*1 J., (Patel). pertained to pregnancy “Lumpkin, to the obstetrical consult In es- — Baker, F., Franaszek, J.: sence, Alcoholic Ketoa- Baker complains of their collective Pregnant cidosis in a Woman. JACEP diagnose TIA and their collective 8(1): January 21. 1979.” conclude We failure to admit Danos. Accordingly, we that the trial court did not abuse its discre- hold that Baker’s do not address tion in finding qualified that Baker was not causation. opine proximate on cause. We hold that the trial court did not report merely
A states the finding abuse its discretion in Baker’s re- expert’s conclusions about the standard of ports inadequate, and we overrule Danos’s care, breach, and causation is not suffi sole issue. Palacios,
cient. S.W.3d 879. Fur thermore, a in report statement a that the Conclusion plaintiff should have received different affirm of the trial treatment injured and was as a result is court. conclusory and appropriate. dismissal is Eichelberger v. St. Paul Medical Cen ter, 639 (Tex.App.-Dallas denied). Baker does not state
anywhere in report any alleged his act
or Rittger proximately omission of caused injuries damages.
Danos’s or The expert
must proximate address cause as to each
defendant and provide some basis to con HOSPITAL, HILL REGIONAL clude that an act or omission of the defen dant proximately injury. caused the
An expert report “may not assert multiple negligent defendants are all RUNNELS, Individually Maxine and as failing to meet the standard of care with Heir to and on Behalf of the Estate of providing explanation out of how each Runnels, Glendon Deceased and Tam specifically defendant breached the stan my Runnels Walker and Glen Paul dard of care and how that breach caused Runnels, Individually, Appellees. injury.” Taylor or contributed to the (Tex. Spohn, Christus
App.-Corpus pet.). Christi In Taylor, the expert report stated that “it Waco. negligent was Wright, for Dr. Team March Southwest, Spohn Health Hospital” to complete discharge fail procedures,
among things. other 245. The dismissal,
court of affirmed hold
ing expert report that the was insufficient
because “it specify fails to each Defen negligent
dant’s individual conduct.” Id. report
Baker’s spe- does address the
cific allegations negligence for the emer-
gency physician (Rittger) opposed room as
301 dismiss, Regional Hill the motion that order. notified parties, the we In a letter to may not have that we of our concern them being ap- the order jurisdiction because interlocutory appealable an was not pealed juris- this sides have briefed order. Both issue. dictional v. Funder- held in Lewis recently juris lacks appellate an court that burk interlocutory attempted over diction denying relief under order from appeal 74.351(Z). v. Funder Lewis subsection burk, 756, 760 191 S.W.3d filed). agree with 2006, courts pet. Other See, Stafford, 214 S.W.3d v. e.g., us. Jain 2006, pet. 94, (Tex.App.-Fort See, h.). e.g., Cayton not. Others do 172069, 440, Moore, 224 S.W.3d WL Jan.24, 2007, no (Tex.App.-Dallas at *2-3 Sys. v. h.); Healthcare Methodist pet. Stinnett, Rem- & Ty Bailey, A. Thiebaud Martinez-Partido, at 2006 WL LLP, Dallas, appellant. ington Antonio June (Tex.App.-San *1-2 Orr, Reyes & Craig Heygood Orr James denied) (mem.op.). pet. Bartolomei, Mackey, P. Jason T. Edward prece- and re-affirm our follow We will PC, Dallas, Firm Quillin, Quillin Law the trial dent; jurisdiction over we lack PC, Dumas, Fulbright Winniford David Hill interlocutory denying order court’s Waco, appellee. subsec- to dismiss under Regional’s motion 74.351(Z) appeal for and dismiss the GRAY, Justice Before Chief Justice Lewis, 191 jurisdiction. want of VANCE, REYNA. and Justice MEMORANDUM OPINION dissenting. GRAY Chief Justice VANCE, BILL Justice. Justice, GRAY, dissenting. Chief TOM to not majority’s decision I the respect care action This is a health See Lewis prior its decision. relating to abandon Regional Hospital against Hill (Tex.App.- In accor- Runnels. death of Glendon the filed). I But continue Remedies Waco Practice and dance with Civil incorrectly decision was 74.351, timely believe the Runnelses section dissent- at 761 expert the re- decided. Regional to Hill furnished majority cites one the ing). And while Jeffrey Kopita, M.D. and ports and CVs two them and agrees with court Simmons, Regional Hill ob- R.N. Debora p. slip opinion disagree, courts adequacy of these jected to the a number have identified Appellants the case under sub- to dismiss the and moved implicitly they contend 74.351(0- courts that denied other The trial court section disagree majority. with the There is no however,
question, that the courts of conflict,
peals’ decisions are in direct thus
invoking Supreme ju- Court’s conflict
risdiction. Tex. Ann. Gov’t 22.001(a)(2)(Vernon 2004).
§
Because precedential value of our established, yet decision is not I dis-
sent from the of the for Court
the same reasons that I dissented in Lewis
v. Funderburk. Lewis v. 761-66 filed) dissenting) Bunn, Dallas, Appellant.
Nichol L. Keith, Darrell L. Fort Appel- lee. Quest METWEST, INC., d/b/a
Diagnostics Incorporated, HOLMAN, GARDNER, Panel D: and Appellant WALKER, JJ. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Miguel RODRIGUEZ, Jr., Miguel Rodriguez, Lucy Rodriguez, and PER CURIAM. Appellees. Metwest, Inc., Quest d/b/a/ Diagnostics Incorporated, filed this inter- locutory appeal from the trial court’s deni- prejudice al of its motion to dismiss with Fort Worth. Appel- the health care claims that
April Jr., Miguel Rodriguez, Miguel lees Rodri-
guez, Lucy Rodriguez against and raised Appellant’s Ap- it. motion was based on pellees’ alleged comply with sec- practice of the civil 74.351 reme- by filing adequate expert dies code report. Tex. Civ. Phac. & Rem.Code Ann. (r)(6) (Vernon 74.351(a), (l), § Supp.2006). 15, 2007, February Ap-
On we informed pellant that we were concerned about jurisdiction whether we have over this this court has held that an peal because 1. Tex.R.App. P. 47.4.