits experts to infer from silence in a patient’s medical record that care was not provided.

Rick Kline, D.D.S. and Kline Dental Implant, PLLC v. Leonard · filed 2019-12-19

Section 74.351 does not prohibit experts, as opposed to courts, from making inferences based upon silence in a patient’s medical record.

Section 74.351(r)(6) permits an expert report to satisfy the causation requirement when it makes a good-faith effort to explain how the alleged negligence caused the injury.

Kenneth C. Hancock, M.D., Noelle Cloven, M.D., and Texas Oncology, P.A. v. Arthur Rosse, Individually and as Representat · filed 2020-01-30(r)(6)

Under this standard, the trial court in this case did not abuse its discretion by concluding that Dr. Hanna’s report represented an objective, good-faith effort to comply with the definition of an expert report on the issue of causation.

An expert report makes a good faith effort under § 74.351(l) when it explains how the alleged failure to meet the standard of care caused the claimed injury.

Cynthia Boyles, Individually as Wrongful Death Beneficiary of John Boyles, and on Behalf of the Estate of John Boyles v. · filed 2020-04-30(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. Goldman’s expert report represents an objective good faith effort to inform appellees of the causal relationship between the failure to adhere to the pertinent standard of care and the injury, harm, or damages claimed.

An expert report is deficient if it does not adequately address the standard of care, breach, and causation.

Thomas Alexander Mitchell, M.D. v. Swanson · filed 2020-10-15(r)(6)

Because the reports do not adequately address the required elements, they are deficient, and the trial court abused its discretion by overruling Appellant’s motion.

Section 74.351(l) permits a court to decide a challenge to an expert report’s adequacy on written submissions without an oral hearing.

Jeffna McKinney, Individually and as of Sid Talley's Estate v. Lee Bivins Foundation D/B/A Bivins Pointe and Betty Bivin · filed 2021-06-25(l)

We find, as have other courts, that the statute’s use of the word “hearing” does not require the trial court to hold an actual hearing, attended by the parties. Instead, the trial court may decide the matter on written submission, where all parties are represented solely by the pleadings on file.

An expert report adequately addresses causation when it explains with facts how and why the alleged breach caused the injury.

Premieant Incorporated D/B/A Premieant v. Constance Snowden, as Next Friend and Legal Guardian of Annette Snowden, an In · filed 2020-03-11(r)(6)

Dr. Seignious’s report sufficiently explains “how and why” Premieant’s breach of the standard of care regarding communicating Snowden’s ... need for constant supervision was a cause-in-fact of her injury — if informed of the need for constant supervision, Arnold’s Angels’ staff would have been aware of the “eyes-on” requirement of Snowden’s care plan, would not have left her unattended with a male resident, and would have been able to intervene and prevent the sexual assault.

An expert report must identify the specific care the provider should have given and explain how the provider failed to give it; stating only that a patient should not have been injured during a transfer is insufficient.

Northwest Cypress EMS v. Guillory · filed 2020-08-06(r)(6)

Jannarone’s expert report is conclusory with respect to both the applicable standard of care and breach. He fails to specifically describe the standard of care for transferring a patient strapped to a stretcher from an ambulance to a hospital and what the North Cypress EMS EMTs failed to do that breached that standard.

An expert report satisfies the causation requirement when it explains how the alleged negligence caused the patient’s injury.

Texas Children Hospital v. Aviv Barr and Ela Barr, Individally and as Next Friends of MB, a Minor Child · filed 2020-11-19(r)(6)

Because Dr. Avellino explained how the alleged negligent conduct—TCH’s providing a recalled device with which it allowed Dr. Curry to perform M.B.’s surgery—caused the damage to the blood vessel in M.B.’s brain that resulted in the remainder of her injuries, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that the expert report satisfied the TMLA’s requirement to provide “the causal relationship between the failure and the injury.” See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 74.351(r)(6); Abshire, 563 S.W.3d at 223.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to fairly summarize the standard of care and how the provider breached it; identifying specific actions the provider should have taken can satisfy that requirement.

Baker v. Chiva Maria Chapa, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of B.Q., a Minor and Brandon Quin · filed 2020-12-10(r)(6)

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Dr. Cardwell’s expert reports provide a fair summary of the standard of care and how it was breached.

An expert report satisfies Section 74.351 if it adequately addresses the standard of care, breach, and causation for at least one pleaded theory of liability.

CSL S Longview, LLC D/B/A Hawkins Creek Assisted Living and Memory Care Community v. Paul Walling as Next Friend of Marl · filed 2021-01-12(r)(6)

We, therefore, find that Dr. Miller’s report fairly summarized the applicable standards of care, explained how Hawkins Creek failed to meet those standards, and established the causal relationship between Hawkins Creek’s failure and the injuries Walling sustained on April 10. ... Since the report satisfied these requirements to at least one of Walling’s theories of liability, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Hawkins Creek’s motion to dismiss.

An expert report must explain the causal link between an alleged breach of the standard of care and the patient’s injury.

Dr. Timothy Mooring and BSA Hospital, LLC v. Teresa Britton, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of John Britton · filed 2021-02-12(r)(6)

Therefore, we conclude that the report fails to establish the necessary causal link between the alleged failures to meet the standard of care and John’s injury. Accordingly, we sustain BSA and Dr. Mooring’s complaint on appeal that the expert report is insufficient on this basis.

An expert report adequately addresses causation when it explains how the alleged breach caused the injury and links that explanation to specific facts.

Anil Sinha M.D. v. Niebuhr · filed 2021-02-18(r)(6)

Dr. Chestovich’s amended expert report has cured the deficiencies identified in the court’s opinion in the first appeal and meets the standards applicable to causation opinions. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.351(r)(6).

Expert reports may be read together to determine whether they identify the challenged care and explain how it caused the patient’s injury.

Steward Medical Group D/B/A Permian Premier Health Services and John Lee v. Michelle Armstrong, Individually and as Repr · filed 2021-04-22(l)

Next, we address whether, when reading the two reports together, the trial court could reasonably find the reports sufficient to explain how Dr. Lee’s alleged acts and omissions violated the standards of care that applied to Bobby and caused his death. In our opinion, the trial court could reasonably find the reports of both experts informed the defendants of the conduct the plaintiffs questioned.

An expert report must explain with sufficient factual specificity how a breach of the standard of care caused the claimed injury.

McBride v. Dr. Pavan Rao Saridena · filed 2021-05-14(r)(6)

For these reasons, we find that the report fails to make a good-faith effort to factually explain with sufficient specificity how proximate cause will be proven.

An expert report must explain how the alleged breach caused the injury; a conclusion that the breach caused it is insufficient.

James Dario Koerner, D.O. v. Tanena Pickens, Individually and as Next Friend of Zanii Alize Roytal Davis · filed 2021-08-04(r)(6)

The report does not detail how taking any of the protective measures listed above would have prevented the laceration, or how the failure to implement the additional precautionary procedures caused the injury. As a result, we conclude the report simply contains Dr. Pimentel’s conclusion that the breach caused the injury.

An expert report makes a good faith showing of causation when it explains how and why the provider’s alleged negligence caused the injury, linking its conclusions to specific facts without proving the entire case.

Pradyumna Chary Mummady, M.D. v. Zulema Cabrera, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of David Cabrera · filed 2021-08-25(r)(6)

Considering Rothman’s detailed explanation of causation, we cannot say the trial court acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, or without reference to guiding rules and principles in concluding that the reports were a good faith effort to show how and why Mummady’s negligence caused David’s death.

An expert report addressing causation must explain how the facts support the expert’s conclusion; a conclusory opinion is insufficient.

Dr. Hailey Hall, M.D. and Texas Children's Hospital Pavilion for Women v. Cindi C. Davies and John Davies · filed 2020-03-31(r)(6)

Because Dr. Levin’s opinion that Davies had stage I cancer in the summer of 2015 is conclusory, his report fails to provide a reasonable basis to conclude that the delay in diagnosis caused Davies’s cancer to advance from stage I to stage IIIB.

An expert report on delayed diagnosis must explain how the facts support its causation opinion; a conclusory opinion does not provide a reasonable basis to conclude that the claim has merit.

Baylor College of Medicine v. Cindi C. Davies and John Davies · filed 2020-03-31(r)(6)

Absent an explanation why the first pathology report means that Davies had a stage I tumor, Dr. Levin’s causation opinion is conclusory, and as a matter of law, a conclusory expert opinion does not afford a reasonable basis to conclude that a claim has merit.

