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

Section 74.351 requires a physician to provide the expert report’s causation opinion for a health care liability claim against a hospital.

Iasis Healthcare Corp. and SJ Medical Center, LLC D/B/A St. Joseph Medical Center v. Pean · filed 2018-06-21(r)(5)(C)

Because this case involves neither teeth nor feet, Pean’s expert was required to be a physician.

Section 74.351 requires a physician to give an expert opinion on medical causation in a health care liability claim; a pharmacist’s opinion cannot satisfy that requirement.

Walgreen Co., Walgreen Boots Alliance, Inc. and Walgreens Boots Alliance Holdings, LLC v. Beth Hauser Boyer and John Hau · filed 2020-04-16(r)(5)(C)

As such, it was necessary for a physician to opine about whether Walgreen’s dispensing of clonazepam (without first checking to see if the prescribing physician was properly registered with the DEA) caused Alex to overdose, flee the hospital, and place himself in the middle of a busy freeway.

An expert report about a hospital’s policies and procedures must establish the expert’s qualifications to opine on the hospital’s administrative standards of care.

Columbia Medical Center of Arlington Subsidiary, L.P. D/B/A Medical City Arlington And HCA, Inc. D/B/A HCA Healthcare v. · filed 2021-11-04(r)(5)(B)

We conclude that Dr. Patterson’s report and CV fail to establish his qualifications to opine about standards of care relating to the Hospital’s policies and procedures (or lack thereof) concerning a patient such as Irene.

Section 74.351 requires an expert report to establish that its author is qualified to opine on the applicable standard of care.

Carreon v. Joseph Kelly, MD, Hussein Waqar, MD, Methodist Healthcare Systems of San Antonio, Ltd. L.L.P. D/B/A Met · filed 2023-05-31(r)(5)

The trial court could have reasonably concluded Dr. Dorsa was not qualified on the basis of training or experience to provide an expert opinion on whether Methodist departed from the accepted standard of care relevant to Carreon’s claims against the hospital. Therefore, we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed Carreon’s case against Methodist for failure to serve an adequate expert report.

Section 74.351(r)(5)(C) allows a physician to give an expert opinion on causation if the physician is otherwise qualified under the Texas Rules of Evidence.

Willow SNF, LLC D/B/A Willow Rehab & Nursing and Advanced HCS, LLC v. Anyonna Hardimon, on Behalf of Jessie Mae Turner · filed 2024-01-24(r)(5)(C)

As discussed above, a person is qualified to offer an opinion regarding the causal relationship between the alleged departure from the standard of care and the injury, harm, or damages claimed if he is a physician who is otherwise qualified to render opinions on such causal relationship under the Texas Rules of Evidence. ... Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that Dr. Schmidt was qualified to offer an opinion regarding departures from the standard of care and causation and overruling Appellants’ objections to the report.

Section 74.351 allows a physician to provide an expert report on a laboratory’s standard of care when the physician’s relevant experience and knowledge qualify him to address the specific issue.

Choice Clinical Lab, LLC D/B/A Greenleaves Diagnostics Laboratories, LLC v. Olga Roman Roberts, Individually and as Inde · filed 2024-08-07(r)(5)(B)

Because the expert report sufficiently showed Dr. Saba was qualified to give his expert opinion regarding the standard of care applicable to Choice Clinical, we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Choice Clinical’s objections to Dr. Saba’s expert report.

An expert report must state facts in the report or attached curriculum vitae showing the expert’s familiarity with the applicable standard of care; a bare assertion of familiarity is insufficient.

Justin I Enterprises, LLC, D/B/A Longmeadow Healthcare Center v. Katy Gierczak, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate · filed 2025-01-23(r)(5)(B)

Thus, we conclude that there must be facts stated within the four corners of the report and attached CV from which we may conclude that the expert has familiarity with the standards about which the expert opines, and a mere assertion of familiarity—without a reference to facts showing how that familiarity was acquired—is not sufficient because it is conclusory.

Section 74.351(a) permits a written agreement to extend the expert report deadline, but a docket order that neither mentions the report nor suggests an extension does not extend it.

