 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sandles v. Howerton5/27/2005
Before Justices Wright, FitzGerald and Lang-Miers
In this medical malpractice case, we address whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to grant appellant a thirty-day grace period within which to file her expert report, by dismissing her claims with prejudice pursuant to the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act of Texas (the Act) and by awarding attorneys' fees against appellant as sanctions. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Background
Candace Sandles, as administratrix of the estate of Sarah Ann Williams, deceased, filed this health care liability claim on March 5, 2003 alleging that Ashford Hall Nursing Home, the Lion Hospice Foundation, two doctors and Gary Howerton, a family nurse practitioner, were negligent in providing medical care for Williams, resulting in her death. Williams' death allegedly resulted from a series of falls over several months at the nursing home where she was a patient.
Under article 4590i, section 13.01(d) of the Act, Sandles was required on or before September 1, 2003 to either dismiss her claims voluntarily or provide opposing counsel with an expert report showing, among other things, how each defendant physician or health care provider failed to meet an applicable standard of care. Sandles furnished an expert report of registered nurse Joy Souther on September 3, 2004 to Howerton's co-defendants but did not furnish the report to Howerton on that date. It appears Howerton was not served with citation in the lawsuit until after that date because Howerton filed his answer on October 8, 2004. He received a copy of the report on December 31, 2004.
In March 2004, Howerton filed a motion to dismiss Sandles' claims against him alleging she failed to comply with the expert report requirements of article 4590i and requesting attorneys' fees under section 13.01(e). In her response to the motion to dismiss, Sandles moved for an extension of time to file her expert report. At a combined hearing, the trial court denied Sandles' request for an extension and granted Howerton's motion to dismiss, but did not state the basis for its rulings.
Howerton then filed a combined motion for attorneys' fees and to sever his case from the other defendants. In response to this motion, Sandles asked the court to reconsider its dismissal and grant her a thirty-day extension to file an expert report in compliance with article 4590i section 13.01. Following the hearing, the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration and entered a final judgment in favor of Howerton granting the severance and awarding him $35,000 in attorneys' fees, court costs, and $22,500 in attorneys' fees contingent on whether appellant is unsuccessful on appeal, plus five percent post-judgment interest. Sandles timely appealed.
Discussion
Sandles raises three issues on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in dismissing her claim against Howerton without allowing her an extension to file an amended expert report, (2) the trial court erred in finding her expert's report was insufficient as a matter of law, and (3) the trial court erred in awarding attorneys' fees to Howerton. We have found no ruling in the record where the trial court held Sandles' expert report was insufficient as a matter of law. In fact, the trial court did not state the basis for its rulings. In that situation, we will uphold the court's judgment on any valid legal theory supported by the record. See City of Garland v. Booth, 895 S.W.2d 766, 768-69 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1995, writ denied); see also Town of Sunnyvale v. Mayhew, 905 S.W.2d 234, 243 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1994), rev'd on other grounds by Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|