 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Finley v. Steenkamp5/18/2000
with an intention of the legislature to not extend or apply such modifications of liability laws to any other area of the Texas legal system or tort law." Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 4590i, § 1.02((b)(1), (7) (emphases added). With this in mind, we cannot conclude that the Legislature ever intended for the tolling provision in section 4.01(c) to reach beyond the boundaries of section 4590i to extend the statute of limitations for a general negligence claim (or any other claim, for that matter) against a non-health care provider. Accordingly, we hold that "all parties and potential parties" in section 4.01(c) refers to only the parties to a health care liability claim as defined in section 1.03(4). Id. § 1.03(4).
Because the running of the limitations period applicable to Finley's negligence claim against CDS was not tolled, the trial court did not err in granting CDS's motion for summary judgment. Finley's second issue is overruled.
V. CONCLUSION
Because there was conflicting evidence from which the trial court could have concluded that Finley's failure to file his expert report was not the result of an accident or mistake, we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case against Steenkamp. Additionally, because the Legislature did not intend presuit notice of a health care liability claim to a health care provider to extend the limitations period for causes of action raised outside the Act, the trial court did not err in granting CDS's motion for summary judgment. We affirm the trial court's order of dismissal in favor of Steenkamp. We also affirm the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of CDS.
PUBLISH
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|