Lal v. Harris Methodist Fort Worth Hospital · filed 2007-07-12(a)

With regard to docket orders, when such an order does not expressly mention the section 74.351(a) expert report or even suggest an extension of the deadline, the order, without more, does not extend the deadline.

Section 74.351(a) permits the affected parties to extend the expert report deadline by written agreement without expressly naming the statute.

McDaniel v. Spectrum Healthcare Resources, Inc. · filed 2007-08-22(a)

In deciding whether the agreed docket control order in the instant case incorporated an agreement to extend the deadline for the 74.351 expert report, we first note that the statute allows such an agreement but does not mandate a specific format other than the agreement must be in writing.

Section 74.351(b)'s mandatory dismissal remedy is not barred by a generic agreed docket control order setting a deadline for dispositive motions.

Sedeno v. Mijares · filed 2010-12-23(b)

Thus, Sedeno, P.A.'s right to mandatory dismissal in the event that Mijares failed to timely file an expert report was not affected by the agreed docket control order.

Section 74.351's expert report requirement does not violate the Texas Constitution's separation of powers because courts retain authority to decide whether a timely report is adequate.

Wilson-Everett v. St. Joseph · filed 2007-11-29

The courts retain the judicial power to determine whether a timely filed report is adequate in this regard and to render a decision accordingly. ... Because Everett has therefore not overcome the presumption that section 74.351 is constitutional, we overrule her issue and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

An interlocutory order granting a motion to dismiss under section 74.351(b) is not appealable.

Mike Bismar, M.D. v. Dorothy A. Morehead, Vaughn R. Morehead, and James P. Morehead, III, Individually and as Heirs at L · filed 2008-02-21(b)

While an interlocutory order granting a motion to dismiss under section 74.351(l) is appealable, (footnote: 4) an interlocutory order granting a motion to dismiss under section 74.351(b) is not.

Section 74.351(b) does not require a health care provider to appeal immediately from the denial of an expert-report challenge; after a nonsuit, the provider may challenge the ruling on appeal from the final judgment.

Hernandez v. Ebrom · filed 2009-07-03(b)

In contrast to the specific time limits the Legislature set in section 74.351(a) for filing reports and objecting to them when it amended the statute in 2003, it provided no limitation in section 74.351(b) for appealing from final judgments and challenging the interlocutory orders denying objections to reports.

Section 74.351(c) does not permit an interlocutory appeal when the trial court denies a motion to dismiss and grants a 30-day extension to cure a timely filed expert report.

Paso Del Norte Surgery Center v. Loweree · filed 2008-08-28(c)

We have only recently determined that if a defendant objects to a timely filed expert report within the period specified by Section 74.351(a) and the trial court denies its later motion to dismiss but grants a 30-day extension to cure, there is no right to an interlocutory appeal.

Section 74.351(k) prohibits courts from considering expert reports as evidence in the underlying proceeding, even when deciding jurisdiction.

Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center v. Ward · filed 2008-08-06(k)

As previously noted, we are prohibited from considering expert reports in the underlying proceeding, even for the purpose of determining jurisdiction.

Section 74.351 prohibits a court from considering an expert report as evidence when reviewing a plea to the jurisdiction.

Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center v. Ward · filed 2008-08-06(k)(1) & (2)

We are, however, prohibited from considering an expert report as evidence. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(k)(1) & (2) (Vernon Supp. 2007).

Section 74.351(k)(3) bars parties from referring to an expert report during the action, but a plaintiff may waive that protection by using the report in a pleading.

Brewster v. COLUMBIA MED. CENTER, MCKINNEY · filed 2008-11-14(k)(3)

Although an expert report must be furnished, the report "shall not be referred to by any party during the course of the action for any purpose." TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. § 74.351(k)(3) (Vernon 2005 & Supp.2008). While a plaintiff may waive his right to keep the expert report out of the proceedings, the Brewsters made no use of the Nurse's Report in the Original Petition.

