Tatia Ortiz v. Ramu Nelapatla, 05-22-00531-CV

Ortiz sued Nelapatla for injuries from an automobile collision and sought past medical expenses.
Ortiz timely served section 18.001 affidavits from three providers showing charges of $2,210 (Addison Interventional Pain), $11,250 (LifeSciences Imaging), and $6,415 (Synergy Sports Rehabilitation).
Nelapatla served counteraffidavits from two retained experts (a medical-billing/practice-management expert and a chiropractor) contesting certain charges and the medical necessity of some treatment, identifying specific dollar amounts controverted.
At pretrial and at trial the court sustained Nelapatla’s objections and excluded the LifeSciences and Synergy Sports section 18.001 affidavits, the counteraffidavits, and related supplemental expert-disclosure responses.
The jury found Nelapatla negligent and awarded Ortiz $2,210 (matching the Addison provider amount); Ortiz moved for new trial as to damages and appealed only the evidentiary exclusions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ortiz’s section 18.001 affidavits (LifeSciences, Synergy) were admissible when only partially controverted	Admit the affidavits and either instruct jury to award only uncontroverted amounts or remittitur if jury awards more	Counteraffidavits complied with §18.001(f); a compliant counteraffidavit requires plaintiff to present expert testimony and excludes the initial affidavits	Excluded. A compliant counteraffidavit need not fully controvert an affidavit; exclusion was within trial court’s discretion
Whether Nelapatla’s counteraffidavits were admissible at trial (as opposing-party statements / non-hearsay)	Counteraffidavits qualify as statements by a party opponent under Tex. R. Evid. 801(e)(2) and thus are not hearsay	Counteraffidavits were served to give notice under §18.001 and do not convert into admissible trial evidence; expert testimony was required	Excluded. Counteraffidavits are not automatically admissible as party-opponent statements; exclusion was proper
Whether supplemental disclosure responses (incorporating counteraffidavits) were admissible	Disclosures are party contentions under Tex. R. Civ. P. 194.6 and should be admissible unless later amended	Ortiz failed to timely offer them during the evidentiary phase; issue not preserved	Not preserved. Ortiz did not obtain a ruling during trial; appellate review not allowed

In re Allstate Indem. Co., 622 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. 2021) (section 18.001 allows affidavit proof unless a compliant counteraffidavit is served; explains "reasonable notice" standard)
In re Chefs’ Produce of Hous., Inc., 667 S.W.3d 297 (Tex. 2023) (clarifies effect of a compliant counteraffidavit and that plaintiff’s evidentiary burden becomes same as if no initial affidavit had been served)
Haygood v. De Escabedo, 356 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. 2011) (discusses section 18.001’s purpose to streamline proof of medical expenses)
Gunn v. McCoy, 554 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. 2018) (statutory construction principles and use of plain meaning)
Tex. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ruttiger, 381 S.W.3d 430 (Tex. 2012) (legislative intent: courts presume enacted words are deliberate)
Interstate Northborough P’ship v. State, 66 S.W.3d 213 (Tex. 2001) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Hong v. Bennett, 209 S.W.3d 795 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006) (upholding exclusion of affidavits and counteraffidavits where counteraffidavit sufficiently controverted plaintiff’s section 18.001 affidavit)