Deborah Hendryx and KPH-Consolidation, Inc. D/B/A Kingwood Medical Center v. Carolina Duarte, Individually and as Next Friend and Personal Representative of the Estate of Baby Boy Duarte, and Israel Duarte, 09-18-00070-CV

Carolina Duarte’s baby was born in prolonged breech presentation and died about six hours after birth; parents sued Kingwood Medical Center and Dr. Deborah Hendryx for wrongful death and health‑care liability.
The Duartes served an expert report by Dr. William E. Roberts (with resume) asserting the baby would have survived if delivered by cesarean and criticizing the hospital’s and doctor’s care and timeliness.
Defendants moved to dismiss under the Texas Medical Liability Act (the Act), challenging Roberts’s qualifications—primarily that he was not "actively practicing medicine"—and (Kingwood) arguing lack of hospital‑care expertise and that causation opinions were conclusory.
The trial court denied the motions, finding Roberts’s report and resume satisfied the Act and, alternatively, excusing the active‑practice requirement as a matter of discretion based on his extensive experience and teaching.
Defendants appealed interlocutorily; the court of appeals reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the denial, concluding Roberts’s report constituted a good‑faith effort and showed adequate qualifications, causation, and hospital‑care knowledge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Expert active‑practice qualification	Roberts’s report and resume show licensure, board certification, perinatal consulting, teaching and prior clinical roles — qualifies under Act	Roberts was not "actively practicing medicine" when claim arose or when report filed; thus report fails	Affirmed: court may infer active practice from consulting/teaching and may invoke §74.401/.402(d) exception; trial court did not abuse discretion
Hospital‑standard knowledge (Kingwood)	Roberts’s experience as board‑certified OB/MFM, hospital leadership, teaching, publications give knowledge of hospital standards	Roberts did not demonstrate specific, current experience with hospital nursing care or active hospital practice	Affirmed: resume + report provided reasonable basis to conclude he knew applicable standards; trial court reasonably construed experience as sufficient
Causation / conclusory opinions	Report links facts from records (timing, nurse notes, ultrasound request, on‑call timing, delay to cesarean) to opinion that delays caused breech vaginal delivery and death	Opinions are speculative/overly conclusory, rely on assumptions about what EMS or nurses relayed	Affirmed: report makes a good‑faith effort to explain causation and links conclusions to factual record; sufficiency of proof for credibility reserved for later stages

Am. Transitional Care Ctrs. of Tex., Inc. v. Palacios, 46 S.W.3d 873 (Tex. 2001) (expert‑report must discuss standard, breach, causation with specificity)
Bowie Mem’l Hosp. v. Wright, 79 S.W.3d 48 (Tex. 2002) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard; expert must explain basis of statements)
Abshire v. Christus Health Se. Tex., 563 S.W.3d 219 (Tex. 2018) (expert‑report requirement is to weed out frivolous claims; good‑faith effort standard)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (appellate review of discretionary rulings; abuse‑of‑discretion defined)
Benge v. Williams, 548 S.W.3d 466 (Tex. 2018) (not every licensed physician is automatically qualified; qualifications test should not be too narrow)
Broders v. Heise, 924 S.W.2d 148 (Tex. 1996) (qualifications for expert reviewed under abuse‑of‑discretion standard)