Section 74.351(k) does not prohibit a testifying expert from reviewing the claimant’s preliminary expert report.

in Re Alere Women & Children's Health, LLC · filed 2011-12-15(k)

Here, section 74.351 does not state that a testifying expert may not review the preliminary expert report filed by the plaintiff. ... We find no authority for the trial court’s interpretation that section 74.351(k) prohibits such a review.

Section 74.351(k) bars use of a health care liability claimant’s expert report as evidence, including to defeat summary judgment.

Bonnie Johnson, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Jalen Johnson and Anthony Johnson v. Vyju Ram M.D. a · filed 2014-07-24(k)

Such an expert report is “not admissible in evidence; may not be used in a deposition, trial, or other proceeding; and may not even be referred to by any party during the course of the action for any purpose.”

Section 74.351(k) bars the use of a health care liability expert report as evidence in summary judgment proceedings.

Debra C. Gunn, MD, Obstetrical and Gynecological Associates, P.A. and Obstetrical and Gynecological Associates, PLLC v. · filed 2015-12-22(k)

Chapter 74 does not permit the use of healthcare liability expert reports as evidence or during trial or other proceedings.

Section 74.351(a) requires service of expert reports on the defendant or the defendant’s attorney; filing them with the trial court clerk alone does not satisfy that requirement.

Daneshvar v. Dr. Yamuna Poornima Jaladanki and Dr. Agnes Ezike · filed 2023-07-06(a)

We hold that Daneshvar failed to “serve” her expert reports as required by section 74.351(a). Filing the expert reports with the trial court clerk, without more, does not constitute service.

Section 74.351 does not require an attorney’s fee award for failure to file an expert report when the claim is not a health care liability claim.

Harris Methodist Fort Worth v. Jo Fawn Ollie · filed 2008-10-30(b)(1)

Ollie’s allegations do not constitute a health care liability claim. ... If the plaintiff fails to file an expert report, the trial court must order the plaintiff to pay reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs incurred by the affected health care provider. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(b)(1). However, because we overruled Harris Methodist’s first point, we accordingly overrule its second point.

Section 74.351(b)(1) does not require an attorney's fee award for failure to serve an expert report when the claim is not a health care liability claim.

Harris Methodist Fort Worth v. Ollie · filed 2008-11-26(b)(1)

Ollie's allegations do not constitute a health care liability claim. Accordingly, we overrule Harris Methodist's first point. ... If the plaintiff fails to file an expert report, the trial court must order the plaintiff to pay reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred by the affected health care provider. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 74.351(b)(1). However, because we overruled Harris Methodist's first point, we accordingly overrule its second point.

Section 74.351(b) requires a physician or health care provider seeking attorney's fees to prove that it incurred the fees.

Samuel Garcia, Jr., M.D. v. Maria Gomez, Individually, and as Representative of the Estate of Ofelia Marroquin · filed 2008-12-04(b)

With regard to chapter 74, the legislature premised an award of attorney's fees on an affected physician or health care provider incurring those fees.

Section 74.351(b) requires a trial court that dismisses a health care liability claim with prejudice to award reasonable attorney’s fees.

Granbury Minor Emergency Clinic and Abel Salas, M.D. v. Thiel · filed 2009-08-27(b)

When a health care liability claim is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 74.351(b), the trial court is required to award attorney’s fees.

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal with prejudice and an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs when a claimant fails to serve a timely expert report and the affected provider moves to dismiss.

Ramchandani v. Jimenez · filed 2010-04-20(b)

The trial court abused its discretion to the extent it denied the Ramchandani Parties' motion to dismiss and denied their request for attorney's fees and costs under section 74.351(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

Section 74.351(b)(1) requires an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs to a defendant when the claimant’s report does not qualify as an expert report for the claims against that defendant.

Concentra Health Services, Inc. v. Everly · filed 2010-04-01(b)(1)

Section 74.351(b)(1), therefore, requires that the trial court “shall” award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of court to DeForrest.

Section 74.351(b)(1) limits an attorney's fee award to the lesser of a reasonable fee and the fee actually incurred.

