![]() Specifically, Martin stated fter due diligence, Plaintiff s counsel has been unable to obtain the required expert report, if any, from two independent opthalmologists. Also, invoking section 13.01(o) of the Act, appellant attempted to avail himself of provisions governing indigent plaintiffs which would allow him to proceed without a cost bond.Īlso on March 26, Martin, still acting as appellant s attorney, filed a Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record, in which he stated he no longer desired to pursue the lawsuit for appellant, in part, because of his inability to retain an expert. In the motion, appellant conceded the ninety day deadline had not been met and noted that the 180 day deadline for filing an expert report would be April 1 thus, appellant requested a thirty day extension to obtain a report or post a bond. In that motion, appellant sought additional time to prepare the expert report required by the Act, as well as a finding of indigency. Nevertheless, the pre-trial proceedings continued, and on March 26, a week after the expiration of the twenty-one day deadline, appellant filed several motions, including his Motion to Accept Affidavit of Indigency in Lieu of 4590i Bonds or Reports and Motion for Extension of Time in Which to File Expert Reports Under 4590i. Twenty-one days later, on March 18, appellant had not complied with the trial court s February 25 order. It is ORDERED that the Motion to Compel Cost Bond be granted and that plaintiff post a cost bond in the amount of $7,500 for each defendant no later than 21 days from the date of this order It is ORDERED that failure to comply with this order shall result in dismissal, subject to reinstatement pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and article 4590i section 1301(c) ![]() On February 25, after a motion by the defendants, the trial court made the following order: He also had not filed the statutorily required expert report. Specifically, appellant averred that defendants, or their employees, may also have failed to properly schedule a surgery on his right eye that proximately caused damages and blindness.īy January 4, 2002, ninety days after the filing of the lawsuit, appellant had not yet filed a $5,000 cost bond or placed $5,000 in escrow as required under the Act. Appellant alleged the defendants had treated him for problems with his eyes and that heir treatment was negligent and fell below the standard of care in numerous respects, which proximately caused him damages. At the time of the filing of the petition, appellant was represented by an attorney, James F. Stewart, Michael Bloome, Jeffrey Arnoult, and Richard L. On October 4, 2001, appellant filed suit against Houston Eye Associates ( HEA ) and Drs. George, challenges the trial court s dismissal of his lawsuit for failure to comply with the provisions of the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act of Texas ( the Act ). HOUSTON EYE ASSOCIATES A/K/A TEXAS PRGXI, INC. Affirmed and Opinion filed September 30, 2003Īffirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed Septem.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |