Finding that expert reports from an obstetrician, neurologist, and nurse, when read together, sufficiently explained how obstetrician and nursing negligence caused a baby’s permanent brain injury and therefore satisfied Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code’s preliminary expert report requirement.

Successfully convinced court of appeals to dismiss medical provider’s interlocutory appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where trial court granted the statutorily-provided 30-day extension to cure alleged deficiencies in the plaintiff’s Ch. 74 expert report.

Read Opinion

Finding that expert report satisfied Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and reversing court of appeals’ opinion to the contrary, confirming that Chapter 74’s “‘fair summary’ benchmark is not an evidentiary standard.”

Read Opinion

Assuming, without deciding, that a motor vehicle collision involving an ambulance presented a health care liability claim, the court of appeals found that the plaintiffs’ preliminary expert reports satisfied the health care liability act when a paramedic outlined how the standard of care and breach caused the crash while a forensic pathologist linked the breach to the deceased plaintiff’s injury and death. In so holding, the court of appeals rejected the ambulance company defendant’s argument that a physician was required opine on the cause of the collision, observing that under Chapter 74 a physician need only opine on the cause of the injury, harm, or damages claimed.

Read Opinion

Affirming denial of Chapter 74 motion to dismiss and holding that trial court properly considered amended expert reports that plaintiff filed within 120 days of defendant’s answer.

Read Opinion

Successfully defeated petition for writ of mandamus filed by Defendants who did not want to answer discovery related to financial transactions among themselves in the face of allegations of fraudulent transfers.

Read Opinion

Successfully convinced court of appeals to reverse summary judgment in favor of oil well services company as to its vicarious liability for collision caused by a worker returning to remote well site after purchasing necessary supplies.  The court of appeals found fact issues existed as to both the existence of an employment relationship and whether the worker was acting in the course and scope of his employment.

Read Opinion

Successful defense of Chapter 74 medical expert report by radiologist who testified regarding physician's failure to diagnose Plaintiff's breast cancer.

Read Opinion

Successfully reversed a Chapter 74 dismissal, holding that a cardiologist with hospital administration experience was qualified to opine as to a hospital’s policies and procedures for providing cardiac care.

Read Opinion

Affirming denial of Chapter 74 motions to dismiss filed by various health care providers, finding that challenged experts were qualified and that their reports satisfied Chapter 74’s gatekeeping functions in all respects.

Read Opinion

Successfully dismissed an appeal from a 2014 default judgment for lack of jurisdiction, rejecting the defendants’ argument that the default judgment was interlocutory because an unserved defendant was never nonsuited.  The court concluded that the default judgment was final because the plaintiff had abandoned all remaining claims against the unserved defendant.

Court held that the expert-report requirement to proceed with a health-care-liability claim does not apply to a non-party doctor’s deposition when the doctor is a fact witness with knowledge relevant to claims against the defendant Hospital, even if the doctor may also face the possibility of becoming a defendant.

Read Opinion

Affirming judgment following a jury trial concerning personal injuries suffered in an automobile collision.  In addition to rejecting the defendant’s many challenges to the jury’s causation and damage findings, the court of appeals also rejected an evidentiary argument regarding the improper admission of liability insurance, concluding that the defendant failed to show that the admission of such evidence caused rendition of an improper judgment.

Successfully defeated a healthcare provider’s petition for review to the Texas Supreme Court by providing merits briefing demonstrating that because the expert report satisfied Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code’s requirements regarding standard of care and causation as to an estate’s survival claim, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by also allowing a wrongful death claim to proceed.

In dispute between commercial property neighbors, successfully convincing the court of appeals to reverse and render a take-nothing judgment on a jury verdict awarding lost rental income for breach of a settlement agreement, finding legally insufficient evidence to support the loss of rental income damage award.