Garcia v. Gomez · filed 2010-08-27(b)(1)

The statute, however, limits the award to the lesser of the two, that is, the fee to be awarded is the lesser of a reasonable fee or the fee actually incurred.

Section 74.351(b) requires an award of attorneys’ fees upon dismissal for failure to file a timely expert report; efforts to obtain medical records do not excuse the missed deadline or prevent the award.

Ramirez v. Doctors Hospital at Renaissance · filed 2011-01-27(b)

A claimant’s efforts to obtain medical records under section 74.051 do not affect a court’s mandate to award attorneys’ fees in the case of dismissal, either.

Section 74.351(b) does not allow attorney's fees and costs to be assessed against a claimant's attorney.

Savannah Robinson v. Samuel T. Garcia Jr., M.D. · filed 2012-06-14(b)

In sum, reading the language of section 74.351(b) in context and giving effect to all of the words in the statute, we conclude that section 74.351(b) does not allow attorney's fees and costs to be assessed against the claimant's attorney.

Section 74.351 entitles an affected health care provider to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs when a timely but deficient expert report leads to dismissal of the claim.

Cyril B. Tawa, M.D., Houston Interventional Cardiology, P.A., and Angela Rowan, R.N., F.N.P.-C. v. Glenn P. Gentry and P · filed 2013-04-18(b)(1)

Thus, appellants Rowan and Houston Interventional Cardiology are entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred related to claims premised on care provided by Rowan.

Section 74.351(a) requires a claimant to serve expert reports within 120 days on a represented health care provider's attorney in charge; serving an attorney who represents the provider in another case does not suffice.

Raymond R. Fulp, III, D. O. and Columbia Rio Grande Healthcare, L.P., D/B/A Rio Grande Regional Hospital v. Mille · filed 2009-01-22(a)

As such, Miller was required to serve Gonzalez with the expert reports in accordance with rules 8 and 21a. See id. ; see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 21a. As Miller admitted at the hearing on the Hospital's motion to dismiss, he failed to serve Gonzalez with his expert reports within the 120-day deadline prescribed in section 74.351(a).

Section 74.351(a) requires a claimant to serve expert reports on the attorney in charge when the defendant is represented by counsel.

Raymond R. Fulp, III, D. O. and Columbia Rio Grande Healthcare, L.P., D/B/A Rio Grande Regional Hospital v. Mille · filed 2009-04-02(a)

As such, Miller was required to serve Gonzalez with the expert reports in accordance with rules 8 and 21a.

Section 74.351(a) permits service of an expert report on a defendant’s attorney before suit is filed if the attorney represents that defendant concerning the health care liability claim.

CSL S Weatherford, LLC and Capital Senior Management S, Inc. v. Arens · filed 2023-04-06(a)

Because (1) the TMLA authorizes service upon a “party or the party’s attorney” even before the filing of a health care liability claim and (2) the record reflects Arens accomplished such pre-suit service upon Appellants through their attorney, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion.

Section 74.351(a) permits a claimant to serve an expert report on a defendant’s duly authorized agent, including an insurance carrier authorized to handle the claim.

Lakeisha Demerson, MD v. Kiesta Smith, Individually and as Next Friend of XXXXXX XXXXXX, a Minor · filed 2024-06-25(a)

Section 74.351(a) provides that a claimant shall serve an expert report on the party or the party’s attorney, and Rule 21a further clarifies that service on the party may be achieved by serving that party directly or by serving either the party’s duly authorized agent or attorney of record.

Section 74.351 permits a thirty-day extension to cure a timely but deficient expert report if it contains a relevant expert’s opinion that the claim has merit and implicates the defendant.

Brian K. Seastrunk, M.D. v. Monica Meza, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Maddoux J. Cordova and Adam · filed 2011-08-10(c)

A purported expert report is not so deficient as to be no report at all “if the report is served by the statutory deadline, if it contains the opinion of an individual with expertise that the claim has merit, and if the defendant’s conduct is implicated.” ... Thus, Dr. Boynes’s and Dr. Di Maio’s reports are not so deficient as to be no report as to Dr. Seastrunk.

