Supreme Court of Texas Blog

No. 14-0593
Click for Official Page

HALEY HEBNER AND DARRIN CHARLES SCOTT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIENDS OF R.M.S., A MINOR v. NAGAKRISHNA REDDY, M.D., AND NEW BRAUNFELS OB/GYN, P.A.

Oral argument was held on October 12, 2015. The Court issued an opinion resolving the case on May 27, 2016. It then denied rehearing on September 23, 2016 File Closed

Opinions

May 27, 2016

Brown
Hecht
Green
Guzman
Lehrmann
Devine

Justice Brown delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Hecht, Justice Green, Justice Guzman, Justice Lehrmann, and Justice Devine joined. PDF

Johnson

Justice Johnson delivered a dissenting opinion.View Electronic Briefs | Oral Argument | Video PDF

Boyd
Willett

Justice Boyd delivered a concurring opinion, in which Justice Willett joined. PDF

Court of Appeals

Appellate District:3rd Court of Appeals
Outcome Below:Reverse & Remand
COA Docket No.:03-12-00675-CV
Opinion Author:Honorable David E. Puryear

Trial Court

Trial Court:22nd District Court
County:Comal
Trial Judge:Honorable Charles R. Ramsay
Trial Docket:C2012-0266A

Docket Entries

Date Event Outcome  
2016-09-23 Motion for Rehearing - Disposed Denied
2016-09-23 Mandate issued  
  This case was waiting for a decision about a pending motion for rehearing between July 13, 2016 and September 23, 2016.  
2016-07-13 Case forwarded to Court
2016-07-13 Motion for Rehearing  
2016-06-07 Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Rehearing  
2016-06-07 Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Rehearing disposed   Filing granted
2016-05-27 Dissenting opinion issued.   Issued
2016-05-27 Court approved judgment sent to attorneys of record Issued
2016-05-27 Opinion issued   Court of Appeals' judgment reversed; cause remanded to trial court
2016-05-27 Concurring Opinion issued.   Issued
  This case was awaiting the Court's decision after oral argument between October 12, 2015 and May 27, 2016.  
2015-10-12 Oral argument  
2015-09-24 Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received  
2015-09-23 Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received  
  This case was waiting for oral argument between July 10, 2015 and September 23, 2015.  
2015-07-10 Case set for oral argument   Case set for oral argument
2015-06-12 Petition for Review disposed   Filing granted
2015-06-12 Notice from attorney regarding vacation dates  
2015-06-12 Petition for Review granted
  This case was pending on merits briefs between February 9, 2015 and June 12, 2015.  
2015-02-09 Brief on the Merits (Respondent)  
2015-01-30 Address Change  
2015-01-20 Brief on the Merits (Petitioner)  
2015-01-06 Case Record Filed  
2014-12-23 Record Requested in Petition for Review  
2014-12-19 Brief on the Merits Requested  
  This case was waiting for a decision about briefing or a possible grant between October 13, 2014 and December 19, 2014.  
2014-10-13 Response to Petition (Respondent)  
2014-09-15 Notice received  
2014-09-12 Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response  
2014-08-12 Case forwarded to Court
2014-08-08 Response Waiver filed  
2014-08-04 Phone call from Clerk's Office  
2014-08-04 Supplemental appendix (Petitioner)  
2014-08-01 Petition for Review (Petitioner)  

Parties

Party Counsel Role
New Braunfels Ob/Gyn, P.A.
Ms. Rosemary L. Hollan
Ms. Diana L. Faust
Mr. R. Brent Cooper
Mr. Kyle M. Burke
Respondent
Reddy, M.D., Nagakrishna
Ms. Rosemary L. Hollan
Mr. R. Brent Cooper
Ms. Diana L. Faust
Mr. Kyle M. Burke
Respondent
Hebner, Haley
Mr. William O. Whitehurst Jr.
Ms. Michelle Mei-Hsue Cheng
Mr. Eugene W. Brees II
Mr. Craig William Carlson
Petitioner
 

When should a trial court permit a corrected expert report for a medical-malpractice case?

med mal

In this medical-malpractice case, the plaintiffs sent an expert report to the doctor by certified mail prior to the lawsuit as part of a pre-suit notification. When the lawsuit was filed, the plaintiffs attached an expert report to meet their 120-day expert-report requirement. The doctor did not object to this expert report within the 21 days provided by statute.

But it turns out that the two expert reports were not the same. The pre-suit report was the correct one; there is no dispute that the doctor received it. The second report, the one attached to the petition that initiated the lawsuit, was a report by the same expert for a different case, included here by mistake.

The doctor eventually filed a motion to dismiss; the plaintiffs responded by serving the (correct) expert report. The trial court held that this correction came too late, granting the motion to dismiss without offering the 30-day opportunity to cure that is authorized by the statute. The court of appeals affirmed on a 2-1 vote. The Supreme Court has granted review.

...
...