# Bogar v. Esparza

> Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · May 16, 2008 · 257 S.W.3d 354

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9656666

## Case

- **Full name:** Mark D. BOGAR, M.D., Appellant v. Dolores G. ESPARZA, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Katherine G. Guerrero; Deceased; Fernando Guerrero; Sofia G. Butschy; Gilberto Guerrero; Antonio Guerrero; Rosie G. Garza; Benito Guerrero; Josey G. Selvera; And Frances G. Faz, Appellees
- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
- **Decided:** May 16, 2008
- **Citations:** 257 S.W.3d 354; 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 3576; 2008 WL 2081538
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Patterson
- **Judges:** Henson, Patterson, Pemberton, Waldrop
- **Cited by:** 84 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9656666

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 …
- 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…
- 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…
- 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
- concluding expert report deficient when it failed to identify in any way the person whose conduct was the subject of opinions “because it would require the reader to infer or make an educated guess as to whose actions the expert is complaining”

## Opinion text

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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9656666. Public record. Not legal advice.