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal of a claim against a defendant whom the expert report does not mention because the report is no report as to that defendant.

Perry v. Rick Bradley and Brookshire Grocery Company · filed 2011-12-21(b)

On the merits of Perry’s appeal of the dismissal order as to Bradley, Horseman’s report was “no report” as to Bradley and the trial court was required to dismiss Perry’s claim against Bradley under subsection 74.351(b).

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal when a timely expert report fails to implicate any defendant’s conduct and therefore constitutes no report as to those defendants.

Laredo Texas Hospital Company, L.P. v. Gonzalez · filed 2012-01-11(b)

Because the Thompson report, which was the only report filed within the 120-day deadline, is so legally defective as to constitute in law “no report” against the medical defendants under Scoresby, dismissal is mandatory.

Section 74.351(r)(6) requires an expert report to summarize an expert’s opinions on the standard of care, how the care failed to meet it, and causation; documents without those opinions do not qualify.

Shaw v. Daybreak, Inc. · filed 2017-09-20(r)(6)

We conclude that these documents do not constitute an “expert report” and, as a result, we conclude that the record does not reflect that Patricia served an expert report on the Daybreak Parties in compliance with section 74.351.

An expert report that does not implicate a defendant’s conduct counts as no report and requires dismissal with prejudice.

Octavio Aguilera The Schumacher Group of Texas, Inc. VHS Harlingen Hospital Company, LLC D/B/A Valley Baptist Medical Ce · filed 2023-03-30(b)

Because appellees’ expert reports do not accuse Dr. Huddleston of any wrongdoing and do not implicate Dr. Huddleston’s conduct, the reports are “so lacking,” as to constitute no report. Accordingly, the trial court should have properly granted Dr. Huddleston’s motion to dismiss with prejudice.

An expert report that does not implicate a defendant is no report as to that defendant, requiring dismissal of the claim.

Methodist Hospital D/B/A Houston Methodist Hospital, Hemangshu Podder, MD, and Okeckukwu Okidi, MD; Lifegift Organ Donat · filed 2025-04-24(b)

Because the report did not meet Scoresby’s minimal standard, it was no report at all as to Dr. Okidi, and the trial court should have granted his motion to dismiss.

An expert report that fails to implicate a defendant’s conduct constitutes no report as to that defendant and requires dismissal if no timely report was served.

David Benavides, M.D. and David Benavides, M.D., P.A. v. Cantu · filed 2025-09-10(b)(2)

We hold the expert report in this case fails to implicate Dr. Benavides’s conduct and, therefore, it constitutes “no report” as to him.

Discovery under subsections (s) and (u) may be stayed pending resolution of an interlocutory appeal.

Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio, Ltd., L.L.P. v. Belden · filed 2014-04-16(s), (u)

We ORDER that all discovery under sections 74.351(s) and 74.351(u) in cause number 2012-CI-18164 is STAYED pending resolution of this appeal or further order of this court.

Section 74.351 sets no deadline for moving to dismiss over a missing expert report, and delay alone does not waive the right to seek dismissal.

Memorial Hermann Hospital System D/B/A Memorial Hermann Southwest Hospital v. Hayden · filed 2014-06-17(b)

There is no deadline to file a motion to dismiss for failure to timely serve section 74.351 expert reports. ... Thus, Memorial Hermann’s more than 670-day delay in pursuing it motion to dismiss did not, based upon timing alone, waive its right to dismissal.

A defendant can waive the right to dismissal under section 74.351(b) by expressly relinquishing it or acting inconsistently with an intent to seek dismissal.

Uduma v. Patti J. Wagner, as Guardian of Jenny Wagner, an Incapacitated Adult · filed 2014-08-27(b)

Accordingly, under the specific facts of this case, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Uduma’s motion to dismiss pursuant to section 74.351 because Uduma waived her right to such a dismissal.

A defendant may waive the right to seek dismissal for failure to serve an expert report.

a New Hope Health Care, Inc. and Esperanza Pena v. Garcia · filed 2016-09-01(b)

However, the right to seek dismissal for failure to file an expert report may be waived. ... We further conclude that a finding of waiver would fully support the trial court’s order denying the motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351(b) sets no deadline for a health care provider to seek dismissal for a missing expert report, but the provider can waive that right.

