An Update from Our Firm about COVID-19

Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto, Aziz & Stogner remains fully operational and committed to serving our clients and colleagues throughout the Coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis. As we follow the CDC guidelines and practice social distancing, we remain available for phone consultations and scheduled in-person meetings with both current and prospective clients and colleagues. Please contact our office by email or by calling 713-222-7211 with any questions. We look forward to hearing from you.

Defense Tries To Bar Medical Malpractice Victims

In medical malpractice cases, victims must serve a report from an expert upon the health care provider within 120 days after they sue that provider. If this is not perfectly complied with, courts dismiss the case "with prejudice" (meaning that the case can never be filed again). The requirements of the expert report, and the timeliness of it, have been very strictly construed by courts, and they have thrown out the cases of many victims without letting them have their day in court. For instance, in one case the doctor avoided service of the lawsuit papers for more than 120 days after suit was filed; the court then threw out the case because the doctor had not been served with the expert report within the first 120 days.

Recently, the defense tried another extreme tactic. In a San Antonio case, within 120 days after filing suit the victims properly filed their expert report. Later, they added as a defendant a different health care provider who had not been sued in that case before, and they filed an expert report regarding that new defendant within 120 days after adding it to the suit. Nevertheless, the defense argued that the report was untimely, claiming that the victims should have been required to file an expert report against the new defendants within 120 of filing the suit, even though the new defendants were not yet in the case. (The victims could not have served the new defendants with the reports earlier, because prior appellate court rulings prohibit serving a report upon a health care provider before suit has been filed against it.) The practical effect would be to prohibit suit against every other health care provider after 120 days of suing any health care provider. This would produce a very bad result because many times the facts are not clear in a medical malpractice case until the defendants are deposed (and depositions cannot begin until after the expert report is filed).

In the recent case of Osonma v. Smith, No. 04-08-00841-CV, 2009 WL 1900404 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2009, writ denied)(mem. op.), the court of appeals in San Antonio rejected this defense tactic to avoid responsibility for medical negligence. The court of appeals ruled that:

Section 74.351(a)'s [120-day] requirement . . . does not necessarily refer to the first-filed petition in the lawsuit; it refers to the first-filed petition naming that defendant physician or health care provider as a party to the lawsuit.

The court further explained the "absurd results" that would flow from adopting the defendants' argument:

[A]fter more than 120 days after filing a lawsuit, even if the statute of limitations period had not expired, a plaintiff could never add another physician or health care provider as a defendant because she would never be able to timely serve an expert report on such a defendant.

The court then concluded by holding:

Therefore, because the expert reports were served on Dr. Osonma and IPC within 120 days of the filing of the amended petition, the first petition to name Dr. Osonma and IPC as defendants, we hold that the expert reports were timely served.

The medical malpractice statute, and the case law interpreting it, heavily favor health care providers at the expense of victims damaged by the negligence of health care providers. Because of that, defendants are emboldened to assert positions that are obviously unfair. Thankfully, the court of appeals in San Antonio refused to reward such tactics.

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information
  • $50+ Million Fire & Explosion

    The firm successfully represented nearly 100 victims who suffered personal injuries and damages to property from a large fire and explosion resulting in a settlement of more than $50 million. The firm served as lead lawyers on the steering committee in this litigation.

  • $80 Million Plant Explosion

    The firm successfully represented 270 plaintiffs, taking a lead role in the plaintiffs’ steering committee, who suffered injuries in a large plant explosion resulting in a settlement of nearly $80 million.

  • $50+ Million Plant Fire & Explosion

    The firm successfully represented 45 personal injury victims in a plant fire and explosion, serving on the plaintiffs steering committee, concluding with a settlement of more than $50 million.

  • $22+ Million Worksite Accident

    The firm prevailed in a personal injury trial for a worksite injury client with the jury returning a verdict and resulting in a judgment of over $22 million for the firm’s client.

  • $12 Million 18-Wheeler Collision

    The firm successfully achieved a $12 million settlement for the family of a man who died in an 18 wheeler collision.

  • $48 Million Catastrophic Burns

    The firm prevailed on behalf of three burn victims with settlements totaling nearly $48 million.

Our Record Of Success

When you are hurt and you choose a law firm to represent you in court or at the negotiation table, you need to carefully consider the firm's record.

Read More Success Stories

Let Us Help You Request a Free Consultation Today

Get Help Now

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


Privacy Policy

Back to top