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

An expert report satisfies Section 74.351’s standard-of-care requirement when it identifies specific actions the health care provider should have taken differently.

Jacksboro Nursing Operations, LLC v. Nadine Norman, Individually, as the Representative of the Estate of Ashley Norman, · filed 2022-03-24(r)(6)

Having reviewed the Second Smith Report, we conclude that it is sufficient with respect to its discussion of FCNR’s breach of the standard of care because it provides specific information about what FCNR should have done differently.

Section 74.351(l) governs challenges to an expert report’s adequacy, but does not govern whether a report discloses privileged information.

In Re: David Edward Saucedo, II and Mariana Terrazas Saucedo, Individually and on Behalf of I. S., a Minor Child v. the · filed 2023-04-24(l)

Plainly, on this record, no finding or ruling was requested or made on the adequacy of the expert reports pursuant to the requirements imposed by § 74.351 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Thus, we conclude that § 74.351 was not applicable to any of the proceedings at issue here.

An expert report provides a fair summary when it identifies the applicable standard of care, specific breaches, and a causal link to the claimed injuries.

Lucia Nazarian, Individually, and as Proposed Administrator of the Estate of Kevork Nazarian v. Remarkable Healthcare of · filed 2023-05-11(r)(6)

Because Nurse Kosar’s and Dr. Dupee’s reports provided a fair summary of the applicable standard of care, what specific conduct failed to meet this standard, and the causal relationship between the failures and the injuries alleged, see id. § 74.351(l), (r)(6), the trial court abused its discretion by rejecting the reports as inadequate and dismissing Nazarian’s case.

An expert report can adequately identify a standard of care even when the defendant disputes that the alleged duty exists.

Tammy Roe, as the of the Estate of Michael Kevin Roe v. El-Cid Organo Tajon, M.D. and Texas Health Harris Methodist Hosp · filed 2023-12-14(l)

While the Hospital may disagree that both it and Dr. Tajon had independent duties to ensure that accurate medication reconciliation occurred, Dr. Gottesman opined that such independent duties existed, and that is sufficient for purposes of the expert-report requirement.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to support its opinions on breach of the standard of care and causation with facts.

Woodland Nursing Operations, LLC F/D/B/A Eastland Nursing & Rehabilitation and Trinity Healthcare, LLC v. Misty Vaughn, · filed 2022-12-08(r)(6)

Because Dr. Davis’s report contained the facts supporting his opinions on breaches of the standard of care and causation, its form met the requirements for an expert report specified in Section 74.351(r)(6) of the MLA.

An expert report must provide a sufficient causation opinion for at least one pleaded liability theory to show that the claim has merit.

Tyler OPS LTC., Inc., D/B/A Petal Hill Nursing & Rehabilitation v. Cornelius Butler, Individually and on Behalf of the E · filed 2023-01-31(r)(6)

Because the only pleaded liability theory addressed in Dr. Saba’s expert report is that of the hand injury, and Dr. Saba’s expert report and curriculum vitae fail to provide a sufficient causation opinion regarding the hand injury or show he is qualified to render such an opinion, we conclude the report and curriculum vitae provide no basis for the trial court to conclude that any pleaded liability theory has merit.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to identify the standard of care, explain how it was breached, and link the breach to the claimed injury.

Ramarao Denduluri, M.D. and Houston Urology Parters v. Maria Nancy Bravo, Individually and as Representaive of the Estat · filed 2023-06-15(r)(6)

Because the reports sufficiently identify the applicable standard of care and link Dr. Denduluri’s alleged breaches with Quintero’s injury, we overrule appellants’ claims that the expert reports were conclusory and insufficient.

An expert report can satisfy the fair-summary requirement without every detail if it identifies the challenged conduct and gives the court a basis to conclude that the claim has merit.

McKinney Podiatric Associates, P.A., Coastal Foot & Ankle Associates, P.A., and Hina Shafqat Hassan, DPM v. Ja · filed 2024-01-25(r)(6)

Although Short could certainly have provided more details, the trial court acted within its discretion in concluding that the report provided a “fair summary” of Short’s opinions and demonstrated a “good-faith effort” to inform the defendant of the specific conduct called into question and provide a basis for the trial court to conclude that the claims have merit.

An expert report adequately addresses causation when it links specific alleged breaches of the standard of care to the patient's injury and supports that link with sufficient facts.

Michael Todd Kosar, Individually as Independent Administrator for the Estate of Betty Kosar, Crisantos G. Lopez Geneviev · filed 2024-04-16(r)(6)

As quoted above, albeit in brief fashion, Dr. Bedolla linked Kingwood’s listed specific breaches of the standard of care with Kosar’s rapidly declining condition, which in turn led to her death from septic shock. Dr. Bedolla’s opinion set forth sufficient facts to reach this conclusion and therefore his causation opinion was not conclusory.

Section 74.351(r)(6) permits an expert report that, read as a whole, fairly explains the standard of care, how it was breached, and how the breach caused the patient’s harm.

Gary Horndeski M.D. v. Price · filed 2024-04-16(r)(6)

Liberally construing Dr. Lapuerta’s Amended Report in Price’s favor and bearing in mind that Section 74.351’s limited purpose is to dispose of frivolous claims, we conclude the trial court reasonably could have determined that Dr. Lapuerta’s Amended Report represented a good-faith effort to inform Dr. Horndeski of the applicable standard of care and manner in which Dr. Horndeski allegedly breached that standard, as required by Section 74.351(r)(6). ... When viewed in its entirety and liberally construed in favor of Price, Dr. Lapuerta’s Amended Report constitutes a good faith effort to provide Dr. Horndeski with Dr. Lapuerta’s opinions regarding the causal relationship between Dr. Horndeski’s breaches of the standard of care and Price’s harm.

An expert report must explain how and why the alleged breach caused an injury; conclusory causation opinions are insufficient.

Bradley K. Weiner M.D. v. Lashford · filed 2023-07-27(r)(6)

The expert’s conclusions regarding causation are mere ipse dixit and, thus, insufficient to satisfy the expert report requirement for Chapter 74.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to explain how the provider’s alleged breach caused the claimed injury; a report that does not identify harm from a delayed examination is inadequate.

Dr. Jamie Singley DDS Dentures & Implant Solutions Affordable Dentures & Implants, Fort Worth P.A. Affordable Dentures & · filed 2023-08-31(r)(6)

The reports do not “represent an objective good faith effort” to summarize “the causal relationship”; the trial court abused its discretion by concluding otherwise and by denying Dr. Singley’s motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351 allows expert reports to be considered together and requires a fair summary of the applicable standard of care and how the provider breached it; missing details do not necessarily make the reports inadequate.

Jesse Uriegas, as Guardian of Brandon Uriegas, an Incapacitated Person v. Kenmar Residential Hcs Services, Inc. · filed 2023-09-15(l)

While the reports lack specifics in some instances, they provide a fair summary of the standard of care for the claim of failure to appropriately monitor Uriegas after his two falls.

Section 74.351(a)’s deadline for serving expert reports resumes when a claimant refiles a nonsuited health care liability claim; requesting service by mail does not itself complete service.

Regina Ann Varkey, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Anil C. Varkey, and Agelina Gina Varkey v. Me · filed 2023-10-31(a)

Even assuming that the clerk’s office (a) sent the certified mail to the correct address for the Hospital and (b) that expert reports were included in the package of materials mailed to the Hospital, service was still not “completed” by Feb. 17.

Section 74.351(i) permits a claimant to use separate expert reports for different issues, so an expert addressing causation need not also be qualified to address the standard of care when other qualified experts cover it.

Mendi Ramsay and Rochelle Alvarado v. Holly Ferguson, Individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Cynt · filed 2024-02-23(i)

However, given that Bearce and James are qualified to speak to the applicable standards of care in this case, it is not necessary for this Court to determine whether Dr. Uribe is also qualified to opine on those matters. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 74.351(i) (TMLA allows plaintiff to use multiple expert reports to satisfy any of Act’s requirements).

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

Dr. Nolan Perez and Gastroenterology Consultants of South Texas, PLLC v. Elizabeth Hanawa and Ben Hanawa · filed 2024-02-29(l)

Because the expert report’s assessment of causation is merely conclusory and altogether fails to address foreseeability, the report does not constitute a good faith effort and the trial court abused its discretion by denying appellants’ motion.

An expert report satisfies the causation requirement when it links the alleged breach to the injury with enough facts to constitute a good-faith effort.