Jalaram Med Spa, Inc. D/B/A Nita Med Spa v. Durbin · filed 2023-02-02(b)

Although section 74.351 does not impose a deadline for a health care provider to file a motion to dismiss, a health care provider can waive its right to seek dismissal for failure to file an expert report.

A health care defendant retains its right to dismissal when the claimant fails to serve an expert report and the defendant’s conduct does not clearly show an intent to waive that right.

Med Care Emergency Medical Services, Inc., Ericka Gutierrez, and Ramiro Mendoza v. Rincon · filed 2024-02-29(a), (b)

Rincon does not dispute that he has not served an expert report on Med Care. Accordingly, Med Care’s motion to dismiss should have been granted.

An attorney’s-fee award under section 74.351(b) is a statutory sanction.

Law Offices of Preston Henrichson, P.C. v. Starr County Hospital District · filed 2014-06-25(b)

An award of attorney’s fees under section 74.351(b) is considered an award of statutory sanctions.

Section 74.351(b) requires the trial court to award reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs to a health care provider that requests them when a health care liability claim is dismissed with prejudice.

Bain v. Capital Senior Living Corporation · filed 2015-06-30(b)

Section 74.351(b) states that a trial court “shall” award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of court incurred by a health care provider when a health care liability claim is dismissed with prejudice and the defendant requests fees and costs.

Section 74.351(b) permits an award of attorney’s fees and court costs when the record contains some evidence that the defendant incurred them.

Gonzales v. Southwest Radiology Association & Sam Lo, M.D. · filed 2015-07-07(b)

We therefore conclude that some evidence supports the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs, and, thus, the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $60,565 in attorney’s fees and $3,739.17 in court costs to Southwest Radiology.

Section 74.351(b)(1) requires reasonable attorney’s fees and costs when an expert report is not timely served, but uncontroverted fee evidence does not require an award of the full amount requested.

Juanita Sprute, M.D. and Jefferson Family Practice Associates v. Levey · filed 2015-07-15(b)(1)

Just as the law requires the trial court to dismiss the claims if an expert report is not timely served, the law also requires the trial court to award the defendant “reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of court.” ... Based on the foregoing, we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the amount of attorney’s fees awarded.

Section 74.351(b)(1) requires an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs incurred, with the fee amount assessed under the standards for reasonable and necessary fees.

in the Estate of Jennie M. Stokes · filed 2019-08-28(b)(1)

We recognize that while perhaps the ultimate question might be whether and to what extent Dr. Brazil can recover fees associated with merits discovery, our disposition here does not require or even permit us to resolve that question at this point; the parties—and this court—first need the trial court to reconsider and determine Dr. Brazil’s “reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of court incurred,” as section 74.351(b)(1) provides, in light of Rohrmoos Venture.

Section 74.351 entitles a health care provider to attorney’s fees when a claim is dismissed for failure to serve an expert report; the trial court may award less than the amount requested when the evidence supports a lower fee.

Pro-Care Medical Center and Injury Medical Group v. Quality Carriers, Inc., Gulf Coast Express Carriers, Inc., and Bobby · filed 2020-04-02

The trial court’s April 30, 2018 order granted Pro-Care’s motions to dismiss Quality Carriers’ claims under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a and Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 74.351. Rule 91a and section 74.351 entitled Pro-Care to an award of attorney’s fees.5 See Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(a). ... Given the scope of this evidence, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding Pro-Care $10,000 in fees.

Section 74.351(b) permits a health care defendant to seek dismissal and attorney’s fees after the 120-day expert report period has expired.

Michael Todd Kosar, Individually as Independent Administrator for the Estate of Betty Kosar, Crisantos G. Lopez, Genevie · filed 2020-12-03(b)

Because Kingwood sought dismissal and an award of attorney’s fees and costs in its motion, and the motion was filed after the 120-day window had closed, we conclude that the motion was filed pursuant to section 74.351(b).

