Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Success Stories of Personal Injury Lawyers Directory US Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Canada Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Resource Directory
Search Lawyers by Zip Code
facebook.com/injury.usa

  to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.

Vinson v. Lorentz

10/27/2005

sons never supplied the curriculum vitae of either claimed expert, which the statute plainly requires. Accordingly, we reject the Vinsons' contention that their mistaken belief that they had complied with section 13.01(r)(6) warranted their requested 30-day grace period to comply with former article 4590i's requirements. See Walker, 111 S.W.3d at 64-65.


The Vinsons' second point of error can also be construed as contending that their failure to comply timely with the expert-report requirements was accidental because of their counsel's "mistaken impression" that the complete depositions of Alford and Crumbaker were in Lorentz's counsel's possession before Lorentz filed the motion to dismiss. As addressed above, there are conflicting versions of this "mistake," which the trial court properly resolved in the fact-finding dimension of its discretionary role. See Williams, 111 S.W.3d at 815. But, even if both complete depositions were in Lorentz's possession within the section 13.01(d) deadline, nothing in the record shows or suggests that the Vinsons had conveyed or suggested, before the 180-day statutory deadline had expired, that they would rely on either to comply with the expert-report requirements of former article 4590i.


Because the Vinsons did not satisfy the criteria to warrant the 30-day grace period to file expert reports pursuant to former article 4590i, section 13.01(g), we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by impliedly denying their request by dismissing their claims against Lorentz with prejudice pursuant to subsection (d) of that statute. See Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 4590i, ยง 13.01(d), (g) (repealed 2003).


We overrule the Vinsons' second point of error.


Conclusion


We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We deny all pending motions.


Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Alcala and Bland.






Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Texas Personal Injury Attorneys    Personal Injury Lawyers


  to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.

Personal Injury Lawyers Brain Injuries Spinal Cord Injuries
Quadriplegia and Paraplegia Back Injuries Ruptured & Herniated Disks
Bulging Disk Neck Injuries Dog Bites
Toxic Mold Product Liability Fire Accidents
Trucking Accidents Boating Accidents Car Accidents
Plane Crashes Medical Malpractice Motorcycle Accidents
Wrongful Death Personal Injury Lawsuits Testimonial
FDP  |   RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Leads  |  Partner Websites
DUI Defense  |  SiteMap  | PI Blog  | Trading Partners | Attorney Registration  | PI Case Laws  | FAQ | Personal Injury Forum
 | Personal Injury Lawyers Directory  | Success Stories  | Press Releases
Copyright © 2005. “National Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (NAPIL)”. All rights reserved.
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE