Opinion
No. 12-04-00242-CV
Opinion delivered September 14, 2005.
Appeal from the 173rd Judicial District Court of Henderson County, Texas.
Panel consisted of WORTHEN, C.J., GRIFFITH, J., and DeVASTO, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Cynthia Washington appeals the trial court's dismissal, with prejudice of her claims against Douglas Curran, M.D., Teri Lynne Baumgartner, M.D., William A. Elfarr, M.D., Stuart K. Spitzer, M.D., Lakeland Medical Associates, and East Texas Medical Center-Athens. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On July 30, 2003, Washington filed suit pro se against Appellees alleging causes of action for negligence and gross negligence that arose from a surgery she underwent on July 30, 2001. Washington alleged that she developed "severe, debilitating infections and complications" from the surgery. The 180-day time period for Washington to submit an expert report pursuant to the former Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act ("the Act") expired on January 30, 2004. Washington did not file an expert report prior to or on that day.
We must note that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all applicable laws and rules of procedure. See Strange v. Continental Casualty Co. , 126 S.W.3d 676, 677 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, pet. denied).
This case was filed prior to September 1, 2003; therefore, the provisions of former Texas Revised Civil Statute article 4590i, the predecessor to the current Chapter 74 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, apply to the instant case. See Act of May 30, 1977, 65th Leg., R.S., ch. 817, 1977 Tex. Gen. Laws 2039, 2039-64, repealed by Act of June 2, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 204, § 10.09, 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws 847, 884 (current version at TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM. CODE ANN. ch. 74 (Vernon 2005)). For purposes of simplicity, any citation to the former statute will be to article 4590i.
On March 3, 2004, Drs. Elfarr and Spitzer filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to subsection (e) of section 13.01 of the Act. Drs. Curran, Baumgartner, and Lakeland Medical Associates filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to subsection (e) on March 5. On March 16, East Texas Medical Center — Athens filed its motion to dismiss pursuant to subsection (e).
Former subsection (e) of section 13.01 provided that if the claimant failed to provide an expert report within the time limits allowed, the court should, on the defendant's motion, enter an order dismissing the claim with prejudice as a sanction against the claimant. TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 4590i, § 13.01(e).
The trial court conducted a hearing on Appellees' motions to dismiss on April 12. Prior to the hearing, Washington filed a motion for continuance, asking for more time to file an expert report. The trial court granted Washington's motion and reset the hearing for June 16, 2004, approximately 145 days past the statutory deadline for providing Appellees with an expert report. Washington failed to provide an expert report prior to or on June 16. On that date, the trial court granted Appellees' motions to dismiss. Washington filed a notice of appeal on July 16.
WAIVER
In the body of her brief, Washington generally contends that the trial court improperly dismissed her petition with prejudice. Appellees contend that Washington waived any alleged error because her brief fails to include citations to any authorities or record. We agree.
Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure mandates that an appellant's brief must 1) state concisely all issues or points presented for review and 2) contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(e), (h). The failure to brief, or to adequately brief, an issue by an appellant effects a waiver of that issue on appeal. General Servs. Comm'n v. Little-Tex Insulation Co., Inc. , 39 S.W.3d 591, 598 n. 1 (Tex. 2001).
Washington's brief does not 1) concisely state any issue presented for review, 2) contain a clear and concise argument, or 3) cite to any authorities or record. Accordingly, we hold that Washington has waived any alleged error on appeal. Washington's argument is overruled.
DISPOSITION
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.