Lucas v. Clearlake Senior Living Ltd. Partnership

6 Citing cases

  1. Humble Surgical Hosp., LLC v. Davis

    542 S.W.3d 12 (Tex. App. 2017)   Cited 31 times
    Concluding that expert's "opinion on causation contains analytical gaps and missing links which render his opinion conclusory"

    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.

  2. Hilton v. Wettermark

    NO. 14-14-00697-CV (Tex. App. May. 7, 2015)   Cited 4 times

    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."

  3. Aquatic Care Programs, Inc. v. Cooper

    616 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. App. 2020)   Cited 3 times
    Holding trial court could not consider supplemental expert report claimant served well after 30-day extension deadline had expired

    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.

  4. Kelly v. Ford

    543 S.W.3d 383 (Tex. App. 2018)   Cited 6 times
    Holding expert report insufficient because it did not explain how it was foreseeable that pharmacy's dispensation of compounded cream of ketamine and cyclobenzaprine caused patient's death because, among other things, expert did not identify amount of each drug in cream or amount of cream used by patient and noting that patient's death "might be foreseeable if . . . [pharmacy] dispensed [ketamine and cyclobenzaprine] in a dangerously high amount"

    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.

  5. Monga v. Perez

    NO. 14-16-00961-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 23, 2018)   Cited 3 times
    Concluding that "it is reasonable to anticipate [primary doctor] would follow the recommendation of [consulting specialist doctor]"

    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."

  6. Columbia Plaza Med. Ctr. of Fort Worth v. Jimenez

    NO. 02-15-00275-CV (Tex. App. May. 5, 2016)   Cited 3 times
    Concluding that the expert report properly articulated the standard of care for hospital staff which required that they observe, monitor, and recognize symptoms or conditions

    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.