An expert report must factually explain how a health care provider’s breach of the standard of care caused the patient’s injury.

Melvin C. Welch, Jr. v. Christus Good Shepherd Medical Center - Marshall, Donna Alzaga, M.D., and Andrew Dickhute, M.D. · filed 2020-04-08(r)(6)

Consequently, because the report does not contain a good-faith effort to factually explain the causal relationship between Good Shepherd’s breach of any standard of care and any injury suffered by Welch, it does not satisfy the requirements of the Act.

An expert report satisfies § 74.351’s causation requirement when it explains how and why a specified lapse in care caused the patient’s injury.

Ganado Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, Inc. and TAG MGT Services, LLC v. Amalia Poulton, Individually and as Represen · filed 2020-10-01(r)(6)

We conclude that Dr. Milling’s report was sufficient to qualify as a “good-faith” effort to comply with the causation requirement under § 74.351.

Section 74.351(c) allows a claimant to serve multiple amended expert reports within the thirty-day period for curing deficiencies.

Columbia Valley Healthcare System, L.P. A/K/A Valley Regional Medical Center v. Eliseo Guerrero, Individually and on Beh · filed 2020-11-19(c)

Section 74.351(c) plainly limits the time in which a plaintiff may cure a deficient expert report, but it places no limitation on the number of expert reports that may be served within that time.

Section 74.351 allows a trial court to resolve inconsistencies among expert reports when deciding whether they make a good faith effort to meet the expert report requirement.

PIRF Operations, LLC D/B/A Accel Rehabilitation Hospital of Plano v. Kerr · filed 2021-07-02(l)

Based on Van Ness, to the extent Kerr’s expert reports are inconsistent or contradictory, the trial court was within its discretion in resolving these issues in ... Kerr’s favor.

An expert report makes a good faith effort on causation when it explains how and why the alleged breach caused the patient’s injury.

Alexandra Boske, M.D. St. David's Neurology, PLLC Gayatri Velayudhan Nair, M.D. And Austin Infectious Disease Consultant · filed 2021-07-15(r)(6)

We conclude the expert reports submitted by Rougeau demonstrate a good faith effort on the causation element of her health care liability claim and are not merely conclusory.

An expert report adequately addresses causation when it links the alleged failure to meet the standard of care to the claimed injuries and damages.

Nikko Cosmetic Surgery Center, Inc. And Anthony Nikko, MD v. Carroll · filed 2021-07-22(r)(6)

We conclude that the trial court reasonably concluded that Dr. Boutros’s report represents a good-faith effort to inform Dr. Nikko and the Center of the causal relationship between the failure to provide care in accordance with the pertinent standards of care and the injuries and damages claimed.

An expert report must explain the causal relationship between the alleged breach of the standard of care and the claimed injury; a bare assertion is insufficient.

CHCA Clear Lake, L.P. D/B/A Clear Lake Regional Medical Center v. Stewart · filed 2021-08-05(r)(6)

Here, Dr. DeBerardino’s amended expert report offers no more than a bare assertion that the purported breaches by Drs. Uzelmeier, Madain, Norman, and Moulton resulted in the later injuries Stewart sustained while skiing.

Section 74.351(c) does not prohibit a claimant from amending expert reports within the 120-day period before the trial court finds a report deficient.

Gateway Diagnostic Imaging, LLC D/B/A Gateway Diagnostic Imaging Mid-Cities. v. Krishna Verni Ratnasabapathy, Individual · filed 2021-08-30(c)

Consequently, we conclude that section 74.351(c) did not prohibit Krishna from amending her experts’ reports within the 120-day period.

An expert report makes a good faith effort when it identifies the challenged conduct and gives the court a basis to conclude the claim has merit.

Thomas Kevin Cook, MD and the Craniofacial and Plastic Surgery Center- Houston, Qijun Song, C.S.A. v. Broussard · filed 2020-04-21(l)

Because the expert reports informed the appellants of the specific conduct that was challenged and gave the trial court a basis for concluding that Broussard’s claim has merit, they represented a good faith effort to comply.

Section 74.351 permits an expert report to proceed when it identifies the challenged conduct and gives the court a basis to conclude the claim has merit.

