Jeanne Ransom v. Jeanine Eaton, D.D.S.
503 S.W.3d 411
| Tex. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Jeanne Ransom alleged that dentist Jeanine Eaton extracted two additional teeth beyond a nine-tooth treatment plan.
- Ransom served Eaton with pre-suit notice required by the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA) and included an expert report during the pre-suit period.
- Ransom later filed suit but did not re-serve the expert report after filing the petition.
- Eaton filed an original answer and did not object within 21 days to the sufficiency or absence of an expert report; instead, after 120 days passed, Eaton moved to dismiss for failure to serve an expert report within 120 days.
- The trial court granted dismissal; the court of appeals affirmed, reasoning Eaton was not a "party" when Ransom served the report pre-suit.
- While review was pending, the Texas Supreme Court decided Hebner v. Reddy, which governed whether pre-suit service of an expert report satisfies section 74.351(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-suit service of an expert report satisfies TMLA §74.351(a) | Ransom: Pre-suit service to defendant (with notice) satisfies the statutory expert-report service requirement | Eaton: Defendant was not yet a “party” when served pre-suit, so service did not satisfy the 120‑day post-answer requirement | Court held pre-suit service of the expert report satisfies §74.351(a) under Hebner v. Reddy |
| Whether defendant waived objection to report sufficiency by failing to timely object | Ransom: Eaton waived objections by not objecting within 21 days after her answer | Eaton: Argued dismissal appropriate after 120 days despite not objecting earlier | Court held Eaton waived any sufficiency objection by not raising it within 21 days after filing her answer |
Key Cases Cited
- Hebner v. Reddy, 498 S.W.3d 37 (Tex. 2016) (pre‑suit service of an expert report can satisfy TMLA §74.351(a) and supports settlement objectives)
- Zanchi v. Lane, 408 S.W.3d 373 (Tex. 2013) (defendant named in suit is a “party” for expert‑report purposes even if served after the report was served)