Appellant the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (UT Southwestern) appeals the trial court's order denying its motion to dismiss. In a single issue, UT Southwestern asserts appellees' suit should have been dismissed because appellees did not file an expert report in compliance with section 74.351 of the civil practice and remedies code. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM. CODE ANN. § 74.351 (Vernon 2005). For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Appellees Summer and Layton Dale, individually and as next friends of their infant daughter, Macy Dale, filed suit against UT Southwestern for injuries sustained by Macy. In their petition, appellees alleged four UT Southwestern resident physicians, Doctors Meghan Hate, T. McCavit, A. Verma, and A. Williamson, were negligent in their treatment of Macy and that their negligence proximately caused Macy's injuries. Appellees did not allege UT Southwestern was directly negligent, but alleged UT Southwestern was liable for the negligence of its residents. Appellees served UT Southwestern with a report by a medical expert specifically naming each resident and purporting to set forth how each resident breached the applicable standard of care. UT Southwestern never objected to the report, but filed a motion to dismiss the claims alleging appellees did not file an expert report "as to UT Southwestern." The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. This appeal followed.

Under section 74.351(a) of the civil practice and remedies code, a claimant bringing a health care liability claim must, not later than the 120th day after filing suit, serve on each party or the party's attorney one or more expert reports for each physician or health care provider against whom a liability claim is being asserted. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM. CODE ANN. § 74.351(a) (Vernon 2005). "Expert report" means a written report by an expert that provides a fair summary of the expert's opinions regarding applicable standards of care, the manner in which the care rendered by the physician or health care provider failed to meet the standards, and the causal relationship between that failure and the injury, harm, or damages claimed. TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM. CODE ANN. § 74.351(r)(6) (Vernon 2005).

UT Southwestern does not dispute that appellees served UT Southwestern with a report within 120 days of filing suit. Nor does UT Southwestern dispute that the report (1) named the applicable residents, (2) stated the applicable standard of care, (3) stated how each resident breached the standard of care, and (4) stated how the breach proximately caused the injury. Instead, UT Southwestern asserts appellees filed no expert report at all with respect to UT Southwestern because the report did not name "UT Southwestern." To show appellees were required to specifically name UT Southwestern, UT Southwestern cites cases in which the appellate court concluded the plaintiff's expert report did not satisfy the expert report requirement because it did not name the defendant. See Taylor v. Christus Spohn Health Sys. Corp., 169 S.W.3d 241, 244 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2005, no pet.); Wood v. Tice, 988 S.W.2d 829, 831-32 (Tex.App. San Antonio 1999, pet. denied); Horsley-Layman v. Angeles, 968 S.W.2d 533, 535 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1998, no pet.). However, in each of these cases, the defendant was the alleged negligent party. See Wood, 988 S.W.2d at 831-32; Horsley-Layman, 968 S.W.2d at 535.

The purpose of the expert report requirement is to (1) inform the defendant of the specific conduct the plaintiff has called into question, and (2) provide the trial court with a basis from which to conclude the claims have merit. See Am. Transitional Ctrs. of Tex., Inc. v. Palacios, 46 S.W.3d 873, 879 (Tex. 2001). Thus, what is relevant for purposes of the expert report is that the report specifically identify the person whose conduct the plaintiff is calling into question and show how that person's conduct constituted negligence. See Taylor, 169 S.W.3d at 244; Wood, 988 S.W.2d at 831-32; Horsley-Layman, 968 S.W.2d at 535.

In this case, appellees did not assert UT Southwestern was itself negligent. Thus, the expert report could not explain how UT Southwestern "breached the standard of care and how that breach caused or contributed to the cause of injury." See Taylor, 169 S.W.3d at 244. Rather, appellees claims against UT Southwestern are based entirely upon the actions of its resident physicians. We conclude that because appellants were not alleging UT Southwestern was directly negligent, the expert report was not required to mention UT Southwestern by name. Further, because UT Southwestern does not assert the expert report was defective in explaining how the conduct of each of its residents constituted negligence, we conclude UT Southwestern does not present reversible error.

