The Dallas Court of Appeals has reversed a trial court order denying a physician’s motion to dismiss a health care liability claim for failure to serve an expert report on the basis that Plaintiff’s expert was not qualified to render an opinion as to the applicable standard of care.
Parkway Cosmetic Group, PLLC, d/b/a Fresh Image and John Standefer, M.D. v. Gracelyn Dilley (No. 05-25-00354-CV; September 9, 2025) arose from a Chapter 74 health care liability claim. Gracelyn Dilley underwent facial cosmetic surgery at Fresh Image and allegedly suffered various complications during and after the procedure. Dilley sued the providers for negligence, asserting deviation from the medical standards in performing the procedure and in post-operative care. Specifically, she claimed Defendants did not obtain her informed consent to perform a “deep plane” facelift and that her injuries, including swelling, drainage, and a staph infection, resulted from Dr. Standefer’s incision into her parotid gland. Plaintiff timely served an expert report of a board-certified anesthesiologist. Defendants objected to the expert report and moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims. They argued that Plaintiff’s expert was not qualified to render an opinion as to Defendants’ standard of care. The trial court denied the, and an interlocutory appeal followed.
In an opinion by Justice Kennedy, the court of appeals reversed and remanded. In a health care liability claim against a physician, a plaintiff’s expert must also be a physician practicing medicine at the time the testimony is given (or was practicing at the time the claim arose), have knowledge of accepted standards of medical care relevant to the claim, and be qualified by training or experience to offer an expert opinion regarding those standards.Defendants argued that Plaintiff’s expert, an anesthesiologist, lacked sufficient training and experience to offer an opinion on medical standards governing the performance of facelifts. Turning to the substance of the report and the expert’s CV, the court concluded that he wasn’t qualified. The report drew no connections between the expert’s experience as an anesthesiologist and the procedure performed here, nor did it assert that the alleged breaches could be common to all fields of medical practice. There was also nothing in the expert’s CV to suggest any practical experience in surgical procedures, much less specialized cosmetic surgery. Similarly, as to the expert’s opinion of the conduct of Defendants’ employee, a certified surgical technician, the court determined that the report failed to demonstrate that the expert had the requisite knowledge of accepted standards of care for surgery center personnel in providing post operative care. Finally, the court found that Plaintiff’s expert was not qualified to render an opinion regarding informed consent for cosmetic facial procedures or the nature of the risks inherent in this type of procedure.
Consequently, the court held that the trial court had abused its discretion in impliedly concluding that Dr. Aounallah’s knowledge was sufficient to give an expert report regarding informed consent, accepted standards of care, and the surgical risks of facelift surgery. Defendants argued that they were entitled to dismissal of Dilley’s claims against them because the report was so grossly deficient as to constitute “no report.” The court, however, declined to recognize a “third” category of dismissal (other than an absent report or a deficient report) for “a report so lacking in the necessary elements that it does not rise to the level of being a report at all.” Instead, the court remanded to the trial court to consider whether to grant Plaintiff a 30-day extension to cure the deficiency.
TCJL Intern Satchel Williams researched and prepared the first draft of this article.
