Tyler Scoresby, M.D. v. Catarino Santillan, Individually and as Next Friend of Samuel Santillan, a Minor
346 S.W.3d 546
| Tex. | 2011Background
- Texas Medical Liability Act (MLIIA/MLA) requires an expert report within 120 days; deficiencies may be cured with a 30-day extension.
- The trial court’s dismissal or denial rulings on the expert report are subject to specific appellate rules and extensions.
- Santillan timely served Dr. Marable’s letter as the purported expert report alleging meritorious claim against two ENT surgeons.
- Marable’s initial letter lacked CV and detailed qualifications; physicians objected to adequacy and scope of qualifications.
- After 120 days, Santillan provided CVs/amended report expanding qualifications and asserting standard-of-care failures by the surgeons.
- The trial court granted a 30-day extension to cure, and the physicians appealed asserting no valid report existed; the court of appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a document with some content can qualify as an expert report for extension purposes | Santillan argues the letter implicates the claim and meritoriousness. | Physicians contend the letter is insufficient to be an expert report. | Yes, as long as it contains an expert opinion indicating merit and implicates conduct. |
| Whether a deficient report can be cured by a 30-day extension when timely served | Santillan contends cure is allowed under §74.351(a)-(c). | Physicians argue no cure if report is fatally deficient. | A 30-day extension to cure deficiencies is allowed if timely served and deficiences are curable. |
| Whether an extension is appealable when a deficient report is cured | Santillan seeks interlocutory review of denial to dismiss after extension. | Physicians urge dismissal and immediate appellate review. | Interlocutory appeal is limited; review occurs only after extension status and final denial. |
| What constitutes an adequate expert report under the MLA | Marable’s neurology expertise suffices to indicate merit. | Marable lacks qualifications for ENT surgery standards; report insufficient. | Report must provide objective good faith effort and show meritorious claim; qualifications must relate to the relevant standard of care. |
| Whether a neurologist’s opinion can support an extension for ENT-surgery claims | Santillan argues Dr. Marable’s opinion demonstrates merit. | Qualifying expertise must be relevant to the surgical standard of care. | A neurologist’s opinion can support merit if it implicates the defendant’s conduct and is otherwise curable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ogletree v. Matthews, 262 S.W.3d 316 (Tex. 2007) (deficient report but implicates conduct; allows cure extension; no merits review while cured)
- Lewis v. Funderburk, 253 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. 2008) (whether a deficient report can support an extension; discusses qualifications and scope)
- Badiga v. Lopez, 274 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. 2009) (docket review of dismissal when no report timely served; appeal allowed)
- In re Watkins, 279 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. 2009) (no-report vs deficient-report distinction; review limitations discussed)
- McAllen Medical Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458 (Tex. 2008) (necessity of qualified expert to address standard of care; credentialing context)