Presumably, all that UT Southwestern asserts the expert should have included was a statement that the residents were acting in the course and scope of their employment with UT Southwestern. However, we fail to see how a medical expert would be qualified to provide an opinion on this issue.

Finally, even if we were to conclude the report was somehow deficient, we would nevertheless affirm the trial court's judgment. After being sued for the conduct of four of its residents, UT Southwestern was served with a report identifying each resident by name and alleging each resident was negligent. Under these circumstances, the report "implicated" UT Southwestern. Under 74.351(a), each defendant physician or health care provider whose conduct is implicated in a report must file and serve any objection to the sufficiency of the report not later than the twenty-first day after the date it was served, failing which all objections are waived. TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM. CODE ANN. § 74.351(a) (Vernon 2005). Because UT Southwestern did not object to appellees' expert report, it waived any objection to its adequacy. Id. We resolve the sole issue against UT Southwestern and affirm the trial court's judgment.

Summaries of

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Dale

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas

Apr 6, 2006

188 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. App. 2006)

holding that expert reports were not required to mention the defendant hospital because reports were based upon the actions of hospital physicians

Summary of this case from Houston Methodist Hosp. v. Nguyen

holding that expert report did not need to name UT Southwestern because the claims against UT Southwestern were based entirely upon the actions of its physicians, and there was no allegation that UT Southwestern was directly negligent

Summary of this case from Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston v. Kai Hui Qi

holding that "because [the defendant hospital] does not assert the expert report was defective in explaining how the conduct of each of its [employee] residents constituted negligence, we conclude [the hospital] does not present reversible error"

Summary of this case from Women's Clinic v. Alonzo

holding that "because appellants were not alleging UT Southwestern was directly negligent, the expert report was not required to mention UT Southwestern by name"

Summary of this case from Women's Clinic v. Alonzo

holding that an expert report need not explicitly refer to the hospital employer by name where a plaintiff is asserting vicarious, and not direct, liability, and where it is clear that the conduct of the hospital employer is implicated

Summary of this case from Christus Spohn Health Sys. v. Sanchez

holding that expert report is sufficient as to hospital if it is sufficient as to resident physicians because plaintiff's claims sought to hold hospital vicariously liable for actions of resident physicians

Summary of this case from Mike Norgaard, LPC v. Pingel

holding that an expert report was not required where plaintiffs did not assert that the medical center was itself negligent

Summary of this case from In re Knapp Med. Ctr. Hosp.

holding that medical center was not required to be named in expert report addressing its residents' conduct because plaintiffs alleged no direct-liability claims against it and noting that medical center was implicated in report and so waived all its objections when it failed to object to sufficiency of report within twenty-one days after service

Summary of this case from Obstetrical and Gynecological v. Mccoy

concluding that plaintiffs need not mention hospital in expert report when plaintiffs limited their claim against hospital to vicarious liability for acts of employees

Summary of this case from Estorque v. Schafer

concluding that plaintiffs need not mention defendant hospital in expert report when plaintiffs limited their claim against hospital to vicarious liability for employees

Summary of this case from Vestal v. Wright

concluding that plaintiffs need not mention hospital in expert report when plaintiffs limited their claim against hospital to vicarious liability for employees

Summary of this case from CHU v. FIELDS

concluding that plaintiffs need not mention hospital in expert report when plaintiffs limited their claim against hospital to vicarious liability for employees

Summary of this case from University of Texas Medical Branch v. Railsback

In Dale, the court held that the expert report, which addressed only the negligence of the medical center's residents, was not required to mention the medical center by name because the plaintiffs were not alleging that the defendant medical center was directly negligent.

Summary of this case from Obstetrical and Gynecological v. Mccoy

In Dale, the plaintiff based his claims against the defendant hospital entirely upon the actions of its resident physicians and did not assert a claim for direct negligence against the hospital.

Summary of this case from AZLE MANOR v. VADEN

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Dale

Summary

Opinion

OPINION

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Dale

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Dale

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Dale

Summary

Opinion

OPINION

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Dale

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Dale

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citing Cases

Citations