No. 14-0593
Click for Official Page
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
| 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: | 22nd District Court |
| County: | Comal |
| Trial Judge: | Honorable Charles R. Ramsay |
| Trial Docket: | C2012-0266A |
| Date | Event | Outcome | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016-09-23 | Mandate issued | ||
| 2016-09-23 | Motion for Rehearing - Disposed | Denied | |
| This case was waiting for a decision about a pending motion for rehearing between July 13, 2016 and September 23, 2016. | |||
| 2016-07-13 | Motion for Rehearing | ||
| 2016-07-13 | Case forwarded to Court | ||
| 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 | Opinion issued | Court of Appeals' judgment reversed; cause remanded to trial court | |
| 2016-05-27 | Concurring Opinion issued. | Issued | |
| 2016-05-27 | Court approved judgment sent to attorneys of record | 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 | Petition for Review granted | ||
| 2015-06-12 | Notice from attorney regarding vacation dates | ||
| 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) |
| Party | Counsel | Role | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New Braunfels Ob/Gyn, P.A. |
|
Respondent | ||||
| Reddy, M.D., Nagakrishna |
|
Respondent | ||||
| Hebner, Haley |
|
Petitioner |
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.
