The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio v. Ray Magdaleno, Individually and Next Friend of M.M, a Minor
04-24-00785-CV
| Tex. App. | Jun 4, 2025Background
- M.M., a minor, underwent oral surgery performed by Dr. Mark Miller, an employee of the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (UTHSCSA), to remove two extra teeth.
- After the surgery, M.M.'s parents learned that the wrong tooth (a permanent tooth) had been removed and one extra tooth remained.
- The father (Magdaleno) filed a healthcare liability claim and submitted an expert report signed by Dr. Steven C. Maller, D.D.S.
- UTHSCSA challenged the report, arguing Dr. Maller was unqualified since Dr. Miller is both an M.D. and D.M.D., while Dr. Maller is only a D.D.S.
- The trial court denied UTHSCSA's motion to dismiss and overruled its objections to the expert report; UTHSCSA appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is a dentist (D.D.S.) qualified to opine on standard of care for a physician (M.D./D.M.D.)? | Dr. Miller was acting as a dental professional; Dr. Maller is qualified. | Report must comply with physician standard; Dr. Maller not qualified. | Dentist not qualified; physician standards apply. |
| Qualification to opine on causation | Standards for a dentist apply as Dr. Miller acted in dental capacity. | Report must meet physician standards for causation; Dr. Maller lacks qualification. | Physician standard applies; report insufficient. |
| Whether expert showed training/experience with procedure | Not addressed; Maller is qualified as dentist. | Maller did not show relevant training/experience for procedure performed. | Not reached due to resolution of prior issues. |
| Sufficiency of expert report as a “good faith effort” | Should allow time to cure any deficiencies. | Report is as good as "no report;" no extension should be allowed. | Plaintiff entitled to 30-day extension to cure deficiencies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Transitional Care Ctrs. of Tex., Inc. v. Palacios, 46 S.W.3d 873 (Tex. 2001) (establishes abuse-of-discretion review for dismissal of healthcare claims)
- Van Ness v. ETMC First Physicians, 461 S.W.3d 140 (Tex. 2015) (abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing trial court rulings)
- Jackson v. Axelrad, 221 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. 2007) (addresses qualification of physician-experts in standard of care)
- Hood v. Phillips, 554 S.W.2d 160 (Tex. 1977) (defines burden of proof for plaintiff in standard of care claims)
- Scoresby v. Santillan, 346 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. 2011) (lenient standard for extension to cure expert report deficiencies)