Carlos Garcia-Cantu, M.D. v. Gonzalez · filed 2024-04-18(r)(6)

Because Simon’s expert report adequately links his conclusions with the underlying facts, the trial court could have reasonably concluded that it constitutes an objective, good-faith effort to provide a fair summary of his opinions with respect to the causal relationship between Cantu’s alleged breaches and Gonzalez’s injury.

An expert report can adequately explain causation without specifying the alternative treatment a provider would have given, if it connects the alleged breach to the patient’s injury and gives the claim a factual basis.

David Zinsmeister & Marlene Zinsmeister v. Houston Methodist Hospital · filed 2024-05-16(r)(6)

While Dr. Murray’s expert report does not specifically state what different treatment a hospitalist would have provided David as opposed to the treatment provided by David’s surgeon, it does provide a fair summary of how proximate cause is going to be proven, provide a basis for the trial court to conclude that appellants’ claims have merit, and inform Methodist Hospital of the conduct appellants call into question.

An expert report provides a sufficient summary of causation when it explains how the provider’s alleged breaches led to the injury.

Shree Shrestha, M.D. and HMIH Cedar Crest, LLC D/B/A Cedar Crest Hospital & RTC v. Claudia Johnson, Individually and as · filed 2024-04-30(r)(6)

Guided by Abshire, we conclude that the trial court was within its discretion to decide that Dr. Grados’s report provides sufficient information about causation and so represents a good-faith effort at a fair summary. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.351(l), (r)(6); Abshire, 563 S.W.3d at 223–25.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to explain the standard of care, its breach, and how the breach caused the alleged injury, with enough detail to connect the expert’s conclusions to specific facts.

Raouf Hanna, DDS and Hanna Dental Implants, LLLP v. Turner · filed 2024-07-02

To satisfy the Texas Medical Liability Act’s expert-report requirement with respect to causation, the expert need only explain “how and why” a particular breach of the standard of care caused the injury, harm, or damages and link his explanation to specific facts.

An expert report must explain the applicable standard of care and how the provider breached it; conclusory statements are insufficient.

Gale v. Rizwan Chaudhry, Advanced Houston Surgical, PLLC and Hillcroft Medical Clinic Association, P.A. · filed 2024-08-08(r)(6)

The expert report is conclusory and vague as to both the standard of care and breach. The report does not provide sufficient information about what Dr. Chaudhry did or failed to do during the procedure.

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

Texas Children's Hospital v. Tarshell Scott, Individually and as Surviving Parent and Representative as a Surviving Pare · filed 2025-06-26(l)

We conclude that the expert report informed TCH of the specific conduct Scott has called into question and provided a basis for the trial court to conclude that the claims have merit. See Walker, 703 S.W.3d at 342. We therefore hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to dismiss.

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

Austin Behavioral Hospital, LLC Operating as Cross Creek Hospital and Subject to It's Previously Filed Special Appearanc · filed 2025-08-21(r)(6)

We therefore conclude that the expert report “provides a fair summary of the expert’s opinions” regarding “applicable standards of care, the manner in which the care rendered by the physician or health care provider failed to meet the standards, and the causal relationship between that failure and the injury, harm, or damages claimed.” See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 74.351(r)(6).

An expert report must explain how and why the alleged breach caused the claimed injury; a conclusory assertion is insufficient.

Martin v. Methodist Health Centers D/B/A Houston Methodist Willobrook and Diego C. Marines Copado, M.D. · filed 2024-07-16(r)(6)

Cusack’s opinions on causation read as conclusory statements. Although Cusack indicated the failure to detect the cancer resulted in continued growth of the tumor, he failed to explain what perforation was or how early detection could have prevented the perforation and the resulting complications; he simply asserts that it would have. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the objections.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to explain how the alleged breach caused the injury; a conclusory causation opinion is deficient.

Cornelius Butler, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Betty Butler v. Tyler OPS LTC., Inc. D/B/A Petal Hill Nurs · filed 2024-07-24(r)(6)

Because the only pleaded liability theory addressed in Saba’s amended report concerns Betty’s hand injury, and Saba’s amended report did not explain how earlier diagnosis could have prevented Betty’s hand injury or what effective treatments would have been available, Saba’s amended report is conclusory as to causation and therefore deficient.

Section 74.351(r)(6) permits a concise causation opinion when the expert report links a provider’s conduct to delayed treatment and foreseeable harm.

ARUP Laboratories, Inc. v. James H. Crawford & Rita Annette Crawford · filed 2024-08-07(r)(6)

Thus, Dr. Miller’s report provides a viable opinion that ARUP’s conduct was a substantial factor in James’s infection lasting those several months from the time of ARUP’s critical laboratory finding until proper treatment began. His report further provides a viable opinion that, but for ARUP’s failure to properly communicate the results of the test, James’s proper treatment would have begun earlier, and it is foreseeable that the failure to communicate properly the results of the test would lead to the critical finding being overlooked.

An expert report adequately addresses causation when it makes a good-faith effort to explain how the alleged breach caused the claimant’s injuries.

Gary Horndeski M.D. v. George · filed 2025-10-16(l)

The report adequately articulates Dr. Schusterman’s opinions regarding causation for these purposes: it explains “how and why” Dr. Horndeski’s alleged breaches led to George’s injuries.

An expert report satisfies Section 74.351 if it adequately addresses one theory of liability.

Daniel Walker and Kristen Walker v. Baptist St. Anthony's Hospital and Rhodesia Castillo, M.D. · filed 2024-12-13(l), (r)(6)

Because an expert report need only address one theory of liability to meet the Texas Medical Liability Act’s requirements, we do not discuss any other theories mentioned in the experts’ reports.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to fairly summarize the applicable standard of care, the alleged breach, and how that breach caused the claimed injury.

Jared Bush, Jr. v. Columbia Medical Center of Arlington Subsidiary, L.P. D/B/A Medical City Arlington and Hca Inc. · filed 2025-05-23(r)(6)

Rather, we need only answer whether Dr. Patterson’s amended expert report provides a fair summary of his opinions regarding the applicable standard of care, the Hospital’s alleged failure to meet that standard, and the causal relationship between that alleged failure and Williams-Bush’s death. We conclude that it did, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the Hospital’s objections to the amended report and denying the Hospital’s motion to dismiss.

Dental records containing no expert opinion on the standard of care, breach, or causation do not satisfy Section 74.351’s expert report requirement.

Britton v. Fort Worth Dental Institute, PLLC, and Fast New Smiles of Fort Worth, LLC · filed 2025-11-06(r)(6)

We thus conclude that Britton’s Exhibit L does not constitute a “good faith effort” to comply with the statutory requirements in Section 74.351 and that Almasri and Azzouz were not served with an expert report.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to explain how and why the alleged breach caused the injury; words such as “would have likely” do not make a report deficient when it provides that explanation.

CHI St. Luke's Community Health Services – the Woodlands Hospital v. Smith · filed 2025-08-14(r)(6)

The Act requires an expert report to address causation—“how and why” the alleged negligence caused the injury in question. ... Because Dr. Pisula explains the “how and why” Dr. Luu’s breach of the standard of care caused Smith’s injury, his use of terms “los[s] [of] opportunity” and “would have likely” do not render the report deficient.

An expert report may infer a breach of the standard of care from a patient’s medical history and a lack of documented care.

Hee-Sook Cheon, NP v. Scott Knowles, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Carolyn Marie Knowles · filed 2026-05-28(r)(6)

Section 74.351 does not prohibit experts from making inferences based on medical history and lack of documented care.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to address the standard of care applicable to the defendant; a report addressing only a different professional role may count as no report and require dismissal without an opportunity to cure.

Powell v. Sanchez · filed 2026-06-25

“Although the distinction between ‘no report’ and a deficient-but-potentially curable report can be elusive,” we conclude that the expert report as to Cruz is “no report,” as it does not address an applicable standard of care, such that a dismissal of the actions against him was required without an opportunity to cure the report.

Section 74.351(l) permits an expert report that makes a good faith effort to explain how the alleged breach caused the claimed injury.

Methodist Health Centers and the Methodist Hospital v. MacKender · filed 2025-12-02(l)

Under the applicable good faith standard for expert reports, Dr. Gavin’s amended report adequately explains how the failure to remove Mackender’s IV was a substantial factor in bringing about Mackender’s injuries.

An expert report adequately explains a breach of the standard of care when it links the expert’s conclusion to the facts in the report.

Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio, Ltd., L.L.P. v. Belden · filed 2014-10-29(r)(6)

We conclude Nurse McCullough’s report is neither speculative nor conclusory regarding Methodist’s breach of the standard of care. Nurse McCullough links her conclusion that Gonzalez and Sheffield failed to arrive at W.B.’s bedside within thirty minutes to the factual timeline provided in her report.

Section 74.351(a)'s expert report requirement does not apply to a bill of review seeking to set aside the dismissal of a health care liability claim filed before Chapter 74 took effect.

Christus Health Southeast Texas v. Griffin · filed 2005-10-20(a)

Because the statutory prerequisites of both article 4590i and Chapter 74 are inapplicable to the bill of review process, we proceed with determining whether our appellate jurisdiction was invoked by St. Mary.

Section 74.351(a)'s 120-day deadline for serving an expert report starts when a claimant first files a particular health care liability claim and does not restart when the claimant nonsuits and refiles that claim.

Mokkala v. Mead · filed 2005-11-03(a)

Thus, under the plain language of section 74.351(a), the 120-day period is triggered on the date the claimant files a petition alleging a particular health care liability claim, not the date she files another lawsuit asserting that same claim.

Section 74.351(a)'s 120-day expert report deadline begins when a health care liability claim is first filed; nonsuiting and refiling the claim does not restart it.

Empowerment Options, Inc. and Rona Rigsby v. Kathy Easley, Individually and as Guardian of Donald Earl Williams, an Inco · filed 2006-11-09(a)

Under the plain language of section 74.351(a), the 120-day period begins on the date the claimant files a healthcare liability claim, not the date the claimant files another lawsuit asserting the same claim.

Section 74.351(a)'s 120-day deadline for serving an expert report runs from the filing of the original petition, even if that petition is unsigned and a signed amendment follows.

Floriberto Rubio, Sr. v. Higuchi · filed 2006-12-06(a)

Accordingly, Rubio was required to file his expert report within 120 days of filing his original petition. Because he failed to timely file the expert report, the trial court properly dismissed the underlying case.

Under the former version of section 74.351(a), curing a claimant's representative's lack of capacity does not restart the 120-day expert-report deadline.

Intracare Hospital North and Terry Bauske v. Cindy Campbell, Individually and A/N/F of Frank Brown · filed 2007-03-29(a)

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

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal when a claimant fails to serve an expert report within the statutory deadline; a court cannot grant an equitable extension because service of process was delayed.

Stanton Clark Packard, M.D. v. Maurice Robert Miller, Jr. · filed 2007-05-31(b)

Because the trial court did not have the authority to extend the time to file the required expert report, it failed to follow clear precedential authority in the interpretation and application of § 74.351(b). Accordingly, it abused its discretion in denying Dr. Packard’s motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351(a)'s 120-day deadline for serving an expert report is not extended merely because the defendant has not yet been served with process.

Prince Joseph Bohannon v. Winston · filed 2007-10-04(a)

We hold that the trial court did not err in failing to grant an extension of time for complying with Section 74.351(a).

An abatement for failure to provide the required medical authorization does not extend the deadline to serve an expert report under section 74.351.

Shaikh v. Plaza Medical Center of Fort Worth · filed 2007-11-01(a)

We hold that the trial court’s abatement of this case for failure to give the required notice under section 74.052 did not extend the time for appellant to serve her expert report under section 74.351.

Section 74.351(a)'s 120-day expert-report deadline runs from the first health care liability suit when a claimant nonsuits and refiles a claim involving the same facts and issues.

Outpatient Center for Interventional Pain Management, P.A. v. Ester Garza · filed 2008-06-26(a)

Having determined that Garza's first lawsuit against Outpatient Center was a health care liability claim, and because her second lawsuit asserts a health care liability claim involving the same set of facts and issues, Garza's expert report was due within 120 days of the date she filed the first lawsuit.

Section 74.351(a) allows an agreed extension of the expert-report deadline; whether an agreed abatement order provides one can depend on the basis for the order.

John M. Lim, M.D. v. West · filed 2008-10-23(a)

The trial court abated the case "in accordance with Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code." Accordingly, that abatement order could refer to the section 74.052(a) abatement, the section 74.351(a) agreed extension of time, or both.

Section 74.351(a)’s 120-day expert report deadline runs from the first filing of a health care liability claim and does not restart when the plaintiff nonsuits and refiles the same claim.

Betty White, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Warren White v. Baylor All Saints Medical Cent · filed 2009-05-13(a)

The pivotal issue before us is whether the 120-day period within which one prosecuting a health care liability claim has to serve an expert’s report starts anew each time the action is non-suited and later re-filed. White also asks us to consider whether other theories, which include tolling or the relation-back doctrine, render the report timely. Answering no, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the cause.

Section 74.351 permits an extension by written agreement or to cure a timely served expert report's deficiencies.

Badiga v. Lopez · filed 2009-01-09(c)

Except as noted below, in the absence of a timely report, the trial court cannot properly grant an extension under section 74.351. The trial court may grant an extension in only two circumstances: (1) by written agreement of the parties or (2) to allow a claimant to cure a report's deficiencies.

A trial court may grant a thirty-day extension to cure a timely served deficient expert report, and that decision is not subject to interlocutory appeal even when the court also denies a motion to dismiss.

Tyler Scoresby, M.D. and Yadranko Ducic, M.D. v. Catarino Santillan, Individually and as Next Friend of Samuel Santillan · filed 2009-04-30(c)

If a deficient report is served and the trial court grants a thirty-day extension, that decision—even if coupled with the denial of a motion to dismiss—is not subject to appellate review.

Section 74.351(a) requires objections to an expert report within 21 days after service; serving the report by both fax and hand delivery on the same day does not add three days to that deadline.

Amaya v. Andres S. Enriquez, M.D., Individually and D/B/A Franklin Medical Center · filed 2009-07-31(a)

The critical issue is whether Dr. Enriquez is entitled to have the 21-day period extended by three days because Amaya served him by both fax and personal delivery. ... But when a party is served by both fax and hand-delivery on the same day, there is no logical reason to give the party an additional three days.

Section 74.351(a)’s 120-day period for serving an expert report is tolled from when a defendant fails to answer on time until the defendant answers.

Michael Morris, M.D.'s v. Umberson · filed 2009-11-05(a)

We hold that the statutory period for Umberson to serve her expert report on Dr. Morris was tolled until May 7, 2009, the date Dr. Morris answered.

Section 74.351(a) requires an expert report to be served within 120 days after the original petition is filed; failure to meet that deadline requires dismissal on the affected party's motion.

S. Murthy Badiga, M.D. v. Lopez · filed 2009-12-17(a)

Section 74.351(a) of the civil practice and remedies code provides that an expert report must be served "not later than the 120th day after the date the original petition was filed." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(a) (Vernon Supp. 2009). If the claimant does not serve a report within 120 days, the statute provides that the trial court "shall" enter an order granting the affected party's motion to dismiss the claim. Id .; Poland v. Grigore , 249 S.W.3d 607, 614 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.). Both parties agree that Lopez's expert report was served after the 120-day period had expired. Accordingly, the trial court erred by not granting Badiga's motion.

Section 74.351(a)'s 120-day deadline for serving an expert report is not tolled or extended by an abatement caused by failure to provide the required medical authorization.

Gulf Coast Medical Center, LLC v. Jacqueline Temple · filed 2010-01-21(a)

Assuming, without deciding, that (1) section 74.052 imposes an abatement automatically upon the plaintiff's failure to comply with the authorization requirement, and (2) such an abatement applies to all parties to the suit, we nevertheless conclude that such an abatement does not serve to toll or extend the 120-day expert report deadline.

Efforts to obtain medical records do not toll or extend section 74.351's 120-day expert report deadline.

Garza v. Javier A. Saenz, M.D., Improperly Named as Javier A. Saenz, D/B/A Javier A. Saenz, M.D., P.A., and F/K/ · filed 2010-03-04(a)

A claimant's efforts to obtain medical records under section 74.051 do not serve to toll or extend the expert report deadline.

Section 74.351(a)'s 120-day expert-report deadline begins when the first petition naming the defendant physician or health care provider is filed.

Padre Behavioral Health System, LLC v. Chaney · filed 2010-03-11(a)

We agree with the San Antonio Court of Appeals' reasoning in Osonma that the 120-day period is triggered by the first-filed petition naming the defendant physician or health care provider. Accordingly, we hold that the 120-day period in the case at bar began to run when appellants were first named as defendants on January 8, 2009; therefore, appellees' April 16, 2009 service of their expert reports on appellants was timely.