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal with prejudice and an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs when a claimant fails to serve a compliant expert report and the affected provider moves to dismiss.

Fomby v. Manorcare-Sharpview of Houston Texas, LLC and Sharpview SNF Management, LLC · filed 2021-06-15(b)

Section 74.351(b) provides, with exception inapplicable here, that if an expert report has not been served in accordance with the statute, the trial court, on the motion of the affected health care provider, “shall . . . enter an order” that: (1) awards to the affected physician or health care provider reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of court incurred by the physician or health care provider; and (2) dismisses the claim with respect to the physician or health care provider, with prejudice to the refiling of the claim.

Section 74.351(b)(1) entitles a defendant to reasonable attorney’s fees when a timely served expert report is deficient.

Eliazar Costilla, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Kristy Renee Costilla, and as Next Friend of A · filed 2023-11-02(b)(1)

Thus, when a timely but deficient expert report has been filed, the defendant is entitled to attorney’s fees.

Section 74.351(b) requires an award of attorney’s fees and costs to the affected health care provider when a claimant fails to serve a required expert report.

Sharyn Dacbert 'Cross-Appellee' v. Medical Center Ophthalmology Associates, L.L.P. and Michael Singer 'Cross- Appellants · filed 2023-11-22(b)

Having determined Dacbert’s claims are health care liability claims subject to section 74.351, the trial court was required to award Medical Center Ophthalmology and Singer attorney’s fees and costs.

Section 74.351(b)(1) entitles a defendant who successfully moves to dismiss a health care liability claim to attorney’s fees.

Ruffin v. Henry · filed 2024-02-22(b)(1)

A defendant who successfully moves to dismiss a plaintiff’s health care liability claim is statutorily entitled to his attorney’s fees. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.351(b)(1). We overrule Ruffin’s fourth and fifth issues.

Section 74.351(b)(1) requires an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs when a physician or health care provider obtains dismissal because a required expert report was not timely served.

Solomon v. Rosemary Buckle, Nicole D. Ches and HCA Health Services of Texas, Inc. · filed 2024-03-14(b)(1)

When a physician or health care provider successfully moves for dismissal under the Texas Medical Liability Act, the trial court “shall” enter an order that “awards to the affected physician or heath care provider reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of court incurred” by them. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 74.351(b)(1).

Section 74.351(b) does not authorize attorney’s fees when the claim is not a health care liability claim.

Regional Specialty Clinic, P.A. v. Sarnie Randle, Jr. and S. A. Randle & Associates, P.C. · filed 2024-07-16(b)

Because the claim is not subject to the act’s requirements, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Clinic’s request for its attorney’s fees. Id. § 74.351(b).

Section 74.351(b) provides for dismissal with prejudice and an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs.

David Benavides, M.D. and David Benavides, M.D., P.A. v. Cantu · filed 2025-09-10(b)

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, the trial court’s order denying appellants’ motion to dismiss is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED to the trial court for entry of an order: (1) dismissing, with prejudice, Priscila Calzada Cantu’s claims against David Benavides M.D. and David Benavides M.D. P.A.; and (2) awarding David Benavides M.D. and David Benavides M.D. P.A. reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 74.351(b).

Section 74.351(a) sets a twenty-one-day deadline for objections to an expert report but does not require a motion to dismiss within that period.

Southwest Surgical Hospital v. Bowen · filed 2014-09-04(a)

Subsection (a), which contains the twenty-one day deadline for objecting to a report, states nothing about filing a motion to dismiss based on those objections within twenty-one days of being served with the report.

An order overruling objections to an expert report does not deny relief under section 74.351(b) unless it denies attorney’s fees or dismissal.

Meridian LTC, Ltd. v. Byers · filed 2015-02-09(b)

The October 7 order does not deny all or part of any relief sought by a motion under section 74.351(b). It does not deny an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and it does not deny a motion to dismiss.

Section 74.351(a) does not require an expert report from a person seeking only declaratory relief and no damages.

