The Fort Worth Court of Appeals has thrown out a health care liability against several providers because Plaintiff’s expert report was so deficient as to constitute no report.
Granbury Hospital Corporation d/b/a Lake Granbury Medical Center; Heinz-Dieter Schwarzkopf, D.O.; Kathryn Little, M.D.; Ali Alian, M.D.; and Radiology Associates of North Texas P.A. v. Jamie Aguilar (No. 02-26-00314-CV; October 8, 2026) arose from a health care liability claim. Plaintiff sought treatment from the hospital emergency room for dizziness and nausea. After a CT scan of her head and abdomen, the doctors diagnosed her with gastritis and discharged her. After a few weeks, she got worse and went to a different ER. Its scan showed an arachnoid cyst, which ultimately had to be removed in a third ER. Plaintiff sued three doctors, the hospital, and the radiology lab that missed her cyst diagnosis. Plaintiff timely served an expert report from a neurosurgeon that addressed the Defendant physicians’ conduct, though it didn’t name them. Defendants objected to the report and moved to dismiss. The trial court denied the motion. Defendants appealed.
In an opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth, the court of appeals reversed and rendered judgment for Defendants. It also awarded them attorneys’ fees. First, the court determined that the expert report was deficient because it neither identified the physicians nor specified their allegedly negligent conduct. Instead, the report “list[ed] acts and omissions of ‘the doctors at Granbury’ collectively and opines that ‘[t]hese acts and omissions fell below the accepted standard of care for emergency physicians and radiologists.’” Based on the entire lack of specificity, the court ruled that the report was deficient and couldn’t support Plaintiff’s negligence or direct liability claims.
Attempting to salvage something, Plaintiff argued that she should be granted the opportunity to cure the deficiency. The court took a rather dim view of this argument and rejected it. As the statute provides, “if the plaintiff’s report is so deficient as to constitute no report, the extension is unavailable, and the plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed.” § 74.351(c), CPRC. Unfortunately for Plaintiff, since her report didn’t identify the individual Defendants “in any manner, their conduct is not implicated.” And without tying the specific provider to the alleged breach of the standard of care, her report constituted no report. Even if the statute permitted Plaintiff to amend, the court went on, “equity would not support it.” Observing that Plaintiff declined an invitation to amend her report priot to the appeal, the court saw no reason to give her another chance now. The court dismissed her claim with prejudice and remanded to the trial court for determination of Defendants’ attorney’s fees.
