Villarreal v. Julia Fowler, Individually & Minors S.C., L.C.

6 Citing cases

  1. Methodist Hosps. of Dall. v. Nieto

    No. 05-18-01073-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 15, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    "Section 74.351 distinguishes between a report that is timely served but deficient and when no report is served." Villarreal v. Fowler, 526 S.W.3d 633, 635 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, no pet.). "If a report is timely served but deficient, the trial court may grant an extension to cure the deficiency, and no appeal lies from the extension order."

  2. Methodist Hosps. of Dall. v. Nieto

    No. 05-18-01073-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 22, 2019)

    "Section 74.351 distinguishes between a report that is timely served but deficient and when no report is served." Villarreal v. Fowler, 526 S.W.3d 633, 635 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, no pet.). "If a report is timely served but deficient, the trial court may grant an extension to cure the deficiency, and no appeal lies from the extension order."

  3. Taton v. Taylor

    No. 02-18-00373-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 27, 2019)   Cited 12 times

    If a report is timely served but deficient, the trial court may grant an extension to cure the deficiency, and no appeal lies from the extension order. Villarreal v. Fowler, 526 S.W.3d 633, 635 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, no pet.); see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(c) ("If an expert report has not been served within the period specified by Subsection (a) because elements of the report are found deficient, the court may grant one 30-day extension to the claimant in order to cure the deficiency."). In distinguishing between a deficient report and no report, we are guided by the supreme court's decision in Scoresby v. Santillan, 346 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. 2011).

  4. CSL S Weatherford, LLC v. Arens

    668 S.W.3d 431 (Tex. App. 2023)   Cited 2 times
    Relying on electronic filing manager to show when counsel had received the notification and when he had opened it

    Id. at 43 ; see alsoRansom v. Eaton , 503 S.W.3d 411, 411–12 (Tex. 2016) (holding expert report properly served on "party" concurrently with pre-suit notice). Although the supreme court has not yet interpreted the meaning of the phrase "the party's attorney" in Section 74.351(a), Zanchi, Hebner , and Ransom strongly suggest that the referenced attorney need not make a formal appearance on behalf of a named defendant in an existing lawsuit before he becomes eligible to accept service of an expert report. SeeVillarreal v. Fowler , 526 S.W.3d 633, 634–35 & n.1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, no pet.) (observing that, given email service of expert report on her attorney two weeks before the filing of suit, defendant licensed professional counselor "understandably asserted no argument challenging the pre-suit service").

  5. In re Wade

    566 S.W.3d 375 (Tex. App. 2018)

    Section 128.053(a) requires only that objections to an expert report be filed and served within twenty-one days; because Pogue’s report constituted no report at all under chapter 128, relators' obligation to object was never triggered. Seeid. §§ 128.051(3)(A), (4), .053(a); see alsoVillarreal v. Fowler , 526 S.W.3d 633, 634–35, 637–38 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, no pet.) (holding that under chapter 74 of the civil practice and remedies code, which similarly requires service of expert reports in healthcare liability claims, the twenty-one-day deadline to object was not triggered when a party served a "Clinical Review," which was "no report at all"); Haskell v. Seven Acres Jewish Senior Care Servs. , 363 S.W.3d 754, 759 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.) (holding that if a chapter 74 report is so deficient as to constitute no report at all, the twenty-one-day deadline to object is never triggered and the trial court is "required to dismiss"); Francis v. Select Specialty Hosp. , No. 01-04-01186-CV, 2005 WL 2989489, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 3, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.) ("[B]ecause there is no evidence in the record that Sharon filed her expert report with the trial court or otherwise provided Select Specialty with an expert report, the 21-day deadline by which a health care provider must file and serve its objections to the suf

  6. Blevins v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

    No. 02-17-00276-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 15, 2018)   Cited 8 times
    In Blevins, the court also explained that "[e]ven objective evidence of an injury does not mandate a damages award [for pain or mental anguish] if the injury is 'less serious and accompanied only by subjective complaints of pain,' particularly where an award of past medical expenses is made."

    A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner or without reference to any guiding rules and principles. Villarreal v. Fowler, 526 S.W.3d 633, 635 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, no pet.). Error is reversible only if it probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment or prevented the appellant from properly presenting his case to the appellate court.