Nathan Philipp v. Methodist Hospitals of Dallas D/B/A Methodist Dallas Medical Center ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Affirmed and Opinion Filed July 6, 2022
    In The
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    No. 05-21-00350-CV
    NATHAN PHILIPP, Appellant
    V.
    METHODIST HOSPITALS OF DALLAS D/B/A METHODIST DALLAS
    MEDICAL CENTER, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court
    Dallas County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-12429
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Justices Myers, Osborne, and Nowell
    Opinion by Justice Myers
    This is an appeal challenging the trial court’s order granting appellee
    Methodist Hospitals of Dallas d/b/a Methodist Dallas Medical Center’s
    (Methodist’s) motion to dismiss with prejudice appellant Nathan Philipp’s
    healthcare liability lawsuit. Philipp brings two issues. We affirm the trial court’s
    order.
    BACKGROUND
    On September 3, 2020, appellant Philipp filed health care liability claims
    against appellee Methodist, alleging defects in his care and treatment. Methodist
    timely filed its original answer on September 28, 2020. Because Philipp’s claims
    against Methodist are health care liability claims, they are governed by Chapter 74
    of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
    On January 27, 2021, Philipp served on Methodist an expert report and a
    curriculum vitae from Barbara Sampley, R.N. On February 12, 2021, Methodist
    timely filed its combined statutory objections to the expert report and curriculum
    vitae, and a motion to dismiss Philipp’s suit for failure to comply with Chapter 74.
    Philipp filed a motion for extension of time to file an expert report on March 15,
    2021, and on March 23 Methodist filed an amended motion to dismiss. This filing
    specifically noted that Philipp’s expert report was untimely under Chapter 74,
    section 74.351, because it was filed after the expiration of the 120-day deadline.
    On March 25, 2021, the trial court held a hearing on Methodist’s statutory
    objections, its motion to dismiss, and Philipp’s motion for extension. During that
    hearing, the trial court informed the parties it had signed an order on March 17, 2021,
    sustaining Methodist’s objections and dismissing Philipp’s lawsuit. The order states
    in part that “Plaintiff’s expert Barbara Sampley, R.N. does not meet the requirements
    of an expert witness and that her report is wholly deficient, pursuant to Chapter 74
    of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedy [sic] Code.” The order dismisses Philipp’s
    claims against Methodist with prejudice. The court also denied Philipp’s motion for
    extension on March 25, 2021, according to the court’s docket sheet.
    On April 15, 2021, Philipp filed a motion for new trial, to which Methodist
    replied in opposition on May 10, 2021. Methodist’s response stressed that the expert
    –2–
    report of Barbara Sampley, R.N., was untimely under Chapter 74. Methodist’s
    response included a calendar that counted each of the 120 days Philipp had to timely
    file an expert report under Chapter 74 and demonstrated that he filed his expert report
    after the expiration of the 120-day deadline. Philipp subsequently filed this appeal.
    DISCUSSION
    Philipp brings two issues, first arguing the trial court erred in denying his
    motion to extend the time to file an expert report as allowed by section 74.351(c) of
    the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and second, that the trial court erred in
    finding Philipp’s expert report was not an objective good faith effort to provide an
    expert report.
    We review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to dismiss under
    section 74.351 for an abuse of discretion. Am. Transitional Care Ctrs. of Tex., Inc.
    v. Palacios, 
    46 S.W.3d 873
    , 875 (Tex. 2001); Broxterman v. Carson, 
    309 S.W.3d 154
    , 157 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, pet. denied). Under this standard, we defer to a
    trial court’s factual determinations, but review de novo questions of law that involve
    statutory interpretation and constitutional challenges. Stockton v. Offenbach, 
    336 S.W.3d 610
    , 615 (Tex. 2011). A trial court has no discretion in determining what
    the law is or applying the law to the facts. Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston
    v. Callas, 
    497 S.W.3d 58
    , 62 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. denied)
    (citing Walker v. Packer, 
    827 S.W.2d 833
    , 840 (Tex. 1992)). The trial court’s failure
    to analyze or apply the law correctly is an abuse of discretion. 
    Id.
    –3–
    “To proceed with a health care liability claim, a claimant must comply with
    the expert report requirement of the Texas Medical Liability Act.” Callas, 497
    S.W.3d at 61 n.1 (citing Stockton, 336 S.W.3d at 614); see Sutker v. Simmons, No.
    05-18-00698-CV, 
    2019 WL 3001034
    , at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 10, 2019, pet.
    denied) (mem. op.). Section 74.351, titled “Expert Report,” provides in part:
    In a health care liability claim, a claimant shall, not later than the 120th
    day after the date each defendant’s original answer is filed, serve on
    that party or the party’s attorney one or more expert reports, with a
    curriculum vitae of each expert listed in the report for each physician
    or health care provider against whom a liability claim is asserted. The
    date for serving the report may be extended by written agreement of the
    affected parties. Each defendant physician or health care provider
    whose conduct is implicated in a report must file and serve any
    objection to the sufficiency of the report not later than the later of the
    21st day after the date the report is served or the 21st day after the date
    the defendant’s answer is filed, failing which all objections are waived.
    TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 74.351(a). Subsection (b) provides:
    If, as to a defendant physician or health care provider, an expert report
    has not been served within the period specified by Subsection (a), the
    court, on the motion of the affected physician or health care provider,
    shall, subject to Subsection (c), enter an order that:
    (1) awards to the affected physician or health care provider
    reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of court incurred by the
    physician or health care provider; and
    (2) dismisses the claim with respect to the physician or health
    care provider, with prejudice to the refiling of the claim.
    Id. § 74.351(b). Subsection (c) reads as follows:
    If an expert report has not been served within the period specified by
    Subsection (a) because elements of the report are found deficient, the
    court may grant one 30-day extension to the claimant in order to cure
    the deficiency. If the claimant does not receive notice of the court’s
    –4–
    ruling granting the extension until after the applicable deadline has
    passed, then the 30-day extension shall run from the date the plaintiff
    first received the notice.
    Id. § 74.351(c).
    Section 74.351 presents “a statute-of-limitations-type deadline within which
    expert reports must be served.” Ogletree v. Matthews, 
    262 S.W.3d 316
    , 319 (Tex.
    2007); Sutker, 
    2019 WL 3001034
    , at *3. It requires the claimant to serve the expert
    report and Curriculum Vitae (CV) on the party or the party’s attorney by the 120-
    day deadline. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 74.351(a); Sutker, 
    2019 WL 3001034
    , at *3. “Although the deadline can lead to seemingly harsh results, strict
    compliance with this provision is mandatory.” Sutker, 
    2019 WL 3001034
    , at *3
    (citing Zanchi v. Lane, 
    408 S.W.3d 373
    , 376 (Tex. 2013); Ogletree, 262 S.W.3d at
    320). “If the claimant does not serve an expert report by the statutory deadline and
    the parties have not agreed to extend the deadline, the statute requires . . . dismissal
    of the claim with prejudice ‘on the motion of the affected physician or health care
    provider.’” Zanchi, 408 S.W.3d at 376 (quoting § 74.351(b)); see Sutker, 
    2019 WL 3001034
    , at *3. Thus, if the report is not filed by the deadline, the Legislature has
    denied trial courts the discretion to grant extensions or deny motions to dismiss, and
    a trial court’s refusal to dismiss may be immediately appealed. Badiga v. Lopez, 
    274 S.W.3d 681
    , 683 (Tex. 2009) (quoting Ogletree, 262 S.W.3d at 319–20); Sutker,
    
