Tyler SCORESBY, M.D., Petitioner, v. Catarino SANTILLAN, Individually and As Next Friend of Samuel Santillan
Jan 01, 2013OUTCOME: Injured victim won against the powerful forces of a medical specialist
I fought this case with the assistance of Jason Smith all the way to the Texas Supreme Court . Essentially , this case set a state wide precedent that helps injured patients get access to the courts. ... The Texas Medical Liability Act places an onerous burden on patients to pursue genuine medical malpractice cases. This case helps injured patients get access to the court that did not exist before we won this case. Tyler SCORESBY, M.D., Petitioner, v. Catarino SANTILLAN, Individually and As Next Friend of Samuel Santillan, A Minor, Respondent. No. 09–0497. Decided: July 1, 2011 Michael Alan Yanof, Philipa Remington, for Tyler Scoresby, M.D. Randy J. Hall, David Leon Pratt II, for Yadranko Ducic, M.D. Eric Rene Reyes, for Catarino Santillan. The Medical Liability Act1 entitles a defendant to dismissal of a health care liability claim if, within 120 days of the date suit was filed, he is not served with an expert report showing that the claim against him has merit.2 The trial court's refusal to dismiss is immediately appealable.3 The Act sets specific requirements for an adequate report4 and mandates that “an objective good faith effort [be made] to comply” with them,5 but it also authorizes the trial court to give a plaintiff who meets the 120–day deadline an additional thirty days in which to cure a “deficiency” in the elements of the report.6 The trial court should err on the side of granting the additional time7 and must grant it if the deficiencies are curable.8 The defendant cannot seek review of this ruling9 or appeal the court's concomitant refusal to dismiss the claim before the thirty-day period has expired.10 While the Act thus contemplates that a document can be considered an expert report despite its deficiencies, the Act does not suggest that a document utterly devoid of substantive content will qualify as an expert report. Based on the Act's text and stated purposes, we hold that a document qualifies as an expert report if it contains a statement of opinion by an individual with expertise indicating that the claim asserted by the plaintiff against the defendant has merit. An individual's lack of relevant qualifications and an opinion's inadequacies are deficiencies the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to cure if it is possible to do so. This lenient standard avoids the expense and delay of multiple interlocutory appeals and assures a claimant a fair opportunity to demonstrate that his claim is not frivolous. The expert report before us meets this test, and therefore the trial court's order allowing thirty days to cure deficiencies and denying the defendants' motions to dismiss were not appealable. Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals' judgment dismissing the appeal for want of jurisdiction.11 - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-supreme-court/1573092.html#sthash.Quf1tjsj.dpuf