Section 74.351(a) permits parties to extend the 120-day expert report deadline by written agreement, but an agreed order must explicitly identify that deadline and the parties’ intent to extend it.

Spectrum Healthcare Resources, Inc. v. McDaniel · filed 2010-03-12(a)

We hold that when parties use an agreed order to extend the section 74.351 threshold expert report deadline, the order must explicitly indicate the parties' intention to extend the deadline and reference that specific deadline. Otherwise, the agreed order is ineffective to extend the section 74.351 deadline.

Section 74.351(a)’s 120-day deadline for serving an expert report begins when a petition first asserts a health care liability claim against the particular defendant.

Daniel Stroud, M.D. v. Jerry Grubb, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Lonnie Grubb · filed 2010-05-13(a)

We hold that the 120-day time period to serve a health care liability defendant with an expert report is triggered when the claimant first asserts a health care liability claim against that defendant in a petition.

Section 74.351(a) requires a claimant to serve each defendant with an expert report within 120 days of filing the original petition; Rule 21a does not extend that deadline.

Redwine v. Valerie K. Wright, M.D. and Robert M. Wright, M.D · filed 2010-12-16(a)

Rule 21a will only extend a deadline if the prescribed period is triggered by “the service of a notice or other paper.” In this case, the prescribed period is determined by statute, not the independent receipt of some other document.

Section 74.351(a)’s 120-day expert-report deadline begins with the first petition asserting a health-care liability claim against a defendant and does not restart when the claimant nonsuits and refiles the claim.

State v. Smith · filed 2010-12-22(a)

Applying those principles here, it is clear that the original or first petition in which Baker asserted health-care liability claims against Davis was the petition filed in the “first suit” on June 18, 2009. Consequently, Baker’s expert report, filed November 12, 2009, was untimely.

The 120-day expert-report deadline begins with the first petition asserting a health-care liability claim against a defendant; nonsuiting and refiling the claim does not restart it.

Donald R. Davis, M.D. v. Alysa Baker · filed 2010-12-22(a)

Applying those principles here, it is clear that the original or first petition in which Baker asserted health-care liability claims against Davis was the petition filed in the "first suit" on June 18, 2009. Consequently, Baker's expert report, filed November 12, 2009, was untimely.

Section 74.351 requires dismissal when a claimant misses the 120-day expert-report deadline without a written extension agreement; an alleged failure to provide complete medical records did not extend the deadline in this case.

White v. Dr. Michael J. Willenborg, M.D. and Columbia Medical Center of Lewisville Subsidiary, L.P. A/K/A Lewisv · filed 2011-02-24(b), (c)

Based on the appellate record before us and based on the lack of a written agreement by the parties extending the deadline for White to serve an expert report, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying White’s motion for an extension of time to serve an expert report and that Appellees’ alleged failure in this particular case to provide a complete and unaltered copy of White’s medical records to White did not entitle him to additional time to serve an expert report; we affirm the trial court’s orders granting Appellees’ motions to dismiss.

Section 74.351 requires service of an expert report on each party within 120 days and has no good-faith exception to that deadline.

Fernando J. Otero, M.D., Orestes Molina, M.D., and Heriberto Rodriguez-Ayala, M.D. v. Alonzo · filed 2011-03-03(a)

First, the requirement in section 74.351 that a plaintiff serve her expert report on each party within 120 days is not subject to any good-faith exception.

Nonsuiting and refiling the same healthcare liability claims against the same provider does not restart the 120-day deadline to serve an expert report and curriculum vitae.

Town Hall Estates - Arlington, Inc. v. Cannon · filed 2010-12-16(a)

We hold that a claimant who nonsuits healthcare liability claims asserted against a particular healthcare provider and subsequently refiles the same healthcare liability claims against the same healthcare provider does not restart the 120-day time period for the service of an expert report and a curriculum vitae on that healthcare provider.

Section 74.351(a) requires a claimant to serve an expert report within 120 days after filing the first petition naming the defendant; later service of process does not restart the deadline.

Carroll v. Humsi · filed 2011-04-13(a)

Applying the statute as currently written, we hold that Carroll was required to serve Humsi or her counsel with Patman’s report within 120 days of the date Carroll filed her amended petition naming Humsi as a defendant, October 30, 2007, making her deadline February 27, 2008.

Nonsuiting a health-care liability claim does not toll Section 74.351(a)’s 120-day deadline for serving an expert report.

Estate of Richard Earl Allen v. Scott & White Clinic · filed 2011-07-22(a)

For these reasons, we conclude that the Estate’s decision to nonsuit Scott & White did not toll the passage of the 120-day deadline.

Section 74.351(a) starts the 120-day expert report deadline when the original petition is filed; difficulty serving the defendant does not restart it.

David Gajewski, M. D. v. Jackson · filed 2011-10-11(a)

Absent circumstances specifically identified by the statute, Section 74.351 requires a medical negligence claimant to provide the defendant healthcare provider with a medical expert report no later than the 120th day after the filing of the original petition.

Section 74.351(a)’s 120-day expert report deadline for a governmental unit substituted for its employee begins when the plaintiff files a petition naming the unit as a defendant.

the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston v. Cheatham · filed 2011-11-03(a)

Accordingly, we hold that the 120-day time period for serving an expert report on a governmental unit substituted for an employee under section 101.106(f) begins on the date that the plaintiff files a petition naming the governmental unit as a defendant.

Section 74.351(a)’s expert report deadline is tolled when a defendant fails to answer on time; if a default judgment is entered, tolling continues until the judgment is set aside and the defendant files an answer.

Garza v. Richard Carlson, M. D. · filed 2012-12-06(a)

That is, in cases where a default judgment has been rendered, the tolling of the statutory expert report period continues until both (1) the default judgment has been set aside and (2) the defendant has filed an answer.

Section 74.351(a)’s 120-day expert report deadline is subject to the rules extending a deadline that falls on a Saturday to the next business day.

Ralph Carpinteyro, M.D. v. Gomez · filed 2013-05-01(a)

Because there is no conflict between section 74.351(a) and rule 4 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure or section 311.014 of the Texas Government Code, the expert report in this case was timely served.

Section 74.351’s 120-day deadline to serve an expert report extends to the following Monday when it falls on a Saturday.

Christus Spohn Health System Corporation v. Lopez · filed 2014-07-17(a)

Thus, because the 120-day period ended on Saturday, rule four allowed appellee to serve the expert report on the following Monday.

Under the version applicable here, section 74.351 requires an expert report within 120 days of the original petition and requires dismissal with prejudice, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs when the report is late.

Memorial Hermann Hospital System v. Ponce · filed 2014-11-07(a), (b)

Appellees’ suit is therefore a health care liability claim subject to the section 74.351(a) expert-report requirements. Appellees were required to serve Memorial with an expert report within 120 days of filing their original petition. Appellees did not serve Memorial with an expert report until 335 days after filing their original petition. The trial court erred when it did not dismiss appellees’ claim with prejudice and award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to Memorial.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report within 120 days of the original petition; nonsuiting and refiling does not restart the deadline, and failure to comply requires dismissal on the provider’s motion.

Christus Spohn Health System Corporation D/B/A Christus Spohn Hospital Corpus Christi - Shoreline v. Goodhew · filed 2015-03-19(a), (b)

The expert report period begins when the lawsuit is first filed, and does not restart if the case is later non-suited and refiled. ... Dismissal of her case is required because Goodhew failed to comply with section 74.351.

Under the version of § 74.351(a) applicable to this suit, the 120-day deadline to serve an expert report began when the original petition named the defendant, as determined by reading the petition as a whole.

Stefan Konasiewicz, M.D. v. Lomas · filed 2015-07-30(a)

And because Dr. Alexander was named within the Original Petition, the trial court’s conclusion of law that Lomas served Dr. Alexander with the expert report within the 120-day period was legally erroneous.

The 120-day deadline to serve an expert report begins when the original petition names the defendant, even if it misnames the defendant elsewhere in the pleading.

Stefan Konasiewicz, M.D. v. Garza · filed 2015-07-30(a)

And because Dr. Alexander was named within the Original Petition, the trial court’s conclusion of law that appellees served Dr. Alexander with their expert report within the 120-day period was legally erroneous.

Section 74.351(a) gives a claimant 120 days after each defendant files an original answer to serve that defendant with an expert report and the expert’s CV.

Texas Vein and Vascular, TVV Medispa, and Javier Alonso M.D. v. Martinez · filed 2015-09-03(a)

As noted above, Alonso did not answer until March 11, 2014. We ... hold that appellee timely served the required expert report and CV pertaining to Dr. Alonso individually.

