Houston Methodist Hospital F/K/A the Methodist Hospital v. Kara Nguyen, 470 S.W.3d 127

Kara Nguyen sued four physicians and Houston Methodist Hospital under Texas’s Medical Liability Act, alleging injuries after splenectomy/gallbladder surgery and pleading the Hospital is vicariously liable for the physicians.
Nguyen timely served three expert reports addressing the physicians’ breaches and causation but did not expressly name the Hospital in the reports.
Four months after the reports were served, the Hospital moved to dismiss under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.351 for lack of an expert report as to the Hospital; the trial court denied the motion.
The central procedural question was whether the Hospital waived objections to the expert reports by failing to file any sufficiency objections within the 21-day deadline set by § 74.351(a).
The court analyzed whether the reports sufficiently implicated the Hospital under a vicarious-liability theory (so the 21-day objection deadline would be triggered) and whether the Hospital’s later-filed motion was timely or waived.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Hospital waived objections to the expert reports by not objecting within the statutory 21-day period	Nguyen: reports implicated the physicians whose conduct she alleges the Hospital is vicariously liable for; therefore the Hospital had 21 days to object and failed to do so, waiving objections	Hospital: reports did not name or address the Hospital; its § 74.351(b) motion to dismiss (filed later) was proper because no report was served on the Hospital	Held: Reports implicated the physicians and, under vicarious-liability theory, implicated the Hospital; because Hospital did not timely object within 21 days, it waived objections and trial court did not abuse discretion in denying dismissal

Obstetrical & Gynecological Assocs., P.A. v. McCoy, 283 S.W.3d 96 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (standard of review for § 74.351 motions and timeliness principles)
Troeger v. Myklebust, 274 S.W.3d 104 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (timely objection requirement; failure to object waives challenge)
Gardner v. U.S. Imaging, Inc., 274 S.W.3d 669 (Tex. 2008) (vicarious-liability theory: reports implicating agents can suffice for employer/health-care provider)
Neason v. Buckner, 352 S.W.3d 254 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (reports that implicate physician conduct can trigger 21-day objection period for hospitals)
Certified EMS, Inc. v. Potts, 392 S.W.3d 625 (Tex. 2013) (if any liability theory is adequately covered by report, the case may proceed)
Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston v. Qi, 370 S.W.3d 406 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (expert report need not expressly name hospital when based on physicians’ actions)
Loaisiga v. Cerda, 379 S.W.3d 248 (Tex. 2012) (scope of expert’s use of pleadings and records in forming opinions; does not mandate merits-based evidentiary hearing on vicarious liability)
Rosemond v. Al-Lahiq, 331 S.W.3d 764 (Tex. 2011) (appellate review principles; courts may uphold rulings on any theory supported by record)