Christus Health Southeast Texas D/B/A Christus Hospital - St. Elizabeth v. Myranda Carnahan and Alex Yates, Individually · filed 2020-12-03(l)

Dr. Wheeler’s report informs the hospital of the specific conduct complained of and provides a basis for the trial court to conclude the claims have merit, constituting a good-faith effort to comply.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to make a good-faith effort to fairly summarize the expert’s opinion on causation; the plaintiff need not prove the claim at this stage.

Mustafa Ismail Naeem M.D. v. Gurley · filed 2020-12-31(l)

The statute only requires the plaintiff to serve a report that constitute a good-faith effort to provide a fair summary of the expert’s opinions regarding causation.

An expert report is adequate when it identifies the treating provider and sufficiently explains the standard of care, breach, and causation.

Cooney v. Abdel-Rahman · filed 2021-11-04(r)(6)

We disagree with the trial court that the report is inadequate as to the applicable standard of care, causation, and breach.

An expert report is adequate under § 74.351 when it makes a good-faith effort to fairly summarize the standard of care, breach, and causation.

E.D., a Minor, by and Through Her Parents, B.O. and D.D., as Next Friends v. Texas Health Care, P.L.L.C. and Timothy J. · filed 2022-05-06(l), (r)(6)

Because Dr. Balducci’s expert report demonstrates a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of the Texas Medical Liability Act, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dr. Jones and Texas Health’s motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires a fair summary of the expert’s opinions, but does not require the expert to cite literature or another objective source to support a causation opinion.

Aveen B. Zachariah, D.O., and Austin Regional Clinic, P.A. v. Alfred J. Durtschi, Individually and as of the Estate of D · filed 2022-05-13(r)(6)

Dr. Salgado’s amended report, however, specifically addressed MRSA and MSSA, explaining that they are the same type of bacteria, staphylococcus, and nothing in the statutory language requires an expert to provide more than a “fair summary of the expert’s opinions,” such as requiring the expert to cite literature or some other objective source to support his opinions on causation.

An expert report provides a fair summary when it identifies the applicable standard of care, explains how the defendant breached it, and describes how the breach caused the claimed injury.

Dhruti B. Patel M.D. v. Michael Baker, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Deanne Baker. · filed 2022-05-24(r)(6)

Reading these reports together, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that they provide a “fair summary” of the applicable standards of care and the alleged breach. ... The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the reports provided a “fair summary” of the causal relationship at issue here.

An expert report must state the applicable standard of care and explain how the health care provider breached it.

Cassady v. Kimberly N. Haynes, D.M.D. and Haynes Dental, PLLC D/B/A Aspen Dental · filed 2022-06-01(r)(6)

We conclude that Dr. Majors did not set forth the applicable standard of care and how Dr. Haynes breached that standard of care.

An expert report must make an objective good-faith effort to explain the standard of care, its breach, and how that breach caused the claimed injury.

Regina Ann Varkey, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Anil C. Varkey, and Angelina Gina Varkey v. D · filed 2022-08-09(r)(6)

Under the applicable standard of review we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the two amended reports failed to provide an objective good-faith effort to comply with the definition of an expert report provided in section 74.351(r)(6).

Section 74.351’s good-faith requirement is satisfied when an expert report explains the causal link between the alleged breach and the injury and gives the court a basis to find the claim has merit.

Farook W. Taha, D. O. v. Stephanie Blackburn, Individually and on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of the Esta · filed 2022-11-08(l)

The report fulfills the twin purposes of section 74.351 because it contains enough information to inform Dr. Taha of the specific conduct questioned and provides a sufficient basis for the trial court to conclude that Blackburn’s claims have merit.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to link the alleged breach of care to the injury with facts; conclusory statements about causation are insufficient.

MCH Professional Care and Kristopher Kindle, CRNA v. Yulissa Zubia, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of · filed 2021-09-23(r)(6)

Without more, these conclusory statements fail to factually link the alleged breach to the injury and are therefore insufficient to satisfy the causation requirements of Section 74.351.

An expert report must identify the provider’s conduct that breached the standard of care and give the trial court a basis to conclude the claim has merit.