David S. Lopez and Richard Humphrey v. Sosa · filed 2023-06-09(a)

Consequently, he is not a claimant within the meaning of the medical liability act, and he was not required to file the expert report required by § 74.351(a).

Section 74.351(b) requires dismissal and attorney’s fees when an expert report is so deficient that it effectively amounts to no report.

Farrah Agahi, D.M.D; Scott Law Ortho Corp., P.C.; And Julie Avalos v. Flynt · filed 2025-06-27(b)

Because the report fails entirely to implicate the conduct of the dental assistant as the cause of Flynt’s injuries—and similarly fails to implicate Agahi’s and Scott Ortho’s conduct, as their alleged liability hinges directly on the assistant’s conduct—the report is not only deficient but is, in effect, no report at all as to any of the defendants. ... This Court has determined that when a report is so deficient as to effectively constitute no report at all, the proper disposition is to reverse the order denying the motion to dismiss and remand to the trial court for a determination of the amount of attorney’s fees to which the defendants are entitled and entry of an order dismissing the plaintiff’s claims.

Section 74.351’s expert-report requirement does not apply to the State or relators bringing these Medicaid fraud claims in the State’s name.

Richard J. Malouf, DDS Richard J, Malouf, DDS, PC And Richard J. Malouf, DDS, PA v. State · filed 2015-04-02(a)

Considering the common law meaning of the term “person,” other uses of the term in the TMLA, and the overall schemes of the TMLA and TMFPA, we conclude that the State when bringing suit under the TMFPA is not a “person” within the definition of “claimant” under the TMLA and, thus, not subject to the expert report requirement.

Section 74.351 does not apply to state law claims in federal court because its expert report requirements conflict with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 37.

Robert Passmore, III v. Baylor Health Care · filed 2016-05-19

In sum, section 74.351 answers the same question as Rules 26 and 37, and these Rules represent a valid exercise of Congress’ rulemaking authority. Accordingly, a federal court entertaining state law claims may not apply section 74.351.

Section 74.351’s expert report requirements do not apply in federal court because they conflict with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 37.

Walker v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. · filed 2020-03-13

Since the Fifth Circuit has ruled that § 74.351 conflicts with the Federal Rules and does not apply in federal court, Defendant’s objections to Plaintiffs’ expert reports are OVERRULED.

Section 74.351’s expert-report requirement applies to health care liability claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Texas state court.

Ramona Rogers, M.D., Modesto Zamorano, Stephanie Cumpian, Rolando Flores, Hector Ontiveros, Priscilla Nieto, Sonia Herna · filed 2021-04-16

Because the TMLA’s expert-report requirement is procedural in nature and would not cause reliably different outcomes in section 1983 cases brought in state and federal court, we hold that section 74.351 is not preempted by section 1983.

Section 74.351’s expert-report requirement applies to health care liability claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court; section 1983 does not preempt it.

Ramona Rogers, M.D., Modesto Zamorano, Stephanie Cumpian, Rolando Flores, Hector Ontiveros, Priscilla Nieto, Sonia Herna · filed 2021-06-18

Because the TMLA’s expert-report requirement would not cause reliably different outcomes in section 1983 cases brought in state and federal court, we hold that section 74.351 is not preempted by section 1983.

A county is not a claimant under the TMLA and need not serve an expert report; its failure to serve one does not warrant dismissal.

Albertson Companies, Inc. v. County of Dallas · filed 2024-05-21

For all of the foregoing reasons, we stand by our previous decision in Dowlearn that a county is not a person at common law. We likewise conclude that the Counties here are not claimants under the TMLA, that they were not required to serve the Pharmacies with an expert report, and that the MDL court properly denied the Pharmacies’ motions to dismiss.

Counties are not claimants under the TMLA and need not serve expert reports under § 74.351.

SPCSA PLLC A/K/A Shavano Oaks Pharmacy v. County of Bexar · filed 2024-05-21(a)

We likewise conclude that the Counties here are not claimants under the TMLA, that they were not required to serve the Pharmacies with an expert report, and that the MDL court properly denied the Pharmacies’ motions to dismiss.