holding physician’s report which opined about the cause of death -8- 04-10-00727-CV without explaining who caused it or how was essentially a “second autopsy report” that failed entirely to implicate the conduct of a defendant; such a report is not merely deficient, but is in effect no report as to that defendant
How later courts described this case
- holding physician’s report which opined about the cause of death -8- 04-10-00727-CV without explaining who caused it or how was essentially a “second autopsy report” that failed entirely to implicate the conduct of a defendant; such a report is not merely deficient, but is in effect no report as to that defendant
- concluding that the purported expert report at issue was no report as to appellant because it failed to identify appellant, failed to describe the applicable standard of care, failed to describe how appellant may have breached the standard of care, and, consequently, failed to implicate any person’s conduct
- holding physician’s report which opined about the cause of death without explaining who caused it or how was essentially a “second autopsy report” that failed entirely to implicate the conduct of a defendant; such a report is not merely deficient, but is in effect no report as to that defendant
- stating supreme court “laid to rest” for purpose of interlocutory appeal distinction between timely served but deficient expert report and timely served expert report that is effectively no report
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JAN P. PATTERSON, Justice,
dissenting.
For the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion to this Court’s disposition of this case on rehearing, I respectfully dissent from the denial of appellee’s motion for en banc reconsideration. See Bogar v. Esparza, No. 03-07-00037-CV, 257 S.W.3d 354 (Tex.App.-Austin May 16, 2008) (Patterson, J., dissenting).