C-HCA, Inc D/B/A Clear Lake Regional Medical Center v. Rebekah Cornett and Kalum Cornett, Individually and as Personal R · filed 2021-10-12(r)(6)

Dr. Bull’s amended expert report does not contain sufficient information within its four corners to (1) inform the Hospital of the specific conduct called into question and (2) provide a basis for the trial court to conclude that the Cornett Parties’ claims against the Hospital have merit. ... The trial court abused its discretion in (1) determining that as to the Hospital Dr. Bull’s amended report is an objective good-faith effort to comply with the definition of an expert report provided in section 74.351(r)(6), and (2) denying the Hospital’s motion to dismiss.

An expert report must rest on some evidence and cannot rely on unsupported assumptions or conjecture to establish breach and causation.

East Texas Physicians Alliance, LLP, D/B/A Magnolia Health Systems Urgent Care Clinic, and K. McWherter, FNP v. Bradley · filed 2021-11-03(r)(6)

Kanady’s report is unsupported by facts and evidence. While an expert report at this stage of the case need not marshal all of the evidence, it should be based on some evidence. As a result, Kanady’s report is conclusory and is based on unsupported assumptions. It does no more than create conjecture of a breach of the standard of care and causation of Sutton’s injury. See Taylor, 320 S.W.3d at 575. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss.

An expert report under Section 74.351 need not rule out every possible alternative cause at this stage of the case.

Dr. Harvinder Bedi and Healthcare Specialists, LLP D/B/A Neonatal Consultants, LLP v. Rebekah Cornett and Kalum Cornett · filed 2021-11-23(r)(6)

Bull was not required to rule out all possible theories of causation at this juncture.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to identify the care expected, explain how the provider breached that standard, and connect the breach to the claimed injury.

HMIH Cedar Crest, LLC D/B/A Cedar Crest Hospital & RTC v. Christina Buentello, Individually and as Next Friend of D.B.J. · filed 2022-03-04(r)(6)

We reverse the trial court’s order denying HMIH Cedar Crest, LLC d/b/a Cedar Crest Hospital & RTC’s Objections to Chapter 74 Expert Report of Daniel Duhigg, DO, MBA, because we agree that the trial court abused its discretion when it found the expert report complied with statutory requirements for expert reports under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 74.351.

An expert report addressing assaults in a medical setting can satisfy Section 74.351 by explaining what the providers should have done to prevent the assaults and how their failures caused the patients’ injuries.

Matt E. Hipke M.D. and Matt E. Hipke, M.D., PLLC D/B/A Adolescent Care Team v. Jane Doe No. 1, as Parent and Next Friend · filed 2022-05-31(r)(6)

Because Dr. Miller’s reports adequately address the elements of standard of care, breach, and causation, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding the reports to be adequate under Section 74.351 and denying Appellants’ motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to give a fair summary of the standard of care, its breach, and how the breach caused the claimed injury.

Apollo Healthcare at Willowbrook, LLC, D/B/A the Medical Resort at Willowbrook, Muhammad Hanif, M.D, Nabil Khoury, AShiq · filed 2022-07-14(r)(6)

Keeping in mind that expert reports are a preliminary method to show a plaintiff has a viable cause of action that is not frivolous or without expert support, we hold that Dr. Lechin’s amended expert report complied with section 74.351’s standard of care, breach, and causation requirements and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant Appellants’ motions to dismiss.

Section 74.351 permits an expert report to proceed when it adequately identifies the applicable standard of care and alleged breaches in a good-faith summary.

Almendra Fernandez, BS IONM, T-Med, L.P. D/B/aMonitoring Concepts And T-Med, L.P. v. Gonzales · filed 2022-08-26(l), (r)(6)

In all, we hold that the trial court was within its discretion to decide that Stokes’s and Dr. Skinner’s reports provide sufficient information about the standard of care applicable to Fernandez and her alleged breaches and so represent a good-faith effort at a fair summary. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.351(l), (r)(6); E.D. ex rel. B.O., 644 S.W.3d at 662, 664.

An expert report must fairly summarize the defendant’s standard of care, how the care fell short, and how that failure caused the injury.

