Debbie Wheeler, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Larry Wheeler, Kim Adams, and Kristie Stewart v. Methodist Richardson Medical Center, Methodist Health System Foundation, and Jose Gutierrez, M.D.
05-17-00332-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 7, 2017Background
- Larry J. Wheeler underwent carotid and coronary surgery at Methodist Richardson; post-extubation he suffered hypoxic brain injury and later died after ventilator withdrawal.
- Debbie Wheeler (individually and as estate representative), Kim Adams, and Kristie Stewart sued Methodist Richardson Medical Center and Methodist Health System Foundation for negligence and respondeat superior; physician Gutierrez was a defendant but not part of this appeal.
- Plaintiffs timely served expert reports from Jay S. Ellis, M.D., and Claudia Estrada, R.N.; defendants objected that the reports failed to state causation and were therefore defective.
- Plaintiffs submitted an amended Ellis report and asked for a 30-day extension to cure any deficiencies under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.351(c); defendants opposed considering the amendment and argued dismissal was required.
- The trial court sustained objections, found no report as to causation for the Methodist defendants, dismissed plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice, and denied (implicitly) the 30-day cure period.
- Plaintiffs appealed interlocutorily; the court of appeals reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing without granting an opportunity to cure under the Scoresby standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal was required when original expert reports lacked causation opinions | Ellis’s report, though initially lacking causation as to Methodist, met the minimal Scoresby standard and was curable; plaintiffs requested a 30-day cure | The absence of any causation opinion means no report exists and dismissal is mandatory; extension not required | Court reversed: under Scoresby the reports met the lenient threshold for a cure opportunity; trial court abused discretion by dismissing without allowing cure |
| Whether trial court must grant 30-day extension under § 74.351(c) when report is deficient | Scoresby requires courts to err on side of granting extensions when deficiencies are curable | § 74.351(c) is discretionary (“may grant”); trial court can deny extension | Court applied Scoresby’s minimal/lenient test and concluded extension should have been allowed (abuse of discretion to dismiss) |
| Whether Hollingsworth/Patterson control and preclude extension when causation missing | Plaintiffs: Scoresby controls and allows extension despite missing elements if curable | Defendants: Dallas precedent (Hollingsworth/Patterson) limits extensions where element absent | Court held Scoresby (Supreme Court) controls and overrides narrower appellate interpretations; Hollingsworth not controlling here |
| Whether amended report could show curability and be considered | Plaintiffs submitted an amended Ellis report to show curability and asked court to grant cure period | Defendants argued amended report was insufficient and should not be considered for extension | Court did not decide on admissibility of the amended report; remanded for trial court to allow opportunity to cure consistent with Scoresby |
Key Cases Cited
- Scoresby v. Santillan, 346 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. 2011) (Supreme Court sets minimal/lenient standard for allowing 30-day extension to cure expert-report deficiencies)
- Samlowski v. Wooten, 332 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. 2011) (plurality opinion on review standard and expert-report issues discussed; contrasted with Scoresby)
- Ogletree v. Matthews, 262 S.W.3d 316 (Tex. 2007) (earlier Supreme Court guidance on expert-report sufficiency and cure opportunities)
- Hollingsworth v. Springs, 353 S.W.3d 506 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.) (Dallas appellate decision limiting extensions when a report is ‘absent’ rather than merely deficient)
- Biggs v. Baylor Univ. Med. Ctr., 336 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, pet. denied) (supports leniency in granting extensions under section 74.351(c) and guidance to err on side of granting cure)