Summary
This Texas Supreme Court decision addresses whether a health care provider may challenge the denial of a motion to dismiss based on an allegedly inadequate expert report after final judgment, rather than by interlocutory appeal. The excerpt is a dissent arguing that the provider should be required to pursue immediate interlocutory review to further the statutory goal of promptly dismissing frivolous health care liability claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a health care provider must immediately pursue an interlocutory appeal from an order denying dismissal under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 74.351(b) to preserve a later challenge to the expert report's adequacy.
- Whether failure to pursue interlocutory review forecloses review after final judgment.
- How the statutory purposes of quickly dismissing frivolous health care liability claims and preserving meritorious claims should inform construction of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code sections 51.014(a)(9) and 74.351.
Holdings
- In the dissent's proposed rule, a health care provider challenging the adequacy of an expert report must immediately appeal the denial of dismissal under sections 51.014(a)(9) and 74.351(b); failure to do so forecloses a later complaint about that ruling after final judgment.
- The dissent rejected the majority's exception allowing a provider to challenge the denial of dismissal after final judgment when the plaintiff prevailed at trial, reasoning that the statute contains no such exception.
Key quotations
“Because the statutory goal is to quickly dispense with frivolous health care litigation, I would hold that section 51.014(a)(9) authorizes a provider to immediately appeal a trial court’s denial of relief under section 74.351(b), and that his failure to do so forecloses a later complaint about the ruling.” (Conclusion)
“The interlocutory appeal was designed to remove frivolous cases from the judicial system at the earliest opportunity.” (Section II)
“An expert report is a means to determine quickly if the claim has arguable merit.” (Section III)
Factual background
The case concerns a health care liability claim supported by an allegedly inadequate expert report. The trial court denied the physician's motion to dismiss under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 74.351. The central dispute was whether the physician had to pursue an authorized interlocutory appeal immediately or could challenge the denial after final judgment.
Procedural history
The case reached the Supreme Court of Texas on a petition for review from the Thirteenth Court of Appeals. The dissent describes the majority as holding that a provider may challenge the denial of dismissal either by interlocutory appeal or after final judgment, but may not do so after a full trial in which the plaintiff prevails.