The trial court abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily, unreasonably, or without reference to guiding rules or principles. Bowie Mem'l Hosp. v. Wright , 79 S.W.3d 48, 52 (Tex. 2002) (per curiam); Lucas v. Clearlake Senior Living Ltd. P’ship , 349 S.W.3d 657, 660 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.). An appellate court cannot conclude that a trial court abused its discretion merely because the appellate court would have ruled differently in the same circumstances.
In Lucas v. Clearlake Senior Living Ltd. Partnership, this court held that a defendant waived its objection to the expert's qualifications to opine on causation when the objection was not made within twenty-one days of the original report but was made only in response to the amended report. 349 S.W.3d 657, 658 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.). Allowing a new objection to be made to an expert's qualifications when both the original and amended report included opinions on causation (even if deficient) would be "contrary to the clear language of the statute."
A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily, unreasonably, or without reference to guiding rules or principles. Bowie Mem'l Hosp. v. Wright , 79 S.W.3d 48, 52 (Tex. 2002) (per curiam) ; Lucas v. Clearlake Senior Living Ltd. P'ship , 349 S.W.3d 657, 660 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.). When reviewing matters committed to the trial court's discretion, a court of appeals may not substitute its own judgment for the trial court's judgment.
The trial court abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily, unreasonably, or without reference to guiding rules or principles. Bowie Mem'l Hosp. v. Wright , 79 S.W.3d 48, 52 (Tex. 2002) (per curiam); Lucas v. Clearlake Senior Living Ltd. P’ship , 349 S.W.3d 657, 660 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.). An appellate court cannot conclude that a trial court abused its discretion merely because the appellate court would have ruled differently in the same circumstances.
As a reviewing court on matters committed to the trial court's discretion, we may not substitute our own judgment for that of the trial court merely because we would have ruled differently. See Wright, 79 S.W.3d at 52; Lucas v. Clearlake Senior Living Ltd. P'ship, 349 S.W.3d 657, 660 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.). When reviewing decisions that fall within the trial court's discretion, "[c]lose calls must go to the trial court."
Thus, contrary to Appellees' argument, post-objection deadline arguments do not retroactively render timely filed corresponding objections untimely. Appellees direct us to Lucas v. Clearlake Senior Living Ltd. Partnership, 349 S.W.3d 657 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.), but that case actually supports Plaza's position because the health care provider there asserted an objection to an amended expert report that it did not include in its objections to the original expert report. Id. at 659, 662-63.