For section 74.351(a), an action commences when a particular defendant is named, which determines the applicable deadline for serving that defendant with an expert report.

Ricardo Martinez, M.D. and Alberto Pena, M.D. v. Gonzales · filed 2015-09-17(a)

Instead, we hold that for purposes of section 74.351(a), an action commences when the particular defendant is named, thus triggering the applicable deadline for serving an expert report.

Section 74.351(a)’s 21-day deadline for objections to an expert report’s sufficiency does not apply to objections that the report was served late.

in the Guardianship of Lonnie Phillips, Jr., an Incapacitated Person · filed 2015-10-22(a)

Former section 74.351(a)'s 21–day deadline thus does not apply to an objection to an expert report based on belated service.

Section 74.351(a)'s 120-day expert report service deadline is calculated under Rule 4, so a deadline falling on a Saturday runs through the following Monday.

the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston v. Carolyn Callas, Ray Callas and Jamie Callas, Individually and as · filed 2016-05-17(a)

We agree that Rule 4 does not conflict with section 74.351(a). We also hold that Rule 4’s application does not contravene the requirement of strict compliance by creating an impermissible “extension” of the deadline, as UTMB argues. ... Instead, under Rule 4, the period ran until the end of the following Monday, February 2, 2015.

Section 74.351(a) requires a defendant to challenge an expert report within twenty-one days after filing an answer or waive the objections.

Athas Health, LLC D/B/A North American Spine v. Melody Trevithick, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Es · filed 2017-02-17(a)

But a challenge to an expert report in a health care liability case must be filed within twenty-one days of the date the defendant files an answer or the objections are waived.

Section 74.351 requires dismissal when a claimant misses the 120-day expert report deadline without a written extension, even if the defendant has not produced requested medical records.

Michael Sutker, M.D. and Surgical Consultants of Dallas, LLC v. Simmons · filed 2019-07-10(a), (b)

In this case, there is no written agreement by the parties extending the deadline. Therefore, the trial court had a mandatory, nondiscretionary duty to dismiss Simmons’s claims against Dr. ... Sutker when she failed to timely serve her expert report. Whether Dr. Sutker produced the medical records requested by Simmons is irrelevant for the purposes of determining compliance with the deadline for serving an expert report.

Under the version applicable to this suit, § 74.351(a) required an expert report within 120 days after filing suit.

Charles Chang, M.D. v. Denny · filed 2019-08-22(a)

While Dr. Chang is technically correct that Denny did not have to have an expert before she filed her lawsuit, she did need to have an expert report within 120 days of filing suit.

For purposes of Section 74.351(a), an action commences against each defendant when that defendant is first named, determining which version of the expert-report deadline applies.

Celena Morris R.N., Micheaux Thomas R.N. and Wendy Calvert R.N. v. Brenda Ponce and Ricco Gonzales as Natural Parents, N · filed 2019-09-24(a)

Consistent with Martinez and the Bailey court’s interpretation of the term “the action,” we hold that, for purposes of section 74.351(a), an action commences as to each defendant when it is first named as a defendant.

Section 74.351(a) requires a plaintiff with a health care liability claim to serve an expert report and the expert’s curriculum vitae on the defendant within 120 days after the defendant files an answer.

City of Houston v. Najla Hussein and Asha Obeid · filed 2020-11-19(a)

Under the Texas Medical Liability Act (“TMLA”), a plaintiff whose claim constitutes a health care liability claim must serve an expert report, with a curriculum vitae for the expert whose opinion is offered, on a defendant physician or health care provider within 120 days of the filing of an answer by the defendant.

Section 74.351(a)’s expert-report deadline is procedural, so an insurer receivership stay suspends it.

May Ha Goetsch, A.C.N.P., AND Alvin Uchenna Anene, M.D., AND Jagadeshwar Reddy, M.D., AND Sathishkumar Seeliyur Duraiswa · filed 2021-02-25(a)

Section 74.351 is a procedural provision, not a statute of limitations. Thus, the limitations exception to the reach of the statutory stay found in Section 462.309(c) does not apply here.

Section 74.351(a) requires a health care liability claimant to serve an expert report on each defendant within 120 days after that defendant answers.

Enrique Lopez, Individually, and as Representative of the Estate of Tristan Lopez v. Guiding Light, LLC · filed 2021-12-01(a)

Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 74, also known as the Texas Medical Liability Act (the “Act”), requires health care liability claimants to serve an expert report upon each defendant not later than 120 days after that defendant’s answer is filed.

A plea in abatement under section 74.052 does not toll the 120-day deadline to serve an expert report under section 74.351(a).

Floeck v. Crescent Continuing Care Center Company · filed 2022-05-10(a)

Because Crescent’s plea in abatement did not toll Floeck’s deadline to serve an expert report, the report was due no later than 120 days after Crescent’s answer.

Section 74.351(a) requires a claimant to serve an expert report within 120 days after the defendant files its original answer unless the parties agree in writing to extend the deadline.

Philipp v. Methodist Hospitals of Dallas D/B/A Methodist Dallas Medical Center · filed 2022-07-06(a)

Because Philipp failed to comply with the legal prerequisite to maintaining suit against Methodist, the trial court properly dismissed the lawsuit pursuant to section 74.351.

An agreed order abating a health care liability case does not extend the expert report deadline unless it explicitly states the parties’ intent to extend that deadline.

Jose Vazquez-Vicente, M.D. D/B/A Advanced Health Institute for Women's Health, P.A. v. Villarreal-Trevino · filed 2022-08-31(a)

We follow our court’s decision in Emeritus Corp. and hold that the trial court’s order abating the case did not extend the time Villareal had to serve an expert report.

Section 74.351 incorporates the service and notice requirements of the rules of civil procedure, allowing a court to toll the expert report deadline when a claimant was not served with the defendant’s answer.

Trinity Healthcare, LLC v. Lilian Peacock, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Gladys Cecilia Keels · filed 2023-05-04(a)

In construing § 74.351 as a whole, we hold that it incorporates the same requirements of service and notice as the rules of civil procedure. ... Therefore, the trial court was authorized to toll the expert report deadline if it found that Peacock was not served with Trinity’s answer.

Section 74.351(a) requires a defendant served with an expert report to object within twenty-one days of the later of receiving the report or filing an answer; correcting the defendant’s name did not restart that period when the estate’s representative had already been served and had answered.

In the Estate of Jesus Rodriguez Aguero v. the State of Texas · filed 2023-05-11(a)

Under these facts, appellant was required to object to appellees’ expert report within twenty-one days of her original answer filed on March 23, 2018.

When a claimant nonsuits and refiles a health care liability claim before the expert-report deadline expires, the refiling date is excluded when computing the remaining 120-day period.

Vijayrama Poreddy, M.d, and Austin Gastroenterology, P.A. v. Ma Angelica Hernandez De Solis, Individually, and as Next F · filed 2023-08-22(a)

Here, September 15, 2020 was not included in computing the 120-day expert-report period based on both Rule 4 and section 311.014(a), so that September 16, 2020 was the 120th day. Appellees, therefore, timely served their expert reports on Appellants on the 120th day on September 16, 2020.

Section 74.351’s 120-day deadline to serve an expert report is not tolled by an abatement under Section 74.052(b).

Crane Surgical Services, P.A. D/B/A Crane Center for Transgender Surgery, Richard Santucci, and Ashley Deleon v. Soren A · filed 2025-03-20(a)

The purported Section 74.052(b) abatement did not toll Aldaco’s expert-report deadline.

Section 74.351(a) calculates the 120-day deadline for serving an expert report separately from each defendant’s original answer date.

Art Tontiplaphol, M.D.; Bongsun "Sunny" Rich; And Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio, Ltd., L.L.P. D/B/A Methodi · filed 2025-04-30(a)

Instead, the statute’s reference to “each defendant” and service on “that party” indicate that the 120-day deadline is calculated specifically for a defendant based on that particular defendant’s answer date.

Section 74.351(a)’s expert report deadline is not extended by an agreement extending discovery response deadlines unless the agreement expressly covers the threshold expert report.

Maxie Sprott, Vida R. Sprott, and Center for Women's Health and Birthcare v. Boyd · filed 2025-07-31(a)

The Rule 11 Agreement the parties reached regarding written discovery did not include any reference to the statutorily required Chapter 74 report and it did not extend the 120-day deadline.

Section 74.351(a) requires a claimant with a health care liability claim to serve the defendant with an expert report and curriculum vitae within 120 days after the defendant files its answer.

