Stockton ex rel. Stockton v. Offenbach

Summary

The Supreme Court of Texas held that Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 74.351 requires service of an expert report within 120 days after filing a health care liability claim and does not provide a due-diligence exception when the defendant cannot be located. The Court also rejected the claimant's as-applied open-courts challenge, concluding that the claimant's lack of diligence contributed to the failure to meet the deadline. The Court affirmed the court of appeals' judgment dismissing the claim.

Holdings

1. The legal questions concerning whether section 74.351 permits additional time beyond the 120-day deadline and whether the statute is constitutional as applied are reviewed de novo.
2. Section 74.351 requires timely service of the expert report, and the record did not establish sufficient diligence to permit relation back or otherwise excuse the untimely service. The claimant's unexplained four-month period of inactivity defeated her due-diligence argument as a matter of law.
3. Section 74.351 was not unconstitutional as applied to Stockton because she failed to establish that the statute prevented her from pursuing her claim or that she lacked a reasonable opportunity to be heard through the exercise of due diligence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court of appeals applied the proper standard of review to the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 74.351(b).
2. Whether section 74.351's 120-day expert-report deadline contains a due-diligence or relation-back exception when the defendant cannot be located.
3. Whether section 74.351 is unconstitutional as applied under the Texas Constitution's open-courts provision when service of the defendant and expert report is difficult or allegedly impossible.

Disposition

affirmed