    2019 WL 3001034
    , at *3.
    In this case, Methodist filed its answer on Monday, September 28, 2020. To
    –5–
    avoid dismissal, Philipp was required to serve the expert report no later than
    Tuesday, January 26, 2021. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 74.351(a); Sutker,
    
    2019 WL 3001034
    , at *3. But Philipp served Sampley’s documents on Wednesday,
    January 27, 2021. Philipp thus failed to serve the expert report within 120 days of
    Methodist’s original answer, and the parties did not enter into a written agreement
    to extend the statutory deadline. See, e.g., Badiga v. Lopez, 
    274 S.W.3d 681
    , 685
    (Tex. 2009) (“The trial court may grant an extension in only two circumstances: (1)
    by written agreement of the parties or (2) to allow a claimant to cure a report’s
    deficiencies.”). Because Philipp failed to comply with the legal prerequisite to
    maintaining suit against Methodist, the trial court properly dismissed the lawsuit
    pursuant to section 74.351. See Zanchi, 408 S.W.3d at 376 (“Strict compliance with
    [section 74.351(a)] is mandatory.”); Scoresby v. Santillan, 
    346 S.W.3d 546
    , 555
    (Tex. 2011) (“The Medical Liability Act . . . does not authorize an extension if no
    report is timely served.”); Badiga, 274 S.W.3d at 683 (“[I]f no report is served within
    the 120 day deadline provided by 74.351(a), the Legislature denied trial courts the
    discretion to deny motions to dismiss or grant extensions, and a trial court’s refusal
    to dismiss may be immediately appealed.”) (internal quotation omitted).
    –6–
    We therefore overrule Philipp’s issues and affirm the trial court’s order
    granting Methodist’s objections and dismissing Philipp’s claims against Methodist
    with prejudice.
    /Lana Myers//
    210350f.p05                              LANA MYERS
    JUSTICE
    –7–
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    JUDGMENT
    NATHAN PHILIPP, Appellant                      On Appeal from the 14th Judicial
    District Court, Dallas County, Texas
    No. 05-21-00350-CV          V.                 Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-12429.
    Opinion delivered by Justice Myers.
    METHODIST HOSPITALS OF                         Justices Osborne and Nowell
    DALLAS D/B/A METHODIST                         participating.
    DALLAS MEDICAL CENTER,
    Appellee
    In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order
    granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss is AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that
    appellee METHODIST HOSPITALS OF DALLAS D/B/A METHODIST DALLAS
    MEDICAL CENTER recover its costs of this appeal from appellant NATHAN
    PHILIPP.
    Judgment entered this 6th day of July, 2022.
    –8–
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-21-00350-CV

Filed Date: 7/6/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/13/2022