Foster v. Spring Hospital, Heights Hospital and North Houston Sugical Hospital, LLC · filed 2025-08-21(a)

Because Foster’s claim against the hospital is a HCLC controlled by Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, she was required to serve the hospital with an expert report and curriculum vitae within 120 days after the hospital filed its answer.

Section 74.351(a) permits parties to extend the 120-day expert report deadline only through an agreement that explicitly states that purpose.

Doctors Hospital at Renaissance, Ltd. D/B/A DHR Health Imaging Center at Medpoint v. Torres · filed 2026-05-21(a)

Based on the agreement and disregarding Torres’s unexpressed subjective intent, we hold that the agreement did not extend the 120-day deadline for Torres to serve her reports absent language manifesting such an intent.

Section 74.351(a)'s 120-day expert-report deadline begins when a defendant files an answer, even if the filing is titled as a brief opposing injunctive relief.

John S. Bynon M.D. v. Susie Garcia, as Wrongful Death Beneficiary of Richard Mostacci, Deceased; Dianelys Corrales, as W · filed 2026-04-02(a)

This question arises because the Act requires a claimant to serve an expert report no later than 120 days after the defendant files an original answer. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 74.351(a). ... We agree with Bynon that his brief in opposition to the injunction constituted an answer.

A claimant challenging section 74.351 under the open courts provision must show that its expert-report requirements prevented the claimant from pursuing the claim.

Williams v. Kristopher A. Keck, M.D., and Capitol Anesthesiology Association, P.A. · filed 2005-12-21

However, we need not analyze the constitutionality of section 74.351 because Williams has not satisfied his burden of showing that the expert-report requirements actually prevented him from pursuing his claims. ... Accordingly, Williams has not shown that section 74.351 is unconstitutional as applied to him.

Section 74.351(a)’s 120-day expert-report deadline does not violate the Texas Open Courts provision when service was possible before the claimant’s attorney unexpectedly died.

Doan v. Christus Health Ark-La-Tex · filed 2010-12-15(a)

Since we cannot accurately state that it was impossible to file this report within the 120 days from the date the original petition was filed, we cannot hold that the Open Courts provision of the constitution was violated; we are compelled by the legislative enactment to affirm the judgment.

Section 74.351(a) requires service of an expert report and curriculum vitae within 120 days of filing suit; a court cannot extend that deadline because counsel unexpectedly died, and applying it in those circumstances did not violate the Open Courts provision where timely service had been possible.

Braxton v. Chin Tuo Chen · filed 2010-12-15(a)

Section 74.351(a) requires that an expert report and curriculum vitae ―shall‖ be served on the opposing party within 120 days after the original petition is filed. ... Failure to comply is fatal; the trial court has no discretion to grant an extension of time due to exigent circumstances. ... Since we cannot accurately state that it was impossible to file this report within the 120 days from the date the original petition was filed, we cannot hold that the Open Courts provision of the constitution was violated; we are compelled by the legislative enactment to affirm the judgment.

Section 74.351(s)'s discovery stay does not bar Rule 202 depositions to investigate a potential health care liability claim before suit.

in Re: Christopher Allan, M.D. · filed 2006-04-27(s)

Thus, the stay of discovery imposed by Subsection 74.351(s) does not preclude Rule 202 depositions.

Section 74.351(s) bars Rule 202 presuit depositions concerning health care liability claims until the claimant serves an expert report.

In Re Jorden · filed 2008-03-28(s)

Because the statute prohibits “all discovery” other than three exceptions — and Rule 202 depositions are not listed among them — we hold the statute prohibits such depositions until after an expert report is served.

Section 74.351(s) bars presuit depositions sought to investigate a potential health care liability claim.

in Re Simon Kiberu and Harris Methodist H-E-B Hospital · filed 2008-10-16(s)

We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering that Kiberu and Easley’s presuit depositions be taken because RPIs’ potential health care liability claim falls within the coverage of section 74.351(s).

Section 74.351(s) requires an expert report before a claimant may seek pre-suit discovery on a health care liability claim.

in Re Seton Northwest Hospital Karen Brinkman, Risk Manager And Seton Northwest Hospital's Custodian of Records · filed 2015-07-10(s)

Because the underlying nature of Mercer’s potential claim against the Hospital is a health care liability claim under the Texas Medical Liability Act, she was required to file an expert report before she could petition for pre-suit discovery.

Section 74.351(a) requires a medical defendant to object to deficiencies in a served expert report within twenty-one days or waive those objections, even if another report has been promised.

Heart Hospital of Austin and Jan N. Ogletree, M.D. v. Nancy Kay Matthews and Luan Matthews · filed 2006-05-05(a)

If a defendant does not object to the sufficiency of a report by the twenty-first day, any objections are waived.

Section 74.351(a) requires a defendant physician to object to an expert report’s sufficiency within twenty-one days of service or waive the objection.

Rajen Desai, M.D. v. Mary Garcia, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Melany Avila · filed 2006-12-14(a)

Because Desai's objections were not timely filed, and were therefore waived, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Desai's motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351(a) requires a health care provider whose conduct is implicated in an expert report to object to its sufficiency within 21 days of service or waive those objections.

Jan N. Ogletree, M.D. and Heart Hospital of Austin v. Nancy Kay Matthews and Luann Matthews · filed 2007-11-30(a)

Because the hospital did not object within the twenty-one day period, its objections were waived, and the trial court correctly denied its motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351(a) requires a health care provider to object to an expert report’s sufficiency within twenty-one days after service or waive the objection.

in Re: Nexion Health at Oak Manor, Inc. D/B/A Oak Manor Nursing Home · filed 2007-12-12(a)

Because Oak Manor did not object to the nurse’s report within the twenty-one day period, its objection was waived, and its motion to dismiss should have been denied.

Section 74.351(a) requires a defendant whose conduct is implicated in a timely served expert report to object to its sufficiency within twenty-one days of service or waive the objection.

Jason Maris, P.A.-C v. Hendricks · filed 2008-05-01(a)

Consequently, a defendant physician or health care provider who’s conduct is implicated in a timely-served report must file and serve any objection to the sufficiency of the report not later than twenty-one days after the report was served, “failing which all objections are waived.”

Section 74.351(a)'s 21-day deadline for objections to an expert report's sufficiency does not apply to objections based on late service.

Poland v. Grigore · filed 2008-02-01(a)

Accordingly, the "objection to the sufficiency of the report" in former section 74.351(a) means an objection to the report's substance, not to the timeliness of its service. Former section 74.351(a)'s 21-day deadline thus does not apply to an objection to an expert report based on belated service.

A defendant whose conduct is implicated in a timely served expert report must object to its sufficiency within 21 days of service or waive those objections; the report need not name the defendant.

Efrain Rivera, M.D./Anita Loweree v. Anita Loweree/Efrain Rivera, M.D. · filed 2008-08-28(a)

While Dr. Allen's report fails to refer to Dr. Rivera by name when describing his alleged conduct, this failure is essentially a complaint about the deficiencies in the report, which Dr. Rivera could have raised by timely filing and serving his objections to Dr. Allen's report within the 21-day deadline for such a response. Because Ms. Loweree timely served upon Dr. Rivera an expert report and curriculum vitae for Dr. Allen and that report implicated Dr. Rivera's conduct, Dr. Rivera was required to file and serve any objection to the sufficiency of that report not later than the 21st day after the date it was served. Therefore, Dr. Rivera waived his objections to the adequacy of Dr. Allen's report, which he had raised in his motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351(a) allows a timely motion to dismiss to preserve objections to an expert report served on the 120-day deadline without a separate objection filing.

Renaissance Surgical Centers - South Texas, L.L.P. v. Jimenez · filed 2008-08-28(a)

Moreover, the statute does not require a separate filing when the 120-day deadline has passed, and we see no reason to require one.

Section 74.351(a) waives objections to an expert report’s sufficiency unless the defendant raises them specifically within 21 days after service.

Stephen C. Walters, D.D.S. v. Hudoba · filed 2009-01-22(a)

Because Dr. Walters did not timely assert specific causation objections, he waived those objections.

Section 74.351(a) waives objections to an expert report’s sufficiency if the defendant does not make them within twenty-one days after service; a general objection to sufficiency does not preserve a specific causation objection.

Stephen C. Walters, D.D.S. v. Hudoba · filed 2009-01-22(a)

Because the causation objections asserted in Dr. Walters’s motion to dismiss and in this appeal were not filed within twenty-one days of the service of Dr. Byrne’s report, we hold they were waived and overrule the portion of Dr. Walters’s issue arguing that Dr. Byrne’s report is inadequate on the issue of causation.

