Baylor College of Medicine v. Cindi C. Davies and John Davies ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • Reversed and Remanded and Opinion and Dissenting Opinion filed March 31,
    2020.
    In The
    Fourteenth Court of Appeals
    NO. 14-18-01014-CV
    BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, Appellant
    V.
    CINDI C. DAVIES AND JOHN DAVIES, Appellees
    On Appeal from the 61st District Court
    Harris County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. 2018-05395
    DISSENTING OPINION
    Dr. Levin’s report did not need to marshal Mrs. Davies’s proof—what is
    needed to satisfy an objective good faith effort to comply with the expert report
    requirement is to discuss the standard of care, breach, and causation with sufficient
    specificity to (1) inform the defendant of the specific conduct called into question
    and (2) provide a basis for the trial court to conclude that the claims have
    merit. Baty v. Futrell, 
    543 S.W.3d 689
    , 693 (Tex. 2018); Jelinek v. Casas, 
    328 S.W.3d 526
    , 539 (Tex. 2010). The purpose of the expert report requirement is to
    deter frivolous claims, not to dispose of claims regardless of their merit. Scoresby
    v. Santillan, 
    346 S.W.3d 546
    , 554 (Tex. 2011). The Texas Supreme Court “has
    encouraged trial courts to liberally construe expert reports in favor of plaintiffs.”
    Henry v. Kelly, 
    375 S.W.3d 531
    , 535 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet.
    denied); see also Loaisiga v. Cerda, 
    379 S.W.3d 248
    , 264 (Tex. 2012) (Hecht, J.,
    concurring and dissenting) (“An expert report, as we have interpreted it, is a low
    threshold a person claiming against a health care provider must cross merely to
    show that his claim is not frivolous.”). When reviewing decisions, such as this one,
    that fall within the trial court’s discretion, “[c]lose calls must go to the trial court.”
    Larson v. Downing, 
    197 S.W.3d 303
    , 304 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam). The
    sufficiency of this report is a close call—however, the law specifies that in close
    calls, we defer to the trial court’s ruling. Because the majority fails to do so, I
    respectfully dissent.
    /s/       Frances Bourliot
    Justice
    Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Bourliot
    (Christopher, J., majority).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-18-01014-CV

Filed Date: 3/31/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/31/2020