Dr. Robert L. Hogue, M.D. and Brownwood Regional Medical Center v. Brandon Steward and Courtney Steward · filed 2022-11-03(r)(6)

An expert report must provide a fair summary of the expert’s opinions regarding the applicable standard of care, the manner in which the care rendered failed to meet that standard, and the causal relationship between the failure to meet the standard of care and the injury suffered. ... Even if we consider Dr. Baker’s first and second supplemental reports alongside his initial report, they still fail to cross the threshold of a good faith attempt at an expert report with respect to the applicable standard of care.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to make a good-faith effort to fairly summarize how the provider’s alleged breach caused the claimed injury.

Harold David Wills, D.O. v. Mendoza · filed 2022-11-10(l), (r)(6)

After reviewing Dr. Cascone’s reports as a whole, we conclude the trial court reasonably could have determined Dr. Cascone’s reports constituted a good-faith effort to provide a fair summary of Dr. Cascone’s opinion regarding how Dr. Wills’ alleged breaches of the applicable standard of care caused Mendoza’s injuries.

Section 74.351 does not require an expert report to address activities described in an affidavit first filed with a motion to dismiss.

Deborah Rose Eezzuduemhoi, PLLC D/B/A Southeast Texas Opthalmology the Glaucoma Center and Deborah Rose Eezzuduemhoi v. · filed 2022-11-17

Any alleged deficiency in failing to address certain activities described in Billie’s affidavit may be the subject of further development in discovery or the subject of other pretrial motions, but it is not instructive at this stage of the litigation because the failure to address Billie’s affidavit does not render Dr. Bradley’s expert report deficient under section 74.351.

Section 74.351 does not require an expert report to prove causation to the standard required at trial.

Pamela Kalka and Robert Kalka v. Christopher N. Wattigny M.D. and ESS of Nacogdoches, LLC · filed 2021-12-21(r)(6)

Furthermore, the fact that Dr. Keyrouz’s report does not satisfy the standard of proof for causation at trial does not render it inadequate during this stage of the litigation.

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

Village Green Alzheimer's Care Home, LLC D/B/A/ Village Green Alzheimer's Care Home v. Norma Graves by and Through James · filed 2021-12-23(a)

We conclude that this is not a health care liability claim and thus affirm the trial court’s order denying Village Green’s motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to fairly summarize how the provider’s alleged breach caused the claimed injury.

Magnolia Place Health Care, L.L.C. v. Qulia Jackson, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Gene E · filed 2021-12-30(r)(6)

We conclude that Dr. Rushing’s explanation provides a sufficient preliminary link between the nurses’ alleged breach of the standard of care at Magnolia and Robinson’s development of a severe pressure ulcer and sepsis.

An expert report must explain the causal relationship between the alleged breach of care and the claimed injury or death; a report that omits causation is inadequate.

Brian Northcutt, M.D. v. Ronnie C. Stephens and Ricky Stephens · filed 2022-01-06(r)(6)

Because Dr. Womack’s report was inadequate regarding the element of causation, the trial court abused its discretion in overruling Dr. Northcutt’s Motion to Dismiss.

An expert report adequately addresses causation when it explains how the alleged breach caused the patient’s injury.

North Cypress Medical Center Operating Company, Ltd., D/B/A North Cypress Medical Center and Dr. Ozochukwu Odili v. Rand · filed 2022-01-13(r)(6)

After reviewing Dr. Srinivasan’s amended report, we conclude that the trial court could have reasonably determined that the amended expert report represented a good-faith effort to summarize the causal relationship between Dr. Odili’s failure to meet the applicable standard of care and White’s injury.

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

Richard Lee Williams, P.A. v. Donna Roland and Darlene Peninger, Both Individually and as Representatives on Behalf of t · filed 2022-06-21(r)(6)

We conclude Dr. Warshawsky’s explanations provide a straightforward link between Williams’s alleged breach of the standard of care and Bolinger’s death.

An expert report satisfies the causation requirement when it explains how and why the alleged negligence caused the injury and links that conclusion to specific facts.

North Houston TRMC, LLC D/B/A HCA Houston Healthcare Tomball v. Randi Poteet, Rhonda Poteet, and Reba Poteet as Wrongful · filed 2022-07-07(r)(6)

We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its implicit finding that Dr. Cramer’s causation opinions satisfied an objective good-faith effort complying with section 74.351(r)(6)'s definition of an expert report.