Section 74.351(a) requires a defendant physician whose conduct is implicated in an expert report to object to its sufficiency within 21 days of service or waive the objection.

Beckwith v. Stephen White, M. D. · filed 2009-02-05(a)

Here, because Dr. Fisher’s report is primarily directed to Dr. White’s choice of the infrared coagulator to remove a tattoo from Beckwith’s leg, Dr. White’s conduct is implicated. Hence, Dr. White’s burden to timely assert any objections to the sufficiency of the report was triggered. ... We conclude that Dr. White’s objections were untimely and therefore are waived.

The 21-day deadline to object to an expert report’s sufficiency does not apply to an objection that the report was served after the 120-day deadline.

Solomon-Williams v. Desai · filed 2009-06-25(a)

A health care defendant’s 21‑day deadline applies to an “objection to the sufficiency” of an expert report, not to the fact that an expert report was not served within the mandatory 120-day deadline.

Section 74.351(a) allows a defendant to preserve a timely objection to an expert report by stating it in a motion to dismiss; a separate objection is not required.

M. Javed Iqbal, M.D. v. Rash · filed 2011-06-29(a)

Consequently, Dr. Iqbal was not required to file his objections to Dr. Barrash's report separately rather in a motion to dismiss. ... Accordingly, we hold that Dr. Iqbal properly preserved his objections to Dr. Barrash's expert report.

Section 74.351(a) requires a defendant to object to an expert report’s sufficiency within twenty-one days of service; an amended report does not revive an objection to a qualification disclosed in the original report.

Lucas v. Clearlake Senior Living Limited Partnership · filed 2011-07-12(a)

Rosemont’s objection that Murphy is not qualified to render an opinion regarding causation because she is not a licensed physician is an objection to the sufficiency of Murphy’s report. ... Rosemont was therefore required to object on this basis within twenty-one days of being served with Murphy’s original report. ... Having failed to do so, Rosemont waived its objection and was not entitled to dismissal of Lucas’s claim on this ground.

A health care provider must object to the sufficiency of a timely served expert report within 21 days or waive those objections, even if the report does not address every alleged negligent act.

Chau Le Neason M.D. v. Janell Gore Buckner, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of James Waylon Buckner, and Chelys · filed 2011-10-06(a)

Thus, after the Buckners served the original expert report, Neason had 21 days to raise any objections to its sufficiency. Because Neason did not meet this deadline, she waived all objections to it.

Section 74.351(a) requires a defendant to object within twenty-one days to all alleged deficiencies in a timely served expert report, including its failure to address some pleaded theories of liability.

Thomas C. Binzer, M.D., and Thomas C. Binzer, M.D., P.A. v. Joseph E. Alvey, Jr. · filed 2012-01-19(a)

Accordingly, we conclude and hold that because appellee timely served a report that addresses some of his claims in the live petition, appellants were required to object to “all” alleged deficiencies in the report within the twenty-one day period.

Section 74.351(a) does not require a defendant to object to an expert report that fails to address its alleged direct liability.

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

No duty to object to the sufficiency of the reports arose until the Fischers served a report addressing their direct-liability claim against the original ADC defendant.

Section 74.351(a) waives objections to an expert report’s sufficiency, including the expert’s qualifications, unless the defendant files and serves them within twenty-one days after the later of report service or the defendant’s answer.

William Bruce Sherrill, D.D.S. and Shaw & Sherill, D.D.S. v. Williams · filed 2015-04-28(a)

We reject appellants’ argument that they were not required to file timely objections, and we conclude appellants waived all objections to the Preliminary Report.

Section 74.351(a) waives an objection to an expert’s qualifications when it is first raised against an amended report that repeats the original report’s causation opinion.

Nathan Hilton, M.D v. Wettermark · filed 2015-05-07(a)

Because the original report and amended report both contained the same ultimate opinion about causation, Hilton’s subsequent objection to Cyprus’s qualifications was waived even though the original report may have been deficient.

Section 74.351(a) requires timely objections to an expert report’s sufficiency or the expert’s qualifications; otherwise, those objections are waived.

William Bruce Sherrill, D.D.S. and Shaw & Sherill, D.D.S. v. Williams · filed 2015-05-12(a)

We reject appellants’ argument that they were not required to file timely objections, and we conclude appellants waived all objections to the Preliminary Report.

When an expert report implicates a hospital through the conduct of its physicians under a pleaded vicarious liability theory, the hospital must object to the report within 21 days.

Houston Methodist Hospital F/K/A the Methodist Hospital v. Nguyen · filed 2015-07-13(a)

Because Nguyen filed and served on the Hospital reports containing expert opinions as to claims against the defendant physicians, thereby implicating the Hospital’s conduct under Nguyen’s pleaded theory of vicarious liability, we conclude that the Hospital was required to file any objections it had to the reports by the 21-day deadline. See Neason, 352 S.W.3d at 259.

Section 74.351(a) requires a defendant to object to the sufficiency of an expert report within twenty-one days or waive those objections.

Diagnostic Healthcare Services D/B/A Onsite Balance Solutions, LLC v. Jackson · filed 2015-08-31(a)

We do not reach its second and third issues on appeal because OBS waived any complaint to the sufficiency of the report when it failed to object within twenty-one days as required by section 74.351(a).

Section 74.351(a)’s 21-day deadline for objections to an expert report begins only after the claimant serves both the report and the expert’s curriculum vitae.

Yvonne Jacquez and the Estate of Victor Jacquez v. VHS San Antonio Partners, LLC, and Tenet Healthcare Corporation · filed 2021-01-06(a)

Therefore, the twenty-one day deadline outlined in the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code was never triggered, and appellees did not waive their objections to Dr. Esterlein’s expert report.

Section 74.351(a) waives a defendant’s objections to an expert report’s sufficiency if the defendant does not object within the statutory deadline.

Dallas Plastic Surgery Institute, Inc. v. Walid Zoubi, Individually and as Heir to and Representive of the Estate of Our · filed 2023-05-24(a)

DPSI did not assert a timely objection to the expert report’s sufficiency regarding appellees’ ostensible-agency theory and thus waived all such objections.

A report that makes no good-faith effort to address a defendant’s conduct is treated as no report, allowing the defendant to object after the 21-day period.

Fuller v. Shon Thomas Milton and Jamie Breann Milton, Individually and as Next Friends for A.E.M., a Minor · filed 2023-12-11(a)

Because the expert reports filed by Appellees do not constitute a good-faith effort to comply with the statute as they relate to Appellees’ claims against Fuller, they are the equivalent of no report and Fuller could object at any time.

Section 74.351(a) requires a defendant to object to a supplemental expert report to preserve challenges to that report, even if the defendant objected to the initial report.

Sagora Senior Living, Inc., WTCG Granbury Campus, LLC D/B/A Waterview - the Cove, and Waterview the Cove Assisted Living · filed 2025-09-11(a)

Because Appellants did not object to Rushing’s supplemental report on these grounds in the trial court, their remaining arguments in their first issue have not been preserved for our review.

A report can trigger § 74.351(a)’s objection deadline even if its author is unqualified to opine on causation; a defendant who fails to object on time waives objections to the report’s sufficiency.

MedCare EMS v. Flores · filed 2026-02-26(a)

Accordingly, we hold that Everlove’s report constitutes a statement of opinion by an individual with expertise indicating that the claim asserted by Flores against MedCare has merit. ... Consequently, MedCare was required to object to the sufficiency of Everlove’s report. ... Because it failed to do so, MedCare waived any objections concerning the sufficiency of Everlove’s report and the trial court could not have properly granted its motion to dismiss pursuant to § 74.351.

A report that implicates a nurse’s conduct through its discussion of the nursing staff triggers the 21-day objection deadline, even if it does not name the nurse; failure to object waives challenges to the report’s sufficiency.

Townsen Memorial Hospital, Southeast Texas Medical Ventures LLC D/B/A Townsen Memorial Hospital, and Markus Baloney, RN · filed 2026-03-24(a)

Although the expert report does not mention Baloney by name, the report does address conduct of the nursing staff, and therefore the report implicates Baloney’s conduct. See Sinha, 373 S.W.3d at 800. As a result, he was required to file and serve any objections to the sufficiency of the expert report within 21 days of service of the report or his answer. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 74.351(a). Because he did not, he waived any objection to the sufficiency of the report, and the trial court did not err by denying his motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351 does not require an expert to articulate the standard of care for a medical specialty other than the expert’s own.

