On Appeal from the 80th District Court Harris County
The appellant was a resident of the the appellee Center. In August 2007, the appellee-company”, owner of the the appellee Center, notified the appellant that he was being discharged from the the appellee Center. The appellant brought suit against the appellee company and the appellee individual, one of the nurses that worked at the the appellee Center. Thereafter, appellant asserted claims of slander per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of fiduciary duty claiming that the appellee company fabricated an excuse to discharge him from the the appellee Center. The trial court determined that the documents served by the appellant purporting to comply with the requirements of section 74.351 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code were so deficient that they did not, in fact, comply with the statutory requirements and dismissed the case. The appellate court determined that the appellant’s documents failed to contain a statement of opinion by an individual with expertise indicating that the claim asserted by the plaintiff against the defendant had merit. Accordingly, they did not constitute an expert report. No other report was filed by the appellant within the 120-day deadline. As a result, the trial court was required to dismiss his claims against the appellee-company. Thus, the court viewed that the appellant’s report was not a report as to the appellee individual. Accordingly, the trial court correctly dismissed all claims against her. Thus, the court, overruled the appellant’s first issue. Furthermore, In contrast, if no report was served as to a specific defendant, then that defendant’s obligation to object to the report was never triggered. A plaintiff was not entitled to a 30-day extension to cure when no report was served. Accordingly, the trial court lacked the authority to grant the appellant a 30-day extension to cure any deficiencies as to the appellee individual. Thus, the court overruled the appellant’s second issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.