The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals has rejected a nursing home’s challenge to Plaintiff’s expert report on the basis that it did not attach the expert’s CV or otherwise contain sufficient detail regarding the expert’s professional credentials.
Nexion Health at Kingsville, Inc. d/b/a Lone Star Ranch Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center; Nexion Health, Inc.; Nexion Health of Ohi, Inc.; Nexion Health Leasing, Inc. v. Esther Garza, Individually and On behalf of the Estate of Silvina Garza (No. 13-24-00172-CV; April 17, 2025) arose from a health care liability claim alleging that a nursing home’s negligence caused the death of Plaintiff’s mother. Plaintiff served an expert report of an Alabama physician but did not attach the physician’s CV. The nursing home moved to dismiss for failure to serve a compliant expert report, which the trial court denied. Nexion sought interlocutory relief.
In an opinion by Justice Fonseca, the court of appeals affirmed. Nexion argued that Plaintiff’s failure to serve the physician’s CV with the report, as the statute requires, doomed her case. Plaintiff responded that the report amply recited the physician’s qualifications, satisfying the CV requirement. Plaintiff further argued on appeal that Nexion waived its request for dismissal by engaging in discovery. Nexion did not dispute that the CV requirement could be satisfied by the report itself, but that the expert did not specify his education, work history, board certification, or other professional credentials. Nexion also argued that although it objected to the report beyond the 21-day deadline, it didn’t matter because the motion challenged the existence of the report itself, not its sufficiency.
The court determined that the report’s statement of the expert’s qualifications was sufficient and that the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion by denying Nexion’s motion to dismiss. As the court stated, “[t]he purpose of the [CV] requirement is to permit the trial court to perform its ‘gatekeeper’ function by assessing the qualifications, experience, and expertise of the expert,’ and ‘[a]lthough the report could be more detailed,’ it ‘contained sufficient information to determine whether the expert was qualified’” (citation omitted). Here the expert explained that he had more than 33 years of experience as a physician, was licensed in four states, including Texas, and had a current practice involving patients with a similar history to the deceased. He asserted his familiarity with standards of care in skilled nursing facilities and treatment standards for the types of injuries alleged in this case. Although the report lacked specific detail regarding the expert’s education, residency, facility privileges, board certification, or other credentials, Nexion failed to cite any case authority requiring any of that. And as the court observed, Nexion never contested that the expert was “qualified to opine on the substantive issues involved” in the lawsuit. If Nexion felt that the expert’s qualifications were inadequate, it should have lodged specific objections to them, instead of focusing on the formal details of the report. The court affirmed.