Robert McKowen, M.D. v. Ragston · filed 2007-01-11

We conclude that section 74.351 does not require that Dr. Berkowitz be able to articulate the standard of care applicable to a specialty other than his own.

Section 74.351 generally requires a physician to provide an expert opinion on causation in a health care liability claim.

Valley Baptist Medical Center v. Gonzales · filed 2007-02-08(r)(5)(C)

Only a physician may submit an expert report about the causal relationship between the injury, harm, or damages claimed and the alleged departure from the applicable standard of care in a health care liability claim.

A causation expert under § 74.351(r)(5)(C) may qualify as a physician if licensed to practice medicine in another U.S. state and otherwise qualified under the Texas Rules of Evidence.

William Eugene Springer, M.D. v. Johnson · filed 2008-06-04(r)(5)(C)

In accordance with these well-established rules, the general definition of a “physician” applicable to Chapter 74 as a whole must yield in § 74.351(r)(5)(C) to the special definition of “physician” in § 74.401(g) specifically drafted to apply to expert witnesses for applicable standard(s) of care and causation.

A court abuses its discretion by denying a challenge to an expert report when the claimants fail to show that the expert is qualified to address the relevant standards of care.

Aaron Lee Woofter, M.D. v. Benitez · filed 2008-06-19(l)

Because Benitez and Kazi have not met their burden to show that Sanders is qualified as an expert, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the challenge to the expert report.

An expert report can satisfy Section 74.351’s good faith requirement without showing experience in laparoscopic procedures when the alleged negligence concerns the completion of an appendectomy rather than the laparoscopic technique.

Philip A. Moore, M.D. v. Gatica · filed 2008-10-09(l)

Because Gatica’s complaints about Dr. Moore do not depend upon standards relating to laparoscopy but rather depend upon the proper conclusion of an appendectomy (whether laparoscopic or not), we conclude that Dr. Silverman’s report was not required to establish his experience with laparoscopic procedures. ... For these reasons, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that Dr. Silverman’s expert report qualified as a good faith effort to satisfy the requirements of section 74.351.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to establish the physician’s qualifications to give an opinion on causation.

Wendy Collini, M.D. v. Pustejovsky · filed 2009-02-12(r)(5)(C)

W e hold that Dr. Haberer has not adequately demonstrated his qualifications to submit an expert report on the issue of causation; therefore, his report is deficient and does not comply with section 74.351.

Section 74.351 permits an expert report to support a health care liability claim when the expert is qualified to address the treatment at issue, even if the expert practices in a different specialty.

in the Interest and Protection of R.G.P. · filed 2009-05-20

Because Glenn’s expert reports establish the expert’s qualifications to opine on the standards of care applicable to the prescribing of Indomethacin to an individual with chronic kidney disease, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss pursuant to section 74.351.

Section 74.351 requires a qualified physician to give an expert report's medical causation opinion; a nurse's opinion does not satisfy that requirement.

James Clifton Vestal, M.D. v. Wright · filed 2009-08-31(r)(5)(C)

Nurse Byrne gave her opinion as to causation, but as a nurse, she is not qualified to opine on medical causation in an expert report provided under section 74.351.

Section 74.351 permits a physician from another specialty to provide an expert report when the physician is qualified to address the standard of care at issue.

Malcolm Barber and Leann Barber v. Leo C. Mercer, Jr., M.D. · filed 2009-10-15(r)(5)(A)

To be an “expert” on the departure from a physician’s standard of care (therefore qualifying the submission of an expert report), a person must be a physician who (1) is practicing medicine at the time such testimony is given or was practicing medicine at the time the claim arose; (2) has knowledge of accepted standards of medical care for the diagnosis, care, or treatment of the illness, injury, or condition involved in the claim; and (3) is qualified on the basis of training or experience to offer an expert opinion regarding those accepted standards of medical care. ... We therefore also determine that the trial court abused its discretion in sustaining Dr. Mercer’s objections to the qualifications of the Barbers’ expert upon the filing of their amended report.

Section 74.351(b) does not require dismissal when the expert report and curriculum vitae establish that the physician is qualified to give the relevant opinion.

Royal H. Benson, III, M.D. v. Jennifer S. Hall and Scott M. Hall · filed 2010-02-03(b)

Royal H. Benson, III, M.D. appeals the denial of his motion to dismiss pursuant to section 74.351(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. ... In reviewing the report and curriculum vitae, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in finding Halbridge qualified to render an expert opinion.

Section 74.351(r)(5)(C) requires a physician to give an expert report opinion on the causal relationship between a provider’s breach and the claimed injury.

Rusk State Hospital v. Black · filed 2010-06-23(r)(5)(C)

The Hospital correctly asserts that he is not qualified under section 74.351(r)(5)(C) to offer an opinion on the causal relation between the Hospital’s breach and Travis Black’s death.

Section 74.351 requires a physician to give the causation opinion in an expert report; a nurse’s report alone does not qualify.

College Station Medical Center, LLC v. Todd · filed 2010-09-01(r)(5)(D)

A nurse is not a physician and therefore is neither an expert nor is qualified to render an expert opinion regarding causation.

A report’s author must have expertise in the causal relationship at issue; experience arranging ROP screenings alone does not establish expertise in how alleged delays caused blindness.

Caviglia v. Tate · filed 2012-03-14(r)(5)

On this record, then, the trial court could not have reasonably concluded that Dr. Sims had genuine expertise regarding the causal relationship between Appellants’ alleged breach of the applicable standard of care and Mendez’s injury.

An expert report’s author must show expertise in the medical subject of a causation opinion; expertise in neonatology alone did not establish the qualifications needed to opine on how ROP caused blindness.

Caviglia v. Tate Ex Rel. Mendez · filed 2012-03-14(r)(5)

But nothing in Dr. Sims’ report indicates that she has knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in ophthalmology, pediatric ophthalmology, the way in which ROP presents in newborns, or how that disease is treated in general and in Mendez’ case. ... Thus, the trial court abused its discretion in overruling Appellants’ objections to Dr. Sims’ report.

A physician’s expert report must show that the physician is qualified to give an opinion on the causal relationship between the alleged breach and the injury.

Roy John Caviglia, M. D., Fortunato Perez-Benevides, M.D., and Jose Bernardo Arellano, M. D. v. Tanika Tate, as Next Fri · filed 2012-03-14(r)(5)

But nothing in Dr. Sims’ report indicates that she has knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in ophthalmology, pediatric ophthalmology, the way in which ROP presents in newborns, or how that disease is treated in general and in Mendez’ case.

An expert report and curriculum vitae can satisfy Section 74.351 when they show that the expert is familiar with the applicable nursing standard of care in a hospital setting.

Methodist Health Centers D/B/A Houston Methodist Sugar Land Hospital v. Patty Crawford and Harry Smith, Individually and · filed 2014-11-07

Because Dr. Davey’s report and curriculum vitae demonstrate that he is familiar with the applicable standard of care for nurses in a hospital setting, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying Methodist’s motion to dismiss.

An expert report must show from the report and curriculum vitae how its author is qualified to address the particular standard of care at issue.

Nexion Health at Garland, Inc. D/B/A Pleasant Valley Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center v. Temperance Treybig · filed 2015-01-05(r)(5)(B)

For purposes of the expert report, “a person giving opinion testimony regarding whether a health care provider departed from accepted standards of health care” must be qualified to testify. ... Because the four corners of Dr. Rushing’s report and curriculum vitae do not adequately articulate how Dr. Rushing is qualified to opine on the standard of care applicable to a nursing home when it contracts with another healthcare provider to provide a resident with physical therapy care or treatment, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss on this basis.

Section 74.351(r)(5)(C) applies the Texas Rules of Evidence to a causation expert’s qualifications for a preliminary report, not to the substance of the opinion.

Tenet Hospitals, Ltd. v. Garcia · filed 2015-04-22(r)(5)(C)

Section 74.351(r)(5)(C) incorporates the rules of evidence in the context of the expert’s qualifications, not the substance of the opinion itself.

An expert report under section 74.351 is inadequate if it does not establish that its author is qualified to address the defendant health care provider’s applicable standard of care.

McCoy v. Serna · filed 2016-10-06(r)(5)(B)

We cannot agree with Serna that the referenced presentations establish that Dr. Scioli was qualified to testify regarding the standard of care applicable to appellant. ... We conclude the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to dismiss based on an inadequate expert report.