The Dallas Court of Appeals has reversed a trial court denial of a dentist’s motion to dismiss for failure to serve an expert report under § 74.351, CPRC.
Lynn Dental Care and Brock Lynn, DDS, MS, PLLC v. Nylonda Jazz Sharnese (January 16, 2025; No. 05-24-01046-CV) arose from a dentist’s agreement to perform a root canal and related procedures on Plaintiff in a single two-hour session. Plaintiff, who paid the dentist and hired her own anesthesiologist in advance, claimed that the dentist extended the procedure and that she still needed a follow-up appointment to seat the crown and bond her front tooth. Plaintiff further claimed that the dentist’s “substandard” dental work left her with oral bruising, swelling, and pain that sent her to the emergency room. According to Plaintiff, the ER physician attributed her symptoms to an allergic reaction to the oxygenated water the dentist had improperly given her. When Plaintiff complained, the dentist refunded part of her fee and offered to pay for another dentist to install the crown. Citing Lynn’s failure to complete her requested dental services within the initially agreed-upon time, Plaintiff sued the dentist for (1) breach of contract, (2) conversion (allegedly withholding her crown after not installing it during the procedure, releasing it to another dentist, and agreeing to fund its installation), and (3) fraud for charging but not providing same-day treatment. The dentist asserted that Plaintiff’s claims were health care liability claims subject to Chapter 74 and moved to dismiss for failure to serve an expert report. The trial court denied the motion. The dentist appealed.
In an opinion by Justice Garcia, the court concluded that, although Plaintiff insisted that her claims did not constitute “healthcare liability” claims under Chapter 74, her claims were “inseparable from Lynn’s rendition of medical care” (citing Saleh v. Hollinger, 335 S.W.3d 368, 371-72 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2011, pet. denied) and thus constituted healthcare liability claims. Consequently, § 74.351 required Plaintiff to serve an expert report establishing standard of care, breach, and causation. Since Plaintiff failed to serve an expert report within the statutory deadline, the court concluded that the trial court erroneously failed to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims. The court remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice and determine the dentist’s costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
TCJL Research Intern Shaan Rao Singh researched and substantially drafted this article.
