Kenneth A. Totz, D.O., FACEP v. Telicia Owens, 01-16-00753-CV

Owens visited Memorial Hermann ED multiple times in February 2010 for severe headaches and blurry vision; Dr. Totz treated her on Feb. 21, 2010, and no diagnostic testing was done.
On Feb. 24, 2010, Owens underwent CT imaging at another hospital showing a brain bleed; she later suffered complications including MRSA infection and permanent bilateral blindness.
Owens sued Totz (filed 2012) alleging health-care-liability claims (negligence and gross negligence) for failure to diagnose/diagnose timely, order appropriate tests, consult specialists, admit to neuro-ICU, and treat for suspected CVST.
Owens served a medical-expert report by neurologist Brian Richardson on May 29, 2012; Totz objected that the report was insufficient and, separately, that he was not timely served with the report under former Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.351.
The trial court initially dismissed Owens’s claims for failure to timely serve the report; this court reversed in a prior appeal, holding service was timely and remanded. After remand Totz renewed his service-timeliness objection; the trial court denied Totz’s renewed motion to dismiss and Totz appealed.
The appellate court applied the law-of-the-case doctrine, declined to relitigate the previously decided legal question about timely service, and affirmed the trial court’s denial of Totz’s motion to dismiss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Owens timely served a qualifying expert report under former Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.351	Owens argued service of Richardson’s report was timely and this court already held so in the prior appeal	Totz argued Owens failed to serve the report within 120 days and presented new affidavits to renew the objection	Court held the issue had been decided in the prior appeal and, under the law-of-the-case doctrine, declined to revisit it; affirmed denial of dismissal

Owens v. Handyside, 478 S.W.3d 172 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015) (appellate opinion previously holding service of the expert report was timely)
Zanchi v. Lane, 408 S.W.3d 373 (Tex. 2013) (governs interpretation of expert-report service requirements)
Briscoe v. Goodmark Corp., 102 S.W.3d 714 (Tex. 2003) (explains law-of-the-case doctrine and when courts refuse to reopen decided issues)
Loram Maint. of Way, Inc. v. Ianni, 210 S.W.3d 593 (Tex. 2006